Slops

[kass]

Hi guys!

Adam, thanks for the clarification. I kinda assumed I was reading you wrong. Now I understand what you mean. Although I still find it strange that we seem focused on slops when in the proponderance of pictures of seamen from 1680-1725, they are wearing either trousers or breeches, not the wide slops of the earlier part of the 17th century. Care to share your thoughts on this?

Oh, and I wasn't accusing you of withholding pictures at all! Although I do wish I could see what's on your computer... I was just commenting that I've seen everything Foxe has on the subject because he sends me stuff.

Pat,

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! (RE: the PoF Venetians back seam). I'm so used to making them according to Waugh's 1620s pattern with a curved seam that I forgot Arnold's draft had a straight seam. Thanks for the correction. But I do think this reinforces my point that curved seams were certainly used in this time period.

About the two-piece waistband, strangely enough not only these breeches have that eyelet but so do the 1681 breeches belonging to Sir Thomas Isham (which are wider and more "slops"-like). Everything in Waugh from the 1650s breeches have two-piece waistbands now that I look at them closely.

Interesting...

[Slopmaker Cripps]

Kass,

No, you weren't reading me wrong, I just presented the information wrong. These last three weeks has seen me sleep deprived, overworked, and just overall screwed over in the head. I just wasn't thinking straight when I typed the message.

As for the slop hose versus trousers debate, trousers are a definitive winner. What I have a tendency to do is wear slop-hose when working and trousers when in port (this is mainly because I have a tendency to get messy in just a matter of hours...play with pine tar too much...). The switch is no big deal, especially since there are drawers underneath. Mostly what I have seen in GAoP period trousers are a slit or french fly, relatively fitted in the upper thigh area and then dropping straight from the lower thigh (hence my usage of that in the example earlier). Usually they're just above the ankle in length to mid-calf. I'd have to go back and look through everything I have regarding pockets. I have documented side seam pockets as far back as the 1730s, but can't remember if I have an earlier example on here. My favorite GAoP trousers pattern is the one I based off of the mock trial scene with the triangular pocket flaps.

I'm hoping to get a lap top here in the next few months for my course work in the fall, and hopefully I'll be able to transfer pics onto that and then have them to spread out. In fact, I just spent that last hour scanning some pics of Spanish sailors into my comp to go along with the spanish line of sailors garb we're adding to Slop Shop.....if only I can get my computer to cooperate with forums and the like!

Aye, curved seams were around, but I believe that straight rear seams were in the majority.

Cheers,

Adam C., Slop-man

[Slopmaker Cripps]

A little addendum......

I usually recommend guys in my group who are landsmen to pick up a pair of accurate slop-hose, shirt, short jacket, etc. etc. etc. as a basic kit. We occasionally go outside our normal period (1700-1749) into RevWar, but when we do it is always opportunities to wear work clothes, so slop-hose are good for that. By having the slop-hose, the new guys are able to do a wide range of events with us, on the basis that they'll constantly tweek and alter their impressions and kits to fit time period specific items. So, I would recommend slop-hose as part of a wide range generic outfit....but please eventually add trousers to your slop chest also....

Cheers,

Adam C., Slop-man

"Fish-Broth Society"

[Patrick Hand]

...."But the seat seam on my Simplicity Jack Sparrow pattern......."

Sorry...... but I was thinking how interesting this discussion is, and at the same time wondering what the Hollywood Pyrates must be thinking about us going on and on about the shape of breeches seat seams......

"Why bother...."..... well ... some of us do wanna know......

[kass]

Pat, you're my kind of nutjob!

Adam, you and are seem to be completely on the same page regarding trowsers. That is exactly what I'm seeing (including that cool pic with the little pocket flaps on the thighs -- love them!). I can't wait to see the pictures you plan to share. Good luck with that laptop!

Blood Jack, sorry we seemed to be ignoring you. To answer your question, Kohler is a bit dangerous. To his credit he is one of the first people to ever study costume in any systematic way and as a result, he's a great resource if only because he was first. But as the first, he makes alot of mistakes. For example many of the pattern drafts he presents are not only not historically accurate, but many of them are physically impossible. It's pretty obvious that Kohler not only did not test these patterns, but he didn't know the first thing about garment construction.

To the book's credit, Kohler included photographs of many extant garments in museums that have since been destroyed (mostly during WWII). So it's only because of his book that we have a physical record of these artifacts.

I have a copy of Kohler and believe every costume library should have one. But don't spend your last penny on it. Waugh or Arnold are certainly more reliable sources.

[MadMike]

I used the Simplicity breeches pattern as the basis for my slops, with much modification (after some research). They turned out quite well-

http://www.geocities.com/flpyrate/projects.html

Yours &c.,

Mike

[Matty Bottles]

Thank you, Kass! That's good stuff to know.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Been following this thread, and its a gem. But I do have a few questions/comments.

From Patrick

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.

and

From Adam

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

is this the picture Pat is talking about?

If so, isn't it a depiction of the execution of Captain James Lowery in 1752, which would put it way out of GAoP in an era where there was a straight lined butt seam?

And I am pretty sure that this is the picture that Adam is referring to.

If so, its detail of the execution of Stede Bonnet, from 1st Dutch ed. of Johnson, 1725.

Not that its a problem per se, but both 1725 and definately 1752 are end of, or out of GAoP.

I think its important because a lot of the sailor clothing items that we are concerned with are in their infancy or non-existant, at the beginning of the GAoP and develop and progress on through the GAoP.

If you think about it, sailors (and landsmen) are wearing doublets and breeches (or petticoat breeches) prodominantly before the GAoP (lets say 1660-1680).

As the GAoP comes onto the scene, you start seeing lots of the short jacket styles, (which I would say, is a progression of the doublet) and the slop "shorts, and then slop trousers.

I would think it would be conceivable that in the 1680-90s a short jacket would be more "doublet" like, than a short jacket made in 1720. I imediately think of the Duplessis water colors of the French circumnavigation around 1700...

to me their short jackets are very "doublet" like.

Likewise, I would think that short and long slops, would be more like their predecessor (breeches) in 1690 than they would be in 1720.

So for me, a lot of it would depend on what era of sailor you would be portraying.

It would make sense to me that, whoever invented the slop trousers, probably didn't come up with the idea on thier own. They more than likely just made the short slops "longer", and as they "progressed" they were modified and improved upon until you go to the "style" like the ones in the 1752 picture.

A lot of this is conjecture, as with most of what we do if we don't have an extant slops to go by. I appreciate all the tailor/seamstress/pattern drafter's input though, as they have made the garments, or are familiar with clothing construction and can provide insight as to what we are seeing in the pictures.

As far as slop trousers are concerned... is their an earlier picture than of Rodgers men in 1712?

Greg

[Patrick Hand]

Hummm. That's the picture that I was thinking of' but I distinctly remember seeing a picture showing a baggy butt. But danged if I can find it now...

I have to admit that I used a picture that is "kinda close" to period when I made my slops, I figured that there would not have been that much of a change. Now this thread is getting more and more interesting....

I think I posted this once before, but it's no longer in Photobuckets, so I'll post it again..

This tread got me thinking about the progression of the seat seam, and the sources that I used.(1)

Trunk-hose (aka. pumpkin pants) [a] from 1562 show a curved butt seam.

Plunderhose [a] 1567 show a butt curved seam (it goes out, not curved in.)

Breeches or Venetians [a] 1615-20 show a straight butt seam.

Breeches circa 1680-90 (2) show a curved butt seam.

Patron De La Culotte [c](3) show a straight butt seam

Revolutionary War breaches [d] show a straight butt seam

Regency period trousers show a straight butt seam

OK, I know these sources not slops, but without a cutting pattern for slops, I modified breeches patterns to make slops. I figured that they would follow basically the same shape as breeches, just have looser legs.

I overlooked the "Breeches circa 1680-90", with a curved butt seam, but figured that the butt seam, went from curved (and outward curved) to a straight seam, then stays that way until well out of our period. If a curved butt seam fits better than a straight seam, why don't the later period breeches also have a curved seam? OK, I know that the coattails cover the butt, and breeches were tight at the knee, with a baggier butt, the breeches don't "bind" when you move or sit down.

It's kind of interesting that right before period, the breeches are one shape, and right after period, they are completely different. Kinda leaves a lot of guessing/interpretation on our part.

(1) I can scan and post all these patterns (well... showing just enough to avoid copyright infringement) but dang I hope I don't have to. that would be a lot of work, and I want to spend my afternoon doing something more fun...

(2) When I got "Cut of Men's Clothes" from the library, I was looking up Regency period clothing, so I overlooked this pattern.

(3) I think Gof said this pattern was 1720ish but I didn't write the date down.

******************************

[a]" Patterns of Fashion : The Cut and Construction of Clothes for Men and Women C1560-1620" Janet Arnold

"Cut of Men's Clothes : 1600-1900" Norah Waugh

[c] Snagged from Gentleman of Fortunes page. http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/images/v...chespattern.jpg

[d] "Sketchbook 76" Robert Klinger and Richard Wilder

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Great graphic Pat!

Thanks

Greg aka GoF