Shoes, Latchets, Buckles

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Foxe

If you think that I am missing the spirit of your reply, I could make the same comment...

To clearify, are you saying that "Pirate" shoes are constructed differently than other shoes of the period? I would love to see the evidence for that.

My point is, while heel size may be different for sailors, shoe construction seems to be the same throughout the classes. The difference between classes of shoes (poor -spoiled rich kids) would be quality of materials, stitches per inch, and type and construction of the heel.

But, it seems that there are enough pirates and sailors depicted in artwork in the 1680-1730 (GAoP stretch) time frame to not discount the heel size of the Whydah shoe.

But this is interesting....

I'll give you a dollar for every high heeled shoe you can find on a sailor in the GAoP if you give me a quarter for every low heeled one I can find.

Thats pretty tempting Foxe, especially for GAoP era. But we would have to define high and low. High = 1" and above?

So far in the high corner, we have the Whydah shoe, the St Lawrence wreck shoe, **EDIT** looking at the Belle analysis, of the shoes that they can give figures for, the heel heights are (in inches) 1.09, .96, .68, and 1.57 END EDIT**.. That makes $4 to $0.50, to break even, you would need another 14 examples of shoes from ships/shipwrecks.

Are you including artwork?

Wow! check out them sailors heels!...

GoF

[Fox]

To clearify, are you saying that "Pirate" shoes are constructed differently than other shoes of the period?  I would love to see the evidence for that.

Not in the slightest. You'll see in fact that I make a very specific point of saying that the Whydah shoe should not be discounted in the question of construction.

My point is, while heel size may be different for sailors, shoe construction seems to be the same throughout the classes.  The difference between classes of shoes (poor -spoiled rich kids) would be quality of materials, stitches per inch, and type and construction of the heel.

That is, strangely enough, my point precisely. I make no dispute whatsoever about the techniques used to make shoes being broadly similar across the classes. My main point is, and I quote, "heel size may be different for sailors".

But, it seems that there are enough pirates and sailors depicted in artwork in the 1680-1730 (GAoP stretch) time frame to not discount the heel size of the Whydah shoe.

Absolutley, see my comments "No, the Whydah shoe is not the only period shoe recovered which has a large heel", and "Yes, it is indeed a shoe from a 1717 pirate shipwreck"

Thats pretty tempting Foxe, especially for GAoP era.  But we would have to define high and low.  High = 1" and above?

<snipped>

That makes $4 to $0.50, to break even, you would need another 14 examples of shoes from ships/shipwrecks.

Are you including artwork?

Yes, hence my reference to the pictoral record.

Well let's start with John's favourite:

[Fox]

And one more for luck.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Ha!

If we agree so much, I am not sure what the point is....

But anyway this seems like fun. How about some boundaries though. If I didn't claim a .96" heel as a high heel, you have to take the nebulous pictures where you can't tell if the heel is high or not.... like #3 Anstis' crew and potentially Reade and Bonny. Sure, it makes for great theater....

OK

And ironically, i didn't have to go any further than your own site... So, with the pictorial evidence, and that from recovered pirate and other ships during the GAoP, I wouldn't make the claim that substantial heels on GAoP sailors is incorrect. And I would, at the same time, agree that no single shoe, recovered from any source, can represent the entirety.

All that being said, I personally think that the Whydah shoe is a great starting point. If a maker can replicate that shoe, and adjust the heel to personal preference... bingo! The pirate community will be a lot better off than buying American Revolutionary Right Left shoes.... Which has been my goal from the start.

Switching gears though... and maybe a new thread to be started, it does seem that we have taken one example of an item and used it represent ALL of the members of that group. Monmouth Cap. I think that the one everyone copies, including Ms Buckland, is from the late 16th century. I can't off the top of my head think of any known Monmouths that survive from the GAoP era.... Any ideas on that?

[Patrick Hand]

Hey.... it's kinda fun when you two argue..... look at all the great pictures both of you are posting........

[Fox]

Greg, I'm not in any way arguing with you. The point I'm trying to make, the only point, is that we should be wary about venerating the Whydah shoe too much as THE pirate shoe when it comes to style.

I'm not going to engage in a pissing contest, but I will point out that all but two of the pictures you've posted are of officers, and at least one of them dates from 1734 (outside your own parameters).

[Captain Midnight]

So, gentlemen, what would constitute a "high heel"? The heels on my shoes are about 3/4"...

[Mick MacAnselan]

Hey Foxe,

What's the origin of your 'and one more for luck' picture? I know I've seen it, but I can't remember where. TIA.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Now thats not fair... you post Duplessis and they are common sailors, I post one from the same series and he is suddenly an officer?

I can make the out of bounds claim on the Spanish equipment drawing...

The one for luck...

Its from a series of prints from:

Vestimenta y equipaje de un soldado y marinero de los navíos del Rey. Diccionario demostrativo... del Marqués de la Victoria. Cádiz, 1719-1756

So we are not really sure when its from/when it was drawn... as it covers a 35 year period which is mostly outside of the GAoP. It is a cool series though.

See here all interested...

http://www.armada15001900.net/naosgaleones...esycorbetas.htm

When we get to the point where heel height on correct shoes is a problem in Pirate re-enacting, I guess we can say we have arrived.

GoF

[Mary Diamond]

Arrived, indeed! And what a fun trip it has been with such respected sources.

[Cascabel]

Now thats not fair... you post Duplessis and they are common sailors, I post one from the same series and he is suddenly an officer?

I can make the out of bounds claim on the Spanish equipment drawing...

The one for luck...

Its from a series of prints from:

Vestimenta y equipaje de un soldado y marinero de los navíos del Rey. Diccionario demostrativo... del Marqués de la Victoria. Cádiz, 1719-1756

So we are not really sure when its from/when it was drawn... as it covers a 35 year period which is mostly outside of the GAoP. It is a cool series though.

See here all interested...

http://www.armada15001900.net/naosgaleones...esycorbetas.htm

When we get to the point where heel height on correct shoes is a problem in Pirate re-enacting, I guess we can say we have arrived.

GoF

....... And it shows....... Ohmygawd !!!!!...... BOOTS !

Any thoughts on this ? GOF ?, Foxe ?

>>>>> Cascabel

[Mick MacAnselan]

Its from a series of prints from:

Vestimenta y equipaje de un soldado y marinero de los navíos del Rey. Diccionario demostrativo... del Marqués de la Victoria. Cádiz, 1719-1756

So we are not really sure when its from/when it was drawn... as it covers a 35 year period which is mostly outside of the GAoP.  It is a cool series though.

See here all interested...

http://www.armada15001900.net/naosgaleones...esycorbetas.htm

Thanks Greg. My Spanish is a bit rusty, but looking at the whole original picture, is the left hand side of the picture meant to be a soldiers uniform and the right side a sailor's? Love the 'sea boots'! <ducking and running>

[Mary Diamond]

...... And it shows....... Ohmygawd !!!!!...... BOOTS !

Any thoughts on this ? GOF ?, Foxe ?

>>>>> Cascabel

I was wondering when someone was going to mention them! I LOVE mine, but am relegated to wearing them under my riding habit... for now.

[William Brand]

The diagram does show one pair of boots to four pairs of shoes. The other images in the diagram that look like boots are in fact stockings.

[Fox]

I wasn't questioning the Duplessis picture Greg. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't have posted the picture of Spanish kit, I just couldn't resist because I know how fond you are of it. The trouble with it, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's Spanish. We have enough references to people (including seamen) "dressed in the English fashion" or similar to know that there were, in general, some identifiable characteristics peculiar to each nation's fashion. So Spanish kit is great if you're playing a Spaniard (or someone from a place with a very strong Spanish culture), but anyone trying to portray a typical Anglo-American (as most of us are) should be a little cautious. The same might be said of the French paintings, except perhaps for the saving grace that there were a lot of French pirates active in the GAoP - far more than Spanish anyway. Dutch is different because there were a lot of similarities betwen Dutch and English seamen in the period. None of this however has any relevance to the discussion of shoes, so unless anyone is desperate to pursue it I'll leave it there.

Regarding the boots I have this to say: yup, they're boots. Never said there were no boots in the GAoP. Gimme half a tick and I'll find you some written references to them.

However, and this is the key, they are not bucket boots. Their presence in that drawing actually doesn't help the pro-bucket boot argument because it gives us a viable alternative to bucket boots when we do find written references to "boots".

I can think of at least four styles of boot that can be placed on sea-farers in the GAoP, none of which are particularly common, and none of which are bucket boots.

(And why do I have this terrible feeling that this is going to slowly degenerate into another bucket boots thread? Just as I'm coming out of my hole I think I'll get back in it for another couple of months.)

And speaking entirely personally, I like to get everything as right as possible, so for me at least heel height is important.

[Capt. Sterling]

Okay fwiw, and you can all ignore this like you usually do, but yes, modern day reenactors may have a problem running about in high heeled shoes because they aren't use to wearing them on a regular basis, unless you wear cowboy boots every day, or some other high heel. But if higher heels were more common in the GAoP era and folks were wearing them from childhood on, odds are they got use to them, sailors as well... In many cases your body literally grows/develops along with the heel... muscles, etc. can all be affected by heel height (as well as poorly made shoes). Just speak to the average podiatrist....I know a number of women personally that have been wearing high heels EVERY DAY from their early teenage years (most are currently in their forties or early fifties) and if they DO NOT wear heels now every day, they suffer from a variety of problems, such as knee, hip or lower back problems.

Again, fwiw for the experimental archeology bunch, climbing rigging when use to the higher heel, almost seems to work like the heel of a riding boot with a stirrup...the inside of the heel catches on the rigging and your foot isn't going any where it shouldn't...

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I am always hesitant to post the Spanish pic... because we can't be certain of a date on it.

As said earlier, it comes from information regarding Spanish "vestments and Equippage for 1719-1756. So does that mean that it was a retrospective look at clothing and equipment, done in say 1757? The dates are a little broad to make it an "aha" kind of pivotal evidence. I would love for some Spanish Speakers to pour over it and get us more information... like a date.

GoF

[Captain Midnight]

So my questions remain: what height would be considered a normal, or standard height for heels on period shoes, and what would be considered high heels? And would black be more common than oiled brown as far as colors are concerned, or would either be quite common?

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Midnight

The shoes that I use, from K Garlick have a 3/4" heel (at that is measured from the tallest point in the back).

The ones recovered from the Belle (1686) are definately working men's shoes, and since there were only about 6-8 sailors and soldiers aboard when she sank, there is speculation that they could be from the crew...

Earlier in the post, I listed the heel heights of these working class shoes... Of the four, the shortest, is slightly under 3/4" the two in the middle are right at 1" (.96" and 1.09"), and the tallest, which is a leather covered wood heel, is 1.5".

What would I call a "tall" heel might be different from what Mr Foxe would call a high heel, and seems to depend on which pictures you are referring to. Heck, depending on which "early" version, and which country your copy of Johnson was publish in, you can have Ann Bonny and Mary Reade in low or high heels.

My guess would be that the Whydah shoe, using the scale of the line drawing, has about a 1 5/8" heel. Its a small shoe so, visually, the heel seems bigger. I am guessing that the shoe recovered from the 1690 wreck of the Elizabeth and Mary ( also called the Phips wreck ) has about 1 1/2" heel.

Since we see pirate captains pictured in low and high heels, it really muddies the water.

Higher heels were in fashion, and cordwainers don't appear to have made their shoes less expensive by shortening the heel, they seem to have saved time/money by changing the way the heel was constructed (peche, stacked, leather covered wood).

Even still, I don't think you can go wrong with 3/4" up to 1", which I would consider, historically to be on the low side. High would be anything above 1.5".

Unfortunately, the GAoP ASCs don't specify anything for shoes other than double soled and round toe.

The person who researched the Belle seems to think that the "average" shoe of the 1680 period was brown. Some extant shoes I have seen have been greyish fawn, black, and brown, but those were probably upper end shoes.

Most folks that have "shoes" use black, so it would be nice to see something else in the mix.

Keep us updated on your project.

GoF

[Patrick Hand]

What would I call a "tall" heel might be different from what Mr Foxe would call a high heel,

You guys, sent a PM, and both decided to have a happy flaime war...... so you could have a fun excuse to post a buncha good pictures.... and see the responses.......... right ?

Otherwise.... I'm kinda starting to get kinda worried.........

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I don't think its a flame war. Mr Foxe always has an interesting and well thought out opinion of various GAoP topics. So, I think of it as more of a friendly discussion than anything else... keeps one on their toes, it does.

No really new pictures either, they are all (except for the Spanish one) posted on Mr Foxe's own site... for the newbies who have been following this discussion, take a look here....

http://tinyurl.com/2y22kr

I'll warn you though, Mr Foxe's interest isn't limited to GAoP, so he has lots sailor pics, spanning hundreds of years.

And I am sure he is just showing us the tip of the iceberg as well.

GoF

[michaelsbagley]

http://www.teddyseguin.com/dotclear/images/nat18.jpg

From this link

http://www.teddyseguin.com/dotclear/index.php?2008/02/16/35-the-shipwrecks-of-la-natiere-a-major-french-excavation-site

A pair of shoes from the French wreck of Le Dauphine, dated to 1704. Note the shape and style seems consistent with the sample fromAnywaWhydah and La Belle, but with a low heel. Also a rounded toe.