Pouch, Pocket, or Purse??

[Deadeye]

Just had a question about the storing of accoutrements...

What is the proper way to hold various items like pipe and tinder box, coins, combs, things of that sort. I have a primitive leather pouch with a deer antler button that a friend made for me, would that work? could pockets be sewn into your slops?

[Diego Santana de la Vega]

Pouches are what they be, but purse is what it were called! Pockets a real no no! I have seen mostly pipes fitted into the hats fer carry and storage and yes bowl down.....

[Pirate Petee]

Aye, pipe in the tricorn. Pouch on the belt, but I say its me shot box. Ya can have pockets on a waist coat or frock coat.

[Monterey Jack]

I have an oilskin haversack for most of my stuff with a big brass anchor on the front that weights the flap down.

[Patrick Hand]

And you can have pockets in yer slops.....

[Pirate Petee]

Aye, but I just got to lazy ta sew some in mine.

[Rumba Rue]

I have hidden pockets in most of my skirts. Good for the things that won't fit into the purse, pouches and anything else that holds my goods.

[Bloody_Mary_Bonney]

good and trusty fox box. Its a black box like purse that has a fox head on the front

[Deadeye]

The Pouch/purse i have is soft leather (Doeskin i beleive) and really has no firm shape, but it is hand made from hand-skinned white-tail, IMHO it doesnt get much more period than that

[Christine]

pouch on me belt.

[HarborMaster]

I use a pouch.,unless I am wearing a frock....., I also used a horn and cut it about 7" a straight section., and built caps from wood , leather and brass attachments for a leather strap.,as my SpyGlass case. It will also hold documents (Fair map ect.,ect.,)or other things.

[Fox]

Why are pockets a no-no? The engravings of seaman by Theodore de Bry of about 1600 clearly show pockets in breeches and smocks. The 1706 Admiralty Slop Contracts call for three pockets in pairs of breeches.

Pockets, says I, they were invented by seamen for the very good reason that having bags and purses dangling about the body when trying to work a ship is dangerous and daft.

[blackjohn]

Pockets. They are what separates us from the lower order animals.

[kass]

Pockets a real no no!

Hmmm... That's funny. The last pair of 1680s breeches I examined had pockets in them. Do you mean to tell me that they were making them wrong in the 17th century?!?!

Essentially pockets, pouches, and purses are all the same thing. They are all a bag suspended from your belt under your clothing. Men's breeches started to have pockets sew into them as far back as Elizabeth's time and there are many ECW documents referring to leather pockets sewn into breeches. But there were also breeches with pocket access slits with which one wore pockets on a belt underneath the garment.

Women didn't have pockets sewn into their garments until much later in history.

[Cascabel]

I think the "no pockets" thing got started with the Rev War re-enactor crowd years ago, as applied to snug fitting knee breeches. Pockets with items in them would really look terrible on clothing like that.

>>>>> Cascabel

[kass]

But Revolutionary War era breeches do have pockets in them. So if they were making breeches without pockets, they were ignoring the many extant items that clearly had pockets in them.

The breeches may fit snuggly in the leg, but the pockets are hidden by the fall front. Lots of room in there!

[Captain Jim]

Pockets. They are what separates us from the lower order animals.

Off Topic Observation!!!

And that would put marsupials up on top, as they come standard with pockets (think Kangaroo.) Personally I like to think of myself as higher up than an oppossum, but then I see some of the behavior of my fellow humanoids and I do wonder...

[kass]

Thanks, Jim. Now I have to clean coffee off my screen.

Can you have an Off Topic observation in Rabble Rousing? Can anything actually be off topic in here? I doubt it...

He's got a point, Backjohn. And here I thought it was opposable thumbs and self-awareness!

[blackjohn]

That's always the challenge, keeping things on topic. I believe my answer was clear, as was my reasoning.

Captain Jim posed a serious counter to my theory. As a man of science, I will counter with:

Thus, the question becomes, which is more clever, the marsupial, who was given pockets by the natural order, or Man, whose pockets are of his own creation?

[kass]

Is philosophy allowed in Rabble Rousing? I think we're going to have to check with the moderator...

[delmar]

I have a pouch but I tie alot on to myself. I tie stuff to my shirt, sash and even food in my hair.

delmar

[Fox]

I have pockets in all my gear, but I still get food in my hair. I don't see the connection...

There's no question in my mind about the superiority of cats as a species. They have reached a transcendental state of non-reliance on pockets.

[blackjohn]

I think the "no pockets" thing got started with the Rev War re-enactor crowd years ago, as applied to snug fitting knee breeches.    Pockets with items in them would really look terrible on clothing like that.

                                                  >>>>> Cascabel

As I recall (and it has been awhile), most (all? only gov't contract?) American rev war uniforms call for no pockets. Afterall, what do soldiers need pockets for? It'll only encourage them to do things unsoldierly.

On second thought, maybe that was only late war coats... and breeches had only one pocket... whatever... the common soldier shouldn't have pockets, they'll only lead him into mischief!!!

[kass]

I have to admit that I've never made a study of military uniforms. But the common and upper class breeches and coats and waistcoats I've examined (and read about) all have pockets. Now, some of them might be very low-profile that you couldn't keep more than a watch in. But there are definitely pockets in those breeches. It's hard to make a pair of fall-front breeches without pockets.

Of course you also must ask yourself how well-supplied the AWI soldier was. You know as well as I do, Blackjohn, that Rev War reenactors have far more complete uniforms than the Continental Line every did. :)

[blackjohn]

"Pockets are a thing of the Devil!" So wrote Wooly Mather, Cotton Mather's lesser known brother, in his not so famous "Pamphlet Against Pockets." Wooly believed there was a connection between the common English sailor, with a penchant for pockets, and an increase in post-war piracy.

Wooly also believed a lack of pockets was a measure of increased resourcefulness. He pointed to the cat as being particularly clever. Decades later, Washington heeded Wooly's words when he issued orders for the new continental army uniforms, with no pockets. "Thus, our soldiers shall be more resourceful than, say, a pocket laden sailor, always patting hither and yon, fiddling for his fid that's best kept in his sea chest."