So if pirates dressed as ordinary seamen...

[Mick MacAnselan]

I have herad many times, in these forums and elsewhere, that GAoP pirates would have generally dressed just like any sailor of the time. While I have had no reason to doubt it, I did come across this passage from Johnson's "A General History..." in the Captain Davis chapter...

"Having come within sight of the place, he ordered all his men under deck, except as many as were absolutely necessary for working the ship, that those from the fort seeing a ship with so few hands, might have no suspicion of her being any other than a trading vessel; then he ran close under the fort, and there cast anchor; and having ordered out the boat, he commanded six men in her, in ordinary jackets, while he himself, with the master and doctor, dressed themselves like gentlemen; his design being, that the men should look like common sailors, and they like merchants..." (Italics mine.)

So what do we suppose Johnson and his men wore, that they had to change in order to pass as common sailors and (presumably maritime) merchants?

[Fox]

Well, that certainly raises a few interesting points!

The passage is a bit ambigous. At first reading is seems to mean that six of the seamen had to dress themselves in ordinary seamen's clothes, as opposed to their normal pirate gear.

On the other hand, if you read it in a slightly different tone of voice (eh?!) it could equally be taken to be differentiating not between the appearance of ordinary seamen and pirates, but between ordinary seamen and merchants. It doesn't say that "ordinary jackets" were not what the pirates wore anyway, only that they were different from the gentlemen's clothes worn by "merchants".

If it means that the pirates dressed differently to pass as normal seamen then it is a pity that it doesn't make clear what the difference is.

A couple of other points: regardless of whether the pirates wore something other than their normal clothes or not the passage does show that they certainly had typical seamen's clothing available to them. It also shows that they had enough suits of "long" clothes to dress the Captain and at least two other officers, but, it may imply that Davis, the master and the doctor were not in the general habit of wearing them. This last supposition is borne out by the anecdote about Davis, Cocklyn and La Bouche dressing themselves up to go ashore and Cocklyn getting the stuff that didn't fit. It's not inconceivable that they were actually the same three suits of "good" clothes on both occasions.

Food for thought :)

[Coastie04]

I'll echo what Foxe mentioned. When I read it, I didn't get the impression of the ordinary sailors really dressing different, but that the officers were dressing up. I just got the impression that the Captain and such would dress like the ordinary seamen instead of putting on finery as might be the case in a merchant or naval vessel. If anything, this would mean that the flamboyant 'captain' look that is popular in faire/entertainment pirates is not as accurate as just being 'one of the guys' in normal sailors' clothes. It would definitely be the most economical way to go, especially since I get the impression that there was not (usually) as much class difference between the pirate captain and the pirate as there was between the merchant captain and the sailor. Even if there was a class difference, for example Capt. Kidd and his crew (I'll make the assumption that Kidd actually committed piracy for this example), then if nothing else, the common consequence of hanging would help bridge that class gap. Just like today's officers and enlisted bonding closely during war on the front line, that threat of common death would have bonded the pirates to their captain and vise versa, regardless of birth.

Coastie

[Black Hearted Pearl]

I would think it was all about presenting a "uniform". As I doubt pirate ship's provided their sailors with uniforms, the type of clothing a pirate wore was what one could provide on their own. However with a merchant ship, most likely there would be a uniform or uniform code of clothing. By placing all the pirates in ordinary jackets, it would give the appearance of a uniform code of clothing and therefore, a merchant ship rather than a pirate ship.

My two dubloons worth,

~BHP

[Fox]

I don't know of any instances of merchant ships' crews being provided with any kind of uniform. Provisions for the crew aboard merchantmen were notoriously bad because the owners were driven by profit above all else. It's very unlikely the men ever had any clothes except those they brought aboard themselves.

The Royal Navy certainly had no uniform until well after the GAoP. Officers were given their first uniform in the late 1740s, but seamen had no uniform until 1857(?IIRC). It has been argued that the Admiralty slops would have resulted in a kind of semi-uniform for RN seamen, but the extent to which slops were worn has yet to be proven. The only item of clothing in the slops contracts for the GAoP which does not have an alternative is the grey coat, otherwise seamen had the choice of purchasing different styles of waistcoat, hat and trousers. Add the fact that most seamen would have had at least one other suit of clothes (the ones they were wearing), and probably more in their chest, and the Admiralty slops become more of a trend than a uniform.

Probably the seamen's own clothes were similar in style and cut to the ASC garments for practical reasons, but they might have had any number of variations, including different colours. For example slop contracts of the 1690s call for blue coats, which were changed to grey in 1706, and Woodes Rogers' expedition was equipped with a number of red coats in 1708. If we assume that ASC blue coats were being worn at least until 1705 then there is evidence for large numbers of coats of three different colours within 3 years, not including the limitless numbers of colours that might be used for the seamen's own coats purchased elsewhere.

There is an interesting letter quoted in The Dress of the British Seaman from the Revolution to the Peace of 1748, by G.E. Manwaring (MM, vol. 10 {1924} pp. 38-39), from William Franklin, the official Admiralty slop seller to the Navy Board, dated 10 September 1725.

Right Honourables,

In pursuance of my contract, on Tuesday last I sent on board HM sloop Happy, Captain Cotterell, three bales of slops containing:-

Under waistcoats    80                    Hose                              24

Kersey breeches      6                     Ticking Waistcoats        60

Chequered Shirts      8                    Ticking breeches           60

Trousers                  36                    Shoes                             15 dozen

and yesterday the Captain sent them back by the ship's boats. I therefore request your honours for directions that the Captain may receive and vend the same, and not as I am informed to slop the sloop himself and charge what prices he pleases.

I am etc.,

Wm. Franklin.

Different ships obviously had different sized crews and I don't know what the exact crew of HM Sloop Happy was in 1725, but given the number of under waistcoats 80 seems like a reasonable rough figure. Notice that in this large supply of clothes for such a small vessel three different types of trousers are offered, but no coats at all. *

The other point about the letter is that it highlights one of the problems facing the slop sellers, namely that Captains and sometimes pursers would undertake to supply their own slop clothing which may well not have been to Admiralty spec standards or design. Thus, in a lot of cases we just can't tell what kind of clothes the seamen were being sold.

It seems to me that the garments laid out in the ASC specs were probably the most common garments being worn by seamen (and since seamen would chop and change between ships we can include non-RN seamen as well). Furthermore, the ASC garments were probably typical in terms of style to the seamen's own clothes. IMHO it would be very wrong to consider it any kind of uniform though, even an unofficial one.

Just written all that out and have now realised nobody mentioned RN uniforms at all! Oh well, I'm not going to let it go to waste...

*Note: Just checked up, HMS Happy was a 14 gun ship, so about 80 men would indeed be reasonable. The year after that letter was written the captain was replaced and the Happy was sent to the West Indies station.

[Black Hearted Pearl]

I agree but I did state "uniform code of clothing", this being a dresscode. As with dresscodes, the company, school, etc. does not supply the clothing but forces an individual to comply with the guidelines set forth or be eliminated. Did pirate's require a dresscode? I would think unlikely. Would a merchant ship require a dresscode? Apparently so if pirates were dressing to a "dresscode" to pass themselves off as a merchant ship.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I love this stuff.....

he commanded six men in her, in ordinary jackets, while he himself, with the master and doctor, dressed themselves like gentlemen; his design being, that the men should look like common sailors, and they like merchants...

So what is this telling us? As Foxe and others have touched on, it doesn't say that he ordered six men to "dress" in ordinary jackets, he is just ordering 6 men, in ordinary jackets to get into the boat.

We could interpret this as, he ordered 6 of the 50 men that were wearing ASC clothing to get into the boat while 3 men, who didn't normally wear gentlemen's clothing, DRESSED in gentlemen's clothing and got into the boat to appear as they were merchants.

He only uses the words "dressed" when referring to the Master, the Doctor and Davis.

Also, it says that they dressed as gentlemen/merchants. When looking at English societity of the 18th Century, there is a low class, middle class (which includes the merchants) and an upper class. I hope we can agree that each one of these classes had a certain dress to them as a courtier would definatley dress differently than a middle class merchant.

So it seems that the captain, master and Doctor did not dress as gentlemen all the time as they had to go put on these clothes.

Good eye by the way for picking that out and posting it.

If you can find others, please post them.

PS

I think I read somewhere where a similar ruse was pulled off by sailors dressing as women. Does anyone else remeber reading that? If true, I have to wonder what they were doing with all those womens clothes on board.

I mean, I have heard of rum, sodomy and the lash but have never heard cross dressing added to the mix.

GoF

[Fox]

I agree but I did state "uniform code of clothing", this being a dresscode.  As with dresscodes, the company, school, etc. does not supply the clothing but forces an individual to comply with the guidelines set forth or be eliminated.  Did pirate's require a dresscode?  I would think unlikely.  Would a merchant ship require a dresscode?  Apparently so if pirates were dressing to a "dresscode" to pass themselves off as a merchant ship.

Actually you said "uniform or uniform code of clothing", but I'm splitting hairs

Either way, I still don't believe particularly in a uniform or a dress code for merchant seamen. I've certainly never seen any suggestion of it in period sources, and it is unlikley given the attitudes of the time. The reason the RN had no ratings uniform until 1857 was because seamen would chop and change between ships and employers depending on the availability of berths and the seaman's own inclination. Since a seaman might only go on a single voyage for a particular employer it's unlikely that they would invest in a set of clothes just to keep the boss happy. I would be very surprised if there was any dress-code or uniform for merchant seamen before the age of the great shipping lines in the very late 18th and 19th centuries. Also, bear in mind that the fashion for having dress codes and the like is an extremely modern one (by comparison). In the GAoP, for example, English soldiers were issued with uniforms, but I know of no rule that they had to wear them. The fad for corporate (as opposed to military) uniformity - or dress codes if you prefer - did not really come in until later still.

I don't think that the passage originally quoted says that they were dressed to any kind of code, simply that they were dressed as normal seaman, not necessarily implying they were dressed alike. Sorry, I think you're probably reading too much into a line which really only says that ordinary coats made them look like ordinary seamen.

GoF. I suspect the dresses in question were left over by Bonny and Read - there were some very odd goings on in that ship if you believe everything you read on the web

[Coastie04]

There's also the possibility that the common sailors just didn't wear their coats while working the ship. It's quite possible that this just means they put on their shore-going clothes, as would an ordinary seaman with a few hours of shore liberty. This, as opposed to pirates who might flaunt whatever wealth they had with silks and as fine clothing as they could while on the town.

Coastie

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Coastie

I think Foxe has done exensive research into the wills of seamen which, apparently have been pretty extensive.

Foxe, have you seen anything that would indicate a long justaucorps style of coat in your search?

GoF

[Fox]

I wouldn't say that my research into wills has been extensive, but I have looked at a fair few of them.

The difficulty with a lot of wills is that they don't go into massive detail. For example, where a will says "one light coloured coat", its meaning would probably have been obvious to the executors, who could in any case look through the deceased's possessions and make sure the right person got Fred Bloggs' light coloured coat. It doesn't tell us a lot though.

There are a couple of clues which sometimes crop up though. Quite often coats are found as part of a suit ("one grey coat, waistcoat and two pair of breeches" for example) which implies that it's probably (but not definitely) a suit of "best" clothes, and thus quite probably longer rather than shorter. The other clue is where different terminology is used. Where a will talks about a "coat" in one sentence, then later on lists "one pea jacket, one thick flanel jacket..." it seems likely that the jackets are short seamen's coats, and the "coat" or coats are longer civilian cut garments.

So yes, I think it's quite likely that many seamen owned longer coats, they just probably didn't wear them very much for working. I think whether they wore any coat at all was probably dependent on the weather. It is interesting though that even pictures of seamen enjoying a run ashore tend to show them in short coats, and I'm pretty sure NAM Rodger even mentions runaway seamen using long coats as a disguise - again implying that they didn't often wear them.

I'm hoping to get some copies of some more 17/18thC seamen's wills in the next couple of months. I'll post anything interesting.

[Mission]

Wow, this is chock-a-block full of interesting info! Bump!

[oderlesseye]

Based on this thread My Question is ~

Will some one post a pic of what a (under waistcoat ) is ???

[Calico Jack]

Well, I've not found many images of surviving under-waistcoats, from the GAoP or otherwise. Lots of text references, not so many artifacts. That said, if willing to venture a bit out of period, one can get an idea of the thing at least. Note that as this particular artifact is from a full half-century late, it cannot be said to be of the correct style for a GAoP under-waistcoat. Add to which, there are even a very few folks who suggest that earlier in the century [thus closer to the end of the GAoP] some under-waistcoats were worn not under the waistcoat, but rather worn as a waistcoat under the shirt [!]. http://woodsrunnersdiary.blogspot.com/2009/03/18th-century-under-weskitunder.html for an example of this interpretation. Also, http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:qoF_vjdoOi4J:coht.org/pub_forum/index.php%3Ftopic%3D12.0+%22under-waistcoat%22+17th&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca has a look at the same idea.

Anyhow, here's an artifactual under-waistcoat that some think to have been Thomas Jefferson's.

http://www.monticello.org/highlights/waistcoat.html

Yes, it is on the internet. That said, it is run and moderated by the "Thomas Jefferson's Monticello" folks, at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, for what that is worth. The Waistcoat is part of the Monticello House collection. It's dated to the -later- eighteenth century, so it cannot be considered especially relevant to GAoP. But it is a start.