But I stole 'em from a...

[JoshuaRed]

Oh you should check out Rediker - not necessarily for the info we're discussing, but just in general. It's good stuff.

For me it's just that a Tombstone full of Wyatt Earps & Doc Hollidays is a very skewed picture ya know?

[Pirate Petee]

Not saying that Im a criminal or anything. But anyone remember when people used to get jumped even shot for a pair of "Air Jordans" , GAnstas and their bling. Just my two bits

[JoshuaRed]

Petee, you nailed it.

And in the GAOP, the Atlantic & West Indies colonies were one big 'hood. (Compared to the more "civilized" homelands of Europe) And one doesn't strut around the 'hood in Armani & Gucci and expect to keep it on their bodily selves for very long. It's asking for a lot of attention and trouble that I'm willing to bet most interlopers, smugglers and pirates didn't want while ashore.

[Pirate Petee]

Yo I gonna jack that fool fo his "morgan bucket tops" yo.

[Capt. Sterling]

And I was wondering, just how well all those velvets and silks would hold out at sea as compared to good woolen garmetnts?? Still you've got to love that quote about the captain pacing the deck in his good silk banyan as his ship was coming into port... but then he wasn't a pirate....

Hector

[Fox]

On Cordingly: UTBF is a good pirate primer, and if I had to suggest only one book to be read about pirates this would be it. However, it does contain errors, even self-contradiction, but most of all it contains generalisations - such as specifying that pirates wore blue coats and chequered shirts for example. Now here's the rub, as people who portray pirates (either as serious re-enactors or fantasy rennies) it is important to us to know how pirates dressed, what they looked like etc. To authors and researchers of general pirate/maritime history the issue is of little significance (when it comes down to it what pirates wore is of less importance than what they did). Cordingly can therefore be forgiven for over simplifying somewhat, though if he can't get his research straight it would perhaps have been better to leave out those two or three paragraphs all together.

On Landsknechts: I believe Kass was just trying to use that as an illustration of how badly flawed the "I'm a pirate, I stole this..." argument is. It's not related, so far as I can see, to any criticism of Cordingly.

On taped jackets: Errors in Cordingly are not uncommon, errors in Rodger are considerably rarer, but this is probably one of them. In the case that Pat was quoting Rodger was describing seamen of the 1750-60s, but I've not seen any evidence for taped jackets prior to about 1780. Way out of period for GAoP and also OOP for Rodger's "Wooden World"

On Greenighs: Please don't take anything said here personally - either Kass's response or later developments. I can see why Kass said what she said, I can see why you took offense at it. For future reference, any modern source (whether it's Cordingly, Rodger, No Quarter Given, me, or anyone else) who states something quite so dogmatically and specifically as Cordingly did on clothing is probably either wrong, or at least not right (if you see what I mean). History is rarely so cut and dry as Cordingly suggests.

On Captains dressing finer than the crew: I'm not convinced personally on this one. For example, we all remember to oft-quoted incident with Davis, Cocklyn, and La Buse taking Snelgrave's coats for themselves to go ashore in? What is usually left off the end of that particular anecdote is that the following day the crews insisted that the captains had no right to the coats and they were sold at mast for the benefit of all.

On pirates stealing finery: My question is not whether pirates would have retained any class divisions in clothing, or how they would have stored stolen clothing, or whether they'd have been better off selling it. My question is just how much finery was there available to steal at sea? In the Red Sea there were incredibly rich prizes, but most of the well-dressed passengers were dressed in Indian or Arabian fashions. In the Caribbean in the GAoP the vast majority of prizes were small merchantmen manned by four men and a dog - their clothing might have been less tattered than the pirates', but it would still have been common seamen's clothing. The implications of the Davis/Cocklyn/La Buse incident for example are that among these three successful and typical pirate crews capturing decent clothes was rare enough to make an issue of it.

[JoshuaRed]

Excellent summary Foxe! Thanks yet again.

Your point about the West Indies not being the happening place where one would find a lot of high-fashion floating around is kind of what I was trying to push home with the 7-11 analogy.

There are generally (apologies) a certain type of clientele who line up at 7-11 each morning to get their coffee, while generally a different type line up at the Starbucks down the road. The 7-11 being the Colonies, the Starbucks being London. And as a GAOP sailor/pirate, you would be right there in 7-11. The odds of you seeing a Starbucks person rolling in for their venti latte at 7-11 is pretty slim. And if they did and you decided to help yourself to their clothes then get back in line with your peers for coffee....well, I think you'd be opening yourself up for a lot of torment and teasing, if not theft against you. It's also been said that sailors in general took great pride in their disdain of lubbers, and probably went out of their to NOT look like them, instead of emulating them.

Just felt like a waking up with an early morning post, sorry.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Gosh.... how the heck did I miss this thread?

It is interesting, and Greeneighs is certainly fueling the debate with this quote, and it provides some insight as to what a small fraction of pirates might have worn.

I am curious as to how much the big hitter pirate "historians" even care about the small details of pirate life and things like as clothing.

If they are like most of the academics that I have dealt with, they could care less about such things and dismiss our interests as mundane.

I think cordingly points out the passage because it is unusual and adds a bit of color. I don't think its a conspiracy to sex up the book.

That being said.

Personally, I don't have a problem with folks wearing that stuff, and to be honest, bucket boot either....

if.....

If the clothes and boots they wore actually looked like something that would have been worn during the GAoP.

What really gets my knickers in a wad is when folks use passages like that to justify a really BAD justaucorps or a pair of boots that are so far removed from what anyone would have worn that it no longer becomes plausible.

GoF

[kass]

Hey Greenighs,

I want to apologize if you took anything I said personally. And I also apologize for not being around to apologize right away and letting you therefore believe that I meant to attack you. That was certainly not the case.

I just saw that "pirates wore blue short jackets, red waistcoats, and checked shirts" and went a little ballistic. Okay A LOT ballistic. It's such a blatant over-simplification that it's not to be believed. I was actually intrigued by the references to pirates willing away their silk damask clothing before they were hanged. But when I got to that bit about them wearing that "pirate uniform", I guess I just had an aneurysm...

And when I said I was surprized you'd believe that source, that was meant to be a compliment. You usually post such good stuff that I was shocked you'd quote someone who gave all pirates such a definite colour coding.

And yea... woke up on the wrong side of the bilges. Too many hours slaving over a hot wide-format printer.

Can I offer you a nice tankrd of flip?

Foxe, thanks for seeing the truth in all things, per usual. What I was trying to do was say that people who aren't interested in historical pirates shouldn't feel that they have to make some ridiculous undocumentable excuse to justify what they wear when they're pirates. "I like this" is a good enough justification. Why bother making up an elaborate story that just doesn't hold water.

Because then one of us research geeks are gonna poke holes in your story and you're gonna get mad... So just don't do it, yeah? "I like bucket boots" is fine. You don't have to steal them from a Musketeer or anything...

[greenighs]

*greenighs sheepishly removes her red neckerchief

Dammit, and I just ordered ten yards of blue wool & checked linen, not to mention the all the taffeta ...

[kass]

Now there's nothing to say that pirates didn't wear checked shirts and blue jackets...

As for the taffeta, I'm sure I have a Mantua pattern with its name on it!

[The Doctor]

To date, the only comments anyone's made about my garb was by a fellow that called his own a "tragic collision of Captain Hook and Liberace." Mine is very understated, and works well for me. No elaborate story, no justifications. People look at me and say "Look! A pyrate!" I give the kiddies a coin or two, pose with the ladies for a photo, and life's good. If the beer vendors refuse to serve me at first, it's a compliment to my wife and clothier, Janelle (who's a huge fan of Kass!). :)

And yes, I wear bucket boots! I own and show horses, so it's legal, yeah?

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Its great to see everyone playing so nice in the pirate sand box!

I want to encourage folks to keep posting stuff like greeneighs UTBF quote, and Pete's boot search photos.

It helps everyone to stretch their brain muscles a bit and keeps this board interesting.

But to the topic of the thread... I don't really mind the justification for certain clothing items, as long as the clothing itself is justifyable. Its kind of hard for me to swallow a black goth coat as a GAoP justaucorp..... if it was stolen or hand made by said pirate, it just wouldn't have existed.

GoF

[kass]

Yeah... You might as well say "A wizard magicked this up for me" as anything else.

Which is why I suggested people don't try to justify things. Just say, "Cuz I like it!"

Did no one get my squirrel reference? I am gonna be so disappointed... :)

[Fox]

It was Miranda Richardson in Blackadder III...

[kass]

Oh thank God... I thought I'd gone insane...

Now when and where are you buying me this beer, Ed?

[Lady Seahawke]

as always when a source doesn't agree with certain individuals...the source is

1) only instance and can't be taken as a general rule

2) not well documented

3) documents are wrong

4) the historian isn't really a historian'

5) the historian is flawed...

6) sources can't be believed.

7) wrong place

*) wrong time period....

etc...

oh well...only those that agree with the positions of a few are accepted here so.... what ever.

[kass]

Lady Seahawke,

The point I'm trying to get across is that if you don't care about doing something that fits with the historical record anyway, why even try to justify it? Why not just say, "These is me boots. I like me boots! Arrrrr!"

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

There's no need to dig deep and try to find historical justification for something you just plain LIKE and want to wear/do/say. "Backward documenting" is a trap anyway. You don't find something you like and try to prove its existence in the time period. You find something that exists in the time period and decide you like it. See?

[Oops]

Er, hi. This is Daniel again, but I've screwed up my regular account and can't post from it. Thus I am appearing temporarily under the humiliating moniker "Oops."

I note that this thread started with the claim that pirates cannot justify unusually fine clothing by saying they stole it, because, as with German landsknechts, their superior officers would take it from them. The Davis/La Buse incident suggests that the very opposite was sometimes true with pirates; the pirates would demand that their superior officers yield up their finery to the men.

Foxe wrote,

My question is just how much finery was there available to steal at sea? . . . In the Caribbean in the GAoP the vast majority of prizes were small merchantmen manned by four men and a dog*- their clothing might have been less tattered than the pirates', but it would still have been common seamen's clothing.

I would point out that there was far more clothing to steal than just the crew's own clothes. Clothing was also cargo. And the clothing in the seamen's chests was sometimes surprisingly good.

As it happens, I have inventories of two prizes that show some of the clothing available to be plundered, from J. Franklin Jameson's Privateering and Privacy in the Colonial Period.

The merchantman Providence was taken by a privateer en route from Falmouth, England to Virginia in 1673. Here are the clothes that she had aboard (I exclude clothes plainly labeled as women's, since the vast majority of pirates would not have worn this).

13 pairs of French falls (collars)

11 pairs plain shoes

6 pairs men's woolen hose

12 pairs Irish cloth hose

2 old hats

2 new shirts

20 pairs worsted hose

1 coat (worn)

1 doublet (worn)

2 pairs breeches (worn)

22 pairs men's French falls

4 pairs pumps with heels

12 pairs boys and girls shoes

30 men's plain shoes

24 pairs men's French falls

10 pairs men's plain shoes

40 pairs French falls and wooden heel shoes for men and women

18 pairs men's plain shoes

2 pairs boys' plain shoes

66 low crown black hats

3 gowns

2 Jasto Corps (justaucorps)

4 stuffe coats for men

2 stuffe vests for boys

2 boys' little coats

2 children's coats

2 scarlet parragon (double camlet) coats

2 children's parragon coats

1 boy's coat

5 coats and breeches for men

2 men's cloaks

12 men's white worsted hose, rat-eaten

23 low crown black hats

16 pieces of taffeta ribbon, several colors

20 pieces black taffeta ribbon

1,728 coat buttons

3 straw hats

[items below are marked as having been taken from the seamen's chests]

Chest 1

2 pairs children's hose

144 breast buttons

1 silk neck cloth

1 demity waist coat

1 old shirt

1 coat

1 pair breeches

Chest 2

12 pairs men's white worsted hose

5 foul shirts

3 pairs foul drawers

1 pair fine gloves

2 stuffe coats

1 pair breeches, waistcoat and jacket

1 waistcoat and jacket more

1 pair new and 3 pair old shoes

1 pair yarn stockings

3 neckcloths

2 pairs hose

Chest 3

6 men's coats

1 stuffe pair breeches and doublet

3 pairs cloth breeches

1 old doublet

2 pairs Irish stockings

3 pairs children's hose

5 boy's hats

1 periwig

2 white tiffany hoods

2 pairs of gloves

3 bands (collars), 1 laced

2 pairs of sleeves

276 buttons

1 child's silk cap

How much of this was "fine" is not clear, but such items as fine gloves, a lace collar, a silk neckcloth, a periwig, scarlet double camlet coats, and tiffany hoods certainly sound pretty fancy.

We may note, as a contribution to the Never-Ending Debate, that there are many shoes but no boots.

The Dutch merchantman Willem was taken by privateers in 1745 while en route from Amsterdam to Curacao. It did not have nearly as much clothing as the Providence, but unlike with the former ship we have some idea of its value.

Item Value

504 men's and women's gloves 126 pounds

1 pair silk stockings 2 pounds 5 shillings

6 pairs embroidered vamps for

shoes and slippers 6 pounds

2 pr. stockings & 1 pr. mittens 5 pounds (!)

1 pair fustian breeches, 6 pairs

sleezes, 2 pair cotton stockings 12 pounds

Total value of clothing: 151 pounds, 5 shillings.

Note the value of the gloves comes to 10 shillings a pair, more than the price of a whole kersey jacket from the Navy slops! I would guess that these were pretty good gloves.

*I assume Foxe is speaking figuratively when he says "four men and a dog." Johnson's General History usually reports considerably larger crews than four men aboard pirates' prizes.

[Hawkyns]

as always when a source doesn't agree with certain individuals...the source is

1) only instance and can't be taken as a general rule

2) not well documented

3) documents are wrong

4) the historian isn't really a historian'

5) the historian is flawed...

6) sources can't be believed.

7) wrong place

*) wrong time period....

etc...

oh well...only those that agree with the positions of a few are accepted here so.... what ever.

Yep, that would be correct. And if you think this is tough, you should see the sniping that goes on among the college professors, museum directors and the like. You know, the folks that get paid to do this and have letters after their name to prove it.

They will defend their positions more fiercely than a sow bear and her cubs.

Look, people, we can all come up with some facts to support our positions. The question is how many instances are needed to prove something common and what constitutes a unique incident? Everyone of us here has our own criteria. But it doesn't matter. With the exception of a very small number of us, this doesn't put food on our table or affect our mundane reputation.

So let's get over this, people. Those of us who want to document what we wear and do it historically will continue to do so. Those who just want a good time in their mental image of a pirate will also continue to do so. Why do we need the approval of the group that is diametrically opposed to our own viewpoint?

Hawkyns

[kass]

No, Daniel. This thread started with the suggestion that instead of people (who aren't interested in being historically accurate) making a lame attempt at justifying their crushed velvet "frock coats" (which are period for about 1985) and bucket boots, that they just say, "I wear these because I like to wear 'em." No one wearing a goth coat they got on eBay is wearing anything that could have been plundered without a time machine! So any historical justification is ludicrous in the extreme!

And unnecessary... unless you're purporting to be historically accurate. And then you damn well better be wearing real silk velvet cut in a period fashion and not some junk from Hot Topic!

The example of Landsknechts not wearing their plunder is still a good example of why wearing fancy clothing and calling yourself a common pirate isn't justifiable historically. I can list tons and tons of things taken by the Landsknechten during the Seige of Milan. But still, you never seen any of them wearing it. Even the officers aren't facily dressed (although they are dressed better than many of the soldiers of the same rank because they were paid twice what the typical soldier was and the Emperor decreed that sumptuary laws didn't apply to the Landsknecten). So here are these guys who are rich in comparison to their fellow soldiers and are allowed to wear the richest materials and accoutrements by decree of their own Emperor. But yet we see them colourfully yet plainly dressed in woodcuts that were made to show how fabulous they were. Don't you find that strange? If I hadn't seen the woodcuts but only heard of them, I would have expected every man to be in brocades and velvet. But they're not. They're wearing plain cloth.

Don't you also find it strange that there were all these fancy clothes on ships taken by privateers but none of the depictions of pirates show them particularly well dressed?

The simple truth is that clothing isn't as easy to carry or convert into something useful as gold and jewels were. What would you rather do with your plunder? How much joy do those silk stockings really give you? Or would you rather have the two pounds five?

Again, that wasn't what the thread was about (and I really should know, as I started it).

That's the last time I try to make bloody peace!

But thanks for the fabulous lists!

[kass]

Why do we need the approval of the group that is diametrically opposed to our own viewpoint?

P R E C I S E L Y !

Thank you, Hawkins!

[The Doctor]

My long suffering wife, Janelle, has agreed to remake my kit in linen, using Kass' patterns. I can't tell you how eager I await this, since linen works very well in the nearly tropical humidity of the Upper Midwest! She's remaking her kit as well, eschewing faire convention and making breeches for herself. Works for me! :)

I'm not that worried much about things, since the average Midwesterner can't tell a corsair from a corncob.

[kass]

You're going to think me insane, Jack, and please don't think I'm not encouraging you. But you would be absolutely SHOCKED how cool wool can keep you even in ridiculous heat and humidity. I crewed a cannon on 4th of July weekend at Ft. Mifflin (on the Delaware South of Philly) in 97 degree heat and soaking humidity (and then there was that steaming cannon next to me...). I wore linen underclothes, stays, and a wool jacket. Lightweight wool, but wool nonetheless. The wool actually stops your perspiration from evaporating too quickly and it allows it time to cool you off. I was actually more comfortable and hydrated than I was on other hot ocassions when I wore a linen jacket. Women and men running around without jackets on at all were being carried out on stretchers...

You have to pound water all day long, but you should be doing that anyway. And I was absolutely soaking wet underneath my top layer of clothing. But my body temperature remained low. And I'm a person who normally becomes incapacitated in the heat.

And wool is much safer around the cannon and the hearth because it puts out cinders and doesn't catch fire easily.

That's not to say that you can't have a linen coat. Of course you can. But don't throw wool out of the equation entirely. Have Janelle email me about what to look for if she likes.

[greenighs]

144 breast buttons

...

5 foul shirts

3 pairs foul drawers

...

Breast buttons? Sounds like body modification of a most uncomfortable kind. However, many's the time I've been at the beach and wanted a place to stow my car key ... a "breast pocket" with buttons might be handy.

As for the foul laundry ... well, makes my ighs water just thinking about it.