Slops

[Mick MacAnselan]

I think I'm going to try to make a pair of slops without a pattern. (I really wish I had a pattern, but GAoP style slop patterns don't seem to exist.) What would be the best or most appropriate type/weight of linen to use? I'm thinking 'heavy and soft' but don't know what that would translate into as far as weight and hand description. TIA!

[Pirate Petee]

Slops Pattern

I know others on the fourm have a pattern too.

[Dorian Lasseter]

I haven't used linen, yet... I've used cotton canvas... and 'ticking' light canvas....

It's lighter than most Jeans (Levi's, etc) and wares well...

So... I'd think for linen a med to heavy sounds right...

[Mick MacAnselan]

Slops Pattern

I know others on the fourm have a pattern too.

Petee,

Thanks, but I think that pattern is for later than GAoP. I thought GAoP would have a button fly and actual pockets (not just pocket slits to allow you to get at the pockets of breches underneath). I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong though!

[Pirate Petee]

You can make it a button fly and ad pockets.

[kass]

Can you wait a couple weeks, Mick? One of the new GAoP patterns is for breeches and slops. :)

For linen, I recommend something heavy, like 7oz. Go to this page and click on the link for 4C22: The Right Stuff

[Mick MacAnselan]

Petee, Thanks again. I was thinking about doing that very thing.

Kass, Thanks. When does 'pre-ordering' start for this one, or has it already?

[Red-Handed Jill]

Petee - that pattern has some flaws in it. Or maybe I got a defective copy (directed me to make cuts that ultimately would weaken the slops and had no earthly purpose, no way to realistically join the front to the back, that sort of thing.)

[kass]

Kass, Thanks. When does 'pre-ordering' start for this one, or has it already?

Preordering has not yet started because we haven't laid out the pattern, drawn the cover, and decided what goes in it yet. But as soon as it does, I will announce it in Plunder.

If it works for your timeline, great. If not, that's cool too.

[JoshuaRed]

Yeah I made my slops from that Kannik's Korner pattern...eh, it was ok. Not great. I used a basic bleached, rather heavy linen, all handstitched, even made my own wooden buttons. Problem was that even following the pattern exactly they still ended up way too big even for slops in the waist...so be warned, if you use this pattern, go a size or two smaller than you think you should.

But I would recommened waiting for the almighty Kass's set! :)

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I think you could use just about any medium to heavy weight linen, fustian, hemp or sail-cloth.

I would love to get some made of of flax sailcloth. My thinking would be that they would be "sailor" made slops out of what was readily available and it would stand to reason that sail cloth would be available aboard ship.

The problem (for me) is that noone makes proper sailcloth anymore. It was a particular weave and weight. The Admiralty had specs on acceptable cloth for Royal Navy sails (even for 18th Century).

I have lots of linen. If you interested PM me.

GoF

[MajorChaos]

Slops, were they a cover for pants or just a loose baggy pants?

[carolina pyrate]

[quoteSlops, were they a cover for pants or just a loose baggy pants?

]

Yes they were to be made bigger than your normal size and worn over the rest of your cloths. like coveralls.

[Fox]

There is some debate over the matter.

Some costume historians have stated that slops were coveralls, worn over normal breeches, but there is a school of thought to the contrary.

In short, the evidence that slops were worn over breeches comes from a handful of pictures which seem to show breeches poking out the bottom of slops, and from various descriptions, principally of runaway slaves, wearing slops over breeches.

With regards to the pictorial evidence, there is a reasonable chance that at least some of the pictures actually show drawers beneath the slops, not breeches. With regards to the slaves descriptions, slaves and sailors are not the same thing - slaves may have worn slops over breeches for reasons which did not apply to seamen. I know of no evidence specifically of seamen wearing slops over their breeches in the GAoP.

There are some good reasons to wear breeches under your slops - warmth being the principal one - but there are also good reasons not to. For example, it is often said that slops were protection for the breeches beneath, but they do not properly cover the knees of the breeches when working, so if you really wanted to protect your breeches the simplest thing would be to take them off.

So, if you're going for historical accuracy it's really up to you whether you wear your slops over breeches, or whether you wear them instead of breeches. The evidence is inconclusive, and in any case there was probably a mix. Do whichever is most comfortable to you.

[Slopmaker Cripps]

Greg,

Shoot me an email as I had a source correct flax sailcloth (have a seabag made of it sitting in the other room). Not sure if it can be had anymore, and at what price, but I can try and contact my connection sometime next week. Just shoot me an email as a reminder.

And Foxe nailed the usage of slop hose (NOT slops...you don't wear all your clothes and personal equipment over your clothes and personal equipment) on the head.

As for correct weight for slop hose, a good medium to heavy weight fustian is your best choice along with a medium to heavy weight linen osnaburg.

Cheers,

Adam C., Slop-man

[Slopmaker Cripps]

Oh yeah, some additional info regarding things above....

There is little evidence that Slop-hose had pockets of any sort until late in the 18th century.

Also, the Kannicks Korner pattern is not even close to how the originals were cut. If you study period pattern drafting techniques in addition to studying the art left behind, it's obvious there are major pattern issues with them. For example, the breeches in this period shouldn't have the "U" shaped fore and aft crotch shape as late 18th and 19th century (and subsequently modern) pants do. No one is offering an accurate pattern commercially (I would, but I don't have room for or the extra funds at the moment to invest in a printer, and there's no local kinko's on the island or for a few hours drive thereafter).

Anyway, I have another exam in the morning, so I need to get off the computer and get some sleep.

Cheers,

Adam C., Slop-man

[kass]

Hi Adam,

If I'm understanding what you mean by the "fore and aft" crotch shape, then I beg to differ with you. The extant early and late 17th century (1620 and 1670s respectively) that I've examined have this curved crotch shape. Even earlier extant breeches (circa 1560s) have it. Matter of fact, I cannot think of a single example of breeches that don't have that shape.

Or am I completely misunderstanding what you mean?

Kass

[Patrick Hand]

Kass.... are you talking about the front/fly ?

That part is curved, but the seam that will be the seat is longer than we are use to, and straight..... (that's how you get that "Oh so Lovely" baggy butt.....)

[kass]

Pat, I don't know. It's Adam who said the crotch seam isn't curved. And I can't think of a single extant garment from the GAoP where it isn't curved.

The baggy butt is actually a product of the points at the top of the back pieces, not a straight back seam. Believe me, I know my baggy butts!

But this is the construction of mid-18th century breeches. Why are we assuming that GAoP slops were constructed this way when contemporary breeches were not? I mean, if I were to extrapolate the construction of 1710 slops, for example, I wouldn't base them on the construction of breeches from 1750!

It seems to me that we should err on the side of simplicity of construction for slops and not try to make them as complicated as late breeches become. Unless, of course, we have an extant pair of GAoP slops to examine that suggest the higher back developed in the slops first and then somehow trickled up to breeches...

See where I'm going with this? I just don't know why we're making these assumptions about the construction of slops. What is this idea of a straight back seam based upon? What do we have? Show me.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I just love these "hot" topics.

I would add too that, I have not really ever seen a "good" picture of period slops. Maybe Foxe or Adam has one in their collection and they are being stingy....

So its hard to see the waistband... front or back clearly. And the sides where pockets "might" have been.

And of course, the crotch....

Assuming that one garmet morphs into another as time goes on, I would think that early, ie GAoP slops would be very much like period breeches, except for not being closed at the knee, and having more fabric at the knee.....

Here is Waugh's breeches circa 1680-90 which should at least be a starting point....

And, Do we have any 1690-1720 pictures of sailors in short slops? Most of what I see must be post 1710 depictions as the sailors are depicted in either breeches or long slop trousers (not the shorts).

Look forward to the responses.

Greg aka GOF

[kass]

Hi Greg,

Yes, these are the Manchester breeches. Just made a pair for a gentleman in Ireland as a matter of fact! They actually date to the 1670s (the suit Waugh shows them with dates to 1690). You will note the curved crotch seam front and back...

I like to err on the side of simplicity. If there is an extant garment available to study, I follow it to the letter. If there is something close to the time period in question, I make my decisions about cut based on that information and keep things as simple as possible. After all, if we're talking about government-issued clothing, it wouldn't be cut elaborately. It would be simply constructed.

Therefore, if I were making a pair of slops with no other information, I would make them like these breeches except I wouldn't taper the legs at all and make them longer and without kneebands. And this is also why I wouldn't make the back much higher than the front -- it's not on these early breeches.

And that vertical line about halfway across the breeches front? That's the pocket slit. See what I mean about it not being on the seam? When you pleat the breeches to the waistband, this places the pocket on the front of your hip where it's much more easily accessible than a side-seam pocket.

Just flipping through Foxe's pirate picture collection, I see your point, Greg. We've got post-1730s depictions of wide slops, and we've got some indistinct sketches of sailors wearing what may be slops. But most of the GAoP seamen appear to be wearing breeches (if they're wearing a justacorps usually) or trowsers. Maybe what we're calling trowsers are their slops? And some of the slops look very similar to the Elizabethan version...

I don't know about Adam, but I know Mr. Foxe isn't hiding anything. He tells me everything!

[Patrick Hand]

Janet Arnold shows a pair of "1615-20 breeches or venetians " with a straight seat seam, but with a curved front/fly seam. Interestingly.... other than the pocket placement, the curved waistband, and the curved seat seam, they are very simular to the pattern that GoF just posted.....

on Gentleman of Fortunes page...

http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/images/v...chespattern.jpg

The knee breeches show a straight seat seam and straight front/fly.

In Kohler's "a History of Costume" the breeches close to our period are shown with a straight seat seam.

I don't remember seening the pattern in "the cut of men's cloths" (welll when I lookied through that book, I was looking for something else....)

When I made my slops, I was basing them off of that picture of someone in slops at a hanging, with the baggy butt.... by making the seat seam straight,(and longer..) they came out that way.

I was going off the "Bracketing Method" (OK... that's how you adjust artilliry fire....) but using the seat seam from breeches before and after the period that I wanted...

I figured that if the seat seam was straight before our time period, and still straight after the period, they more than likely would be straight durring the period....

Thats kinda the problem with "guessing".... using a straight seat seam, I get slops that look like a pair shown in a period drawing.... but now, I have to question if my guess was right......

I still think a straight seat seam is "the way to go".... but now I will have to find more information.... (and get a copy or "the cut of Men's Cloths" through interlibrary loan again........)

Hey... look.... in the pattern that GoF posted, the waistband is two pieces, with a mark for an eyelet to lace them together........and in all the other patterns, except Janet Arnolds......

[Matty Bottles]

Brief Hijacking...

How is "A History of Costume?" My mother has a copy, but I haven't been using it because I'm not sure how accurate it is (having been written in the twentieth century.)

Thank you.

[Slopmaker Cripps]

Kass,

I want to start off by saying that I worded my post poorly as I was in a hurry, and was in the middle of exam week (which mean my brain was stressed). Pat posted exactly what I planned to. What I was referring to was the front piece having the curved seam, but the rear piece having the straight line (since you do pattern drafting you understand the whole thing about the back curve being two inches in from the front point when drafting trousers, aye? It's just that but a straight line instead of curving up..). I did a LOT of experimentation (heck, I've been making 18th century sailors garb for years) and found that to get the proper "poof" in the buttox and fit in the crotch as shown in period artwork, the straight line is the way to go. I'm not saying that the curved rear seam is wrong and never existed. Heck, I wear a pair of slop hose with that feature myself (from my early days), but I still use the straight seam method on my garments today. Having drafted both curved and straight seamed trousers patterns, the straight seam is the easier of the two and it took me all of 20 minutes to teach a friend how to use it. It's simple, easy, and gives the right look instead of the "diaper butt" you see at most events today.

When doing the straight seam as mentioned above, you just do the straight line equal to the measurement from where the seams come together in the crotch to the rear waistline. You then just put a line from that point down to the side-seam, and you get a pattern SIMILAR to breeches (difference takes place in the legs and the fact that the waistband seam has a lower slope do to the extra width of the legs). Whatever amount is in that rear piece is what you gather into the waistband. This is why you see the front pieces sized right, but gathering and baggy-butt in the rear piece.

As for withholding pictures, I'd gladly give them, but my computer is a royal pain in the arse and won't work with me. I have a heck of a time just trying to email them, and even then it rarely works. I come from the school of researchers that believes knowledge is the property of the group, and therefore I am always willing to share what I have. The problem is just being able to get it out. I don't hide what I have, just don't always have the time or capability to get it out.

I am with you on studying extant garments to a "T." In fact, I'm on a line right now regarding an original pair of slop-hose.....

Oh yeah...these weren't government issued clothes...they were government regulated and sold at will through private entrepeneurs we like to call Purser's.

Greg,

There aren't any "slop trousers" I have ever seen. One time when I was bored, I made an elongated pair of slop hose and they didn't look anything like any pictorial evidence of trousers I could find. You are correct that they had baggy cut trousers, but the pattern is distinctly different than from slop hose (you can tell by how they're worn in the pictures the cut...things such as the baggyness below the knee is equivalent to the circumference of the lower thigh, etc. which enable you to draft a pattern and make up a pair that looks identical to the picture but sized to fit you).

There are times when I wish I had the extra cash to get a pattern printer, then I'd just run off copies of all the ones I have.....

Cheers,

Adam C., Slop-man

Slop Shop Reproductions

[Slopmaker Cripps]

Pat,

The picture you based your slop-hose on, was that the picture with the negro kid at the bottom left of the gallows?

That one is among my favorite pics of slop-hose. It shows exactly the effect of the straight rear curve. The rear crotch seam is fitted to his bum shape, with the excess fabric folding over in towards the seam. The only way this effect can be achieved is by having a straight line, the exact measurement needed to run from crotch to waist hug the buttox due to the lack of a curve placed in. The excess fabric of course is achieved by extending where the sideseam would be if they were trousers and then gathering it all into the waistband, where it further below where the gathers doesn't effect the lay of the cloth it naturally folds to the only place (other than waistband) where the slop-hose are fitted....the crotch...

Oh yeah, there is a rear vent, though you have to zoom in like mad to see it between the back slit in his jacket....it's circa three inches in length based on the sketch...

Wonderful picture. Wonderful.

Cheers,

Adam C., Slop-man

P.S. The effect shown in the picture, given the lay of the fabric along with what it is doing itself makes it seem to me to be of a medium to heavy weight material.