Dissecting the Pirate: 2 Guayacil

[Fox]

Sheesh Josh, when you're humble you're HUMBLE! Sorry I misunderstood you.

The picture of Roberts' men does indeed come from the Pirates' Own Book, along with a load of others in a very similar style. They're a sort of mix between being good accurate pictures of mid-19th century seamen and what they thought early 18th century seamen looked like.

[Patrick Hand]

On shoes and buckles... I was searching the internet, and found this site...

http://www.fugawee.com/Index.htm

His shoes are to late for our period, but the site has much good info on shoes, and how to attach the shoe buckles (and an interesting way to tie them)

Unfortunately.... I was going to make a pair of shoes, and the pegged sole construction I was going to use is a later period..... drat......

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I am about to tell terrible truth that that Guayaquil pic is not from GAoP . Foxe has admitted it somewhere and there was some museum fail that happened. That pic is from 1760s or 1770s even wiki has got it right http://en.wikipedia....i/File:Guay.jpg and here http://jcb.lunaimagi...blisher%2CTitle and e.g. Woodes hairstyle is not from the period so artists did not know too well what things were like in Roger's time. Artwork describes Woodes Rogers and his men in 1709 but it is not too accurate or from that period but it is made in late 1760s so 50 after.... So the date 1712 is not real since there has been said that it is from Rogers's journal bublished 1712 but it is not there it is from later editions.

Also (sorry) Both Ivanhenry's and Foxe's gallery have wrong dates for that Woodes pic... In Ivanhenry's site also this pic that makes pair with the another one is got a wrong date http://jcb.lunaimagi...2~2&mi=8&trs=28 but both sites are good since this is only error that I have found.

This leave us even less pictures from the period

but there is still some pics and pics from 1730s and 1740s are quite good source but when pic is 50 years ofperiod it is not good but it is still a little illustrative......

Edited March 24, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Good work!

What a difference 7 years can make!

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Good work!

What a difference 7 years can make!

Looking that pic again only brop are trousers and woodes hair.... jackets and other stuff has not changed too mutch.... So it gives still a feeling of GAoP sailor.

[Fox]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the trousers? To my mind the only thing that is really out of place is the officer's coat.

Looking through the other iluustrations from the same book that image originally came from is interesting. The artist actually seems to have known what he was about because when he illustrated Dutch seamen in another part of the book they look completely different. They look, in fact, like Dutch seamen...

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the trousers? To my mind the only thing that is really out of place is the officer's coat.

Looking through the other iluustrations from the same book that image originally came from is interesting. The artist actually seems to have known what he was about because when he illustrated Dutch seamen in another part of the book they look completely different. They look, in fact, like Dutch seamen...

And well woodes wig looks like 1720-1760 wig so there has been done some study so it is not as bad as I said.... but cuffs are too small to be early 1700 coat...

Edited March 25, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Good work!

What a difference 7 years can make!

That's kind of what I was thinking. We all learn and grow in our understanding as we continue our research.

[jendobyns]

Don't forget hygiene was an issue with shaving beards, too. Later military doctrines recommended shaving twice a week (Cuthbertson?) when not on campaign (this was to control those pesky lice again), it may have been a long established practice. Perhaps you'd find the information mixed in with other rules about ship board life?

[Grymm]

Looking that pic again only brop are trousers and woodes hair.... jackets and other stuff has not changed too mutch.... So it gives still a feeling of GAoP sailor.

To me it's the hats, shoes and the 'syrup' that look wrong for pre 1720

Trousers are okay from about 1540, if not earlier, see this chap from The Embarkation at Dover painted 1540's

Canvas trews, short blue jacket, knitted hat, bog standard (English) sailor kit (With minor variations) right up to Nelson.

Now where's that other early one with the sailors wearing flares and hooded tops..........

Rogers in civvies with family

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Looking that pic again only brop are trousers and woodes hair.... jackets and other stuff has not changed too mutch.... So it gives still a feeling of GAoP sailor.

To me it's the hats, shoes and the 'syrup' that look wrong for pre 1720

Trousers are okay from about 1540, if not earlier, see this chap from The Embarkation at Dover painted 1540's

Canvas trews, short blue jacket, knitted hat, bog standard (English) sailor kit (With minor variations) right up to Nelson.

Now where's that other early one with the sailors wearing flares and hooded tops..........

Rogers in civvies with family

I have had interesting personal conversation with Foxe about hats and to me there is not much wrong in them pehaps woodes' tricorn style is bit later with style if the lace and all sailors used all kind of shabby hats ...

[Swashbuckler 1700]

The sailors hats remids me of this circa 1700 hat It is land officer's but the style is not much different

http://www.hermitage...m4_1_218_3.html

but indeed the rosette or what ever was little later time's invention and more common ornaments then were feathers at least to my knowledge....

Edited March 27, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Oh woodes does have feathers

http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCB~1~1~3828~6000002:Captain-Rogers-s-People-stripping-s?sort=Normalized_date%2CCreators%2CPublisher%2CTitle&qvq=q:woodes;sort:Normalized_date%2CCreators%2CPublisher%2CTitle;lc:JCB~1~1,JCBBOOKS~1~1,JCBMAPS~1~1,JCBMAPS~2~2&mi=4&trs=28

So one more point to this pic since feathers in hat decreased by late 18th century... Correct me if I am wrong

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Looking that pic again only brop are trousers and woodes hair.... jackets and other stuff has not changed too mutch.... So it gives still a feeling of GAoP sailor.

To me it's the hats, shoes and the 'syrup' that look wrong for pre 1720

Trousers are okay from about 1540, if not earlier, see this chap from The Embarkation at Dover painted 1540's

Canvas trews, short blue jacket, knitted hat, bog standard (English) sailor kit (With minor variations) right up to Nelson.

Now where's that other early one with the sailors wearing flares and hooded tops..........

Rogers in civvies with family

I have had interesting personal conversation with Foxe about hats and to me there is not much wrong in them pehaps woodes' tricorn style is bit later with style if the lace and all sailors used all kind of shabby hats ...

Oh indeed buckles are too big. Especially Woodes' hats have stitch like this what is later style the white thing that attach brim to the crown

and period hats have not much of them like in this circa 1700 french naval officer and his hat have none.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Grymm]

The roundhats issued to Marlboroughs troops had white lace (or silver for the orificers) on them, certainly a British military thang right through the long 18thC for infantry and dragoons. So possible for an occasional pirate to have his ex military hat. The Dropshorts(artillery) have yellow for other ranks and gold for the Wodneys. Certainly by the 1740s British RN leiutenants are allowed silver lace and gold for higher ranks, but that's post GAoP as are the obvious/contrasting cocking laces, handy place to stow a claypipe though.

Tricorns (Cocked or geometricly cocked hats pre 19thC) are about in the very late 17th early 18thC but they tended to be for the more well off gentry and officers and they were (sweeping generalisation here) bigger & looser, not as 'tight' as the later ones. The small ones, samosa stylee, worn by the men do, to me at least, point towards the mid century+. Not saying they aren't about, just not very common compared to roundhats and knitted caps.

The one 18thC 'feathered' hat I got to handle in the MoL collection had ostrich feathers split in half down the quill and stitched behind the 'leaves' of the hat.

Shoes if I'm being picky are too pointy, more rounded for a working shoe or square toed for the posh guys like in the Rogers painting.

But then this is history not maths so in history terms; 2+2? Well, current evidence points to it equalling 4, however research is, and hopefully always will be ongoing =o)

Edited March 27, 2012 by Grymm

[Swashbuckler 1700]

If we look Marlboroug's hat it is guite loose (from tapestry from early 18th century)

same with privateer Bart

Or in 1704

You are quite rigth. Indeed if we would take few random Woodes' crew members tricorns would not be dominant there were more caps and round hats and these two were more dominant hat styles

Indeed tricorn had some kind of evolution in more smaller and more compact form but see that even circa 1709 Russian hat it is pretty similar that some of the later styles.

My point is that (I am not actual reenactor but I have reenactor's heart) I think that 1-2 pirate reenactors can use tricorns and be accurate but often I see that 8 of 10 use tricorns or someting like that....

I dare to say that tricons were around in gaop but just here and there (if not count aristocracy)

Like I said before in circa 1700 hats were little bit looser like in this and that is what Woodes' Tricorn should be like.

To give some food for thought I post these pic here

Poor peasants in europe in early 1730s

And this admiral in 1703 has interesting tricorn backwards (I have talk about it with Foxe and we both agree that that is tricorn backwards)

In some pirate forum there was nasty argument about hats. Lets keep this conversation reasonable and let us keep generalizations or sophistry off here...

Edited March 30, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Note fashion hat style change between 1690s an 1710 hat became less loose by 1710s... not only pic but I can not post all here...

here is some 1690s evolution

In history really often things do not happen suddenly but little by little and it is especially true with clothing,,,

Edited March 28, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I KNOW THAT PERIOD PICTURES OF PIRATES SHOULD BE TREAT WITH CRITISISM. BUT TO IGNORE THEM 100% IS AS STUPID AS BELIEVE ALL WHAT IS IN THEM 100%

No offence to anybody

note that Rackham and England have quite loose hats

All these are from 1724- 1726

Same with BB

Edited March 29, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Give him a pair of spec and long red socks and it's Captain ("I'm not Captain of the Mercury") Jim! (I think the guy and the right needs to have a surgeon look at his right arm, though.)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

If we trust book "The Marlboroughs Army" soldiers (in early 1700) had quite loose tricorn hats

http://books.google....mYC&redir_esc=y

I have heard some bad rumors about these books but it seems to be pretty much right in this case...

Edited March 30, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Still about hats see this circa 1698 pic (page has usually right dates like with that Woodes Rogers pic and there is no reason not to believe the date style and all seems to be good and publisher is mentioned and it fits to bill) http://jcb.lunaimagi...~2~2&mi=4&trs=5

note the slave's hat. Note this is from Martinique (it is propably made in europe..) and it was French colony and French were one of the earliest and most significant tricorn users at the time...

To Mission see slave's leg! Cruel torture....

Edited March 30, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

That slave reminds me of Long John Silver

compare with this

with this

http://jcb.lunaimagi...~2~2&mi=4&trs=5

Edited March 30, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

To Mission see slave's leg! Cruel torture....

Actually, if you read the my treatise on amputation, you'll find that amputation was a pretty common among the population at this time. In fact, it was probably done to save the fellow's life.

[peglegstrick]

Hell....they do it in modern times too to save lives......saved mine!

[Swashbuckler 1700]

To Mission see slave's leg! Cruel torture....

Actually, if you read the my treatise on amputation, you'll find that amputation was a pretty common among the population at this time. In fact, it was probably done to save the fellow's life.

Yeah...