But I stole 'em from a...

[Fox]

The list from the Providence certainly does contain a lot of clothes, but as you say we can't tell how much of it was "fancy" - the evidence of the cambric coats and tiffany hoods (a female garment btw) is counterbalanced by the worn coats and dirty linen. Also, as you illustrated, not all prizes contained such a large proportion of clothing, it's not something that crops up often in documents that I've seen. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but I think the providence was probably carrying a high proportion of clothing compared to an average.

French falls are shoes, though a lot of commentators have fallen into the same confusion.

As one of those few who does earn a living doing this I'm quite prepared to be proven wrong, if I stuck to the things I believed when I started I'd never have got anywhere. But here's the rub, to be taken seriously (in whatever capacity) it behoves one to look at evidence and draw conclusions from it, not decide on the conclusion and look for evidence to support them.

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

...

1) only instance and can't be taken as a general rule Yup, one instance does not make a fashion. Nobody here has ever argued that pirates never did something, only that there were general trends and ideas. So no, one instance can't be taken as a general rule

2) not well documented If something is not well documented then it can't be taken as a general rule. See above

3) documents are wrong Not quite sure where this is coming from, it's not often that a document is described as wrong (assuming you're talking about primary documents). If one source is directly contradicted by several others then one of them has to be wrong, if indirectly contradicted then there may be two viewpoints.

4) the historian isn't really a historian' NO historian, on here, in print, on TV, on the web or anywhere else can be considered any better than the sources they are using. It doesn't matter how much of an "expert" they are.

5) the historian is flawed... See above

6) sources can't be believed. Yup, some sources can't be believed. In our own time we know we can't believe everything we read, the 18thC was no different. See point 3.

7) wrong place The world is a big place, full of different cultures, different practices, and many of them do not cross over. So yes, if information comes from the wrong place then it may not be valid.

*) wrong time period.... Again, things change with time. Practices and attitudes change, things become possible or practical which were not possible before, fashions change and new ideas take over. So yes, if information comes from a time period other than one you're looking at then it may not be valid unless it can be supported by other sources from the right time-frame. Just because something happened in 1850 it doesn't mean that it happened in 1700, any more than evidence of something happening in 2000 is relevant to 1850.

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

As has been stated over and over again, nobody reading any of this has to take any more notice of it that they themselves wish to, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be said. If I think you're wrong then I'll say so and do my best to prove it. If you think I'm wrong then you're most welcome to do likewise. :)

[PirateQueen]

Just an observation on misquoting sources: most of the esteemed members of this pub, except for Monterey Jack, seem to have missed that Cordingly was describing what many common seamen wore in the early 18th century, including a short blue jacket over a checked shirt. He went on further to speculate that pirates wore variations of this traditional costume. He didn't state as fact that pirates wore short blue jackets over checked shirts.

That said, I'd like to add to the discussion that I too find it incredibly lame when people adamantly insist that sunglasses similar to their Raybans were worn in the late 17th, early 18th centuries; and their buttoned-up granny boots can trace their design to the middle ages.

[kass]

Hee hee hee! AMEN SISTER!!! <ahem> I mean, Your Majesty.

I knew this guy in a Rev War group who insisted on wearing those blue-tinted 18th century spectacles that Townsend sells. Yes, they're based on a period artifact. But they weren't meant to be worn as sunglasses!

Even though he everything he wore was period-appropriate, the guy just looked like a guitar player in a rock band. Which, of course, he was...

[Dorian Lasseter]

Er.... ain't them blue tinted glasses s'posed ta be a treatment fer Syphalis?

[kass]

Was that their purpose?!?!?! Oh Dorian! That's PRICELESS!!!

[Dorian Lasseter]

I do believe so... as I believe it causes sensitivity to light...

Know anyone who does 18th C. Physician?

[kass]

Yeah, I do, actually. I'll drop him a line.

Thanks, man. Does that qualify as my one new thing today?

[Gentleman of Fortune]

PQ says

Just an observation on misquoting sources: most of the esteemed members of this pub, except for Monterey Jack, seem to have missed that Cordingly was describing what many common seamen wore in the early 18th century, including a short blue jacket over a checked shirt.

i am not sure it was missed PQ, some of those same members have been touting the Admiralty Slops Contracts for months now.... and what is on them is short jackets, trousers, checked shirts etc.....

But what I am curious about is where is Cordingly getting this information? What do we have that says sailors wore blue jackets? If greeneighs typed the footnotes correctly,

20. For further details of seamen's clothes, see Rodger, [N. A. M. The Wooden World: An Anatomy of the Georgian Navy (London, 1986)] pp. 64-65; Rediker, [Marcus. Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates, and the Anglo-American Maritime World (Cambridge and New York, 1987)], p. 11; Ritchie, [Robert C. Captain Kidd and the War Againsts the Pirates (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1986], p. 114; Dudley Jarret, British Naval Dress (London, 1960); Commander W. E. May, The Dress of Naval Officers (London, 1966).

Most of those sources are books that detail post GAoP (but maybe still 18th century) sailors. If any of them go into more than a brief look at pre 1720 sailors clothing, I would be surprised.

The really sad things is that there is no academic work out there on 1680-1730 sailor clothing and equipment.

GoF

[JoshuaRed]

The really sad things is that there is no academic work out there on 1680-1730 sailor clothing and equipment.

It is sad. It's like that chunk of time just kind of fell thru the cracks. I find it very hard to get info on Queen Anne's War in general, AS COMPARED to other conflicts on either side of it.

But we do know what was worn/used/coveted/bought/stolen BEFORE 1680 and AFTER 1730...and one can simply use those points and work inwards to 1700, coming up with theories and inferences...OR one can say "it was a wild, lawless time where anything went, so I'm gonna justify my stuff as coming from a historical grey area". Either is fine, depending on your intent and goals.

[Oops]

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!

I don't think anyone would dispute that. If a certain item never existed in the period, obviously it couldn't be stolen by the period's people.

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.

Now you're talking about something completely different; saying that fancy stuff that IS period can't be worn by common pirates, because landsknechts didn't wear the fancy clothing of their own period. But pirates were in fact seen wearing some items that were on the cargo list for the Providence, a plundered vessel. Taffeta ribbon, for instance. And pirates were not at the bottom of a social hierarchy, as you say landsknechts were, but were outlaws who in some cases chose their own leaders. So no parallel exists with German soldiers from a different era in another place.

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?

I have seen many depictions of pirates very well dressed, but I would not trust those depictions since they were not made by eyewitnesses nor, so far as I can tell, were they based on eyewitness descriptions. Nor, for the same reason, can I trust most of the depictions of pirates plainly dressed. Every time I see a pirate picture in a book there's never more than a caption and, if I'm lucky, the name of the collection it came from. No basis for me to judge authenticity there.

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? 

Me? I'd take the money. But the question isn't what I would do, but what pirates did. And we can't just throw out the evidence reported by eyewitnesses of what pirates wore at their hangings or how Bartholomew Roberts dressed for his last battle because we personally would have done something different.

But thanks for the fabulous lists!

You're welcome.

[JoshuaRed]

Here's the rub for me: pirates were above all, sailors. Whether from the Navy, a merchant ship, a fishing boat, or any other water trade. Through various means, (usually desertion, mutiny, or assimilation by capture) they wound up on pirate vessels. But suddenly putting "pirate" on your business card doesn't change the person you are, nor does it drastically change the nature of your work. You're still a sailor. Only now you seize ships illegally instead of legally. (if coming from a warship or privateer) Or maybe now you chase merchants instead of mackerel.

Sure, you get to enjoy a more relaxed lifestyle in terms of discipline, but the work to just survive at sea and get from A to B is still the same. I just don't see most formerly dirty, grimy, hard-working jacks becoming dandy fops who are more obsessed with tracking down high-fashion than ready money, for the purpose of sticking it to the man by daring to wear his clothes. I think they were focused on other things. Like drinking. And women. And gaming. Those soften a hard life far better than silk ribbons and red heels....

Look at the various Red Sea pirates that booked passage back to the mid-Atlantic in the 1690s in hopes of settling down in the countryside around New York and New Jersey. They had a helluva hard time trying to settle ashore in peace. The minute people got wind of their loot, they became victims of blackmail and extortion. Many were forced out of hiding this way and lost everything, winding up at the end of a noose. That is precisely why they DIDN'T want to stand out ashore.

This is why I'm a fan of Marcus Rediker. I think he calls it pretty well.

[William Brand]

My two pence...

I've never been opposed to a little flair and a little personal taste, but like many here I have to agree that there were more blue collar working men than individual Liberaces. One of the best examples on this pub is Patrick Hand and his Buccaneer Kit. Functional. Simple. Well worn. Accurate.

Flamboyance should be expressed in a good sword and a finely crafted firearm and I'll take a well dressed ship over any outfit.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Daniel

As always, thanks to folks that take their time out to retype these kinds of things, as it really helps to shape the collective idea of clothing and equipment for the GAoP, and its great to debate the merits and demerits of different informations.

I think that I am getting something rather different from your lists of booty from the Providence and Willem.

On the plus side, it seems to be fairly detailed and if they go through all the trouble to list rat chewd stockings, it makes me feel that they were fairly thorough....

But as for "fancy" clothing... I am not seeing it. I peeled off all the jackets clothes, pants, and breeches from the list, and here is what we get:

1 coat (worn)

1 doublet (worn)

2 pairs breeches (worn)

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

From Sea chests

1 demity waist coat

1 old shirt

1 coat

1 pair breeches

1 pair breeches, waistcoat and jacket

1 waistcoat and jacket more

6 men's coats

1 stuffe pair breeches and doublet

3 pairs cloth breeches

1 old doublet

1 pair fustian breeches

Now I am not seeing anything here that shouts (or even whispers) fancy or middle class clothing. It all appears to be the day to day kinds of clothing that we would expects denizens of the late 17th century to have.

Except.......

2 Jasto Corps

Justaucoprs are just coming into fashion at this date (1673), so I would consider it cutting edge fashion and could be fairly nice...

But since it lacks description (while other things are labeled Paragon or Dimnity, which aren't high end fabrics) of the type of fabric, we could assume that it wasn't highly figured silk, velvet, or other expensive cloth.

And... that would be 2 justaucorps on two ships to divide among how many pirates?

Again, I am not suggesting that a sailor couldn't have a justaucorps, I just think that a sailor, if he had a justaucorps, would have a working mans version.

GoF

[Patrick Hand]

2 stuffe vests for boys

2 boys' little coats

2 children's coats

2 children's parragon coats

1 boy's coat

Lots of boys and children's clothing...... just because they had it dosen't mean that they wore it............

And what do you think he..they were going to do with childrens cloths.... maybe sell them ?

[kass]

And this is very late for anything called a "doublet". Unless "doublet" means something other thant the man's upper-body garment from the 15th and early-to-mid 17th century that I'm thinking of...

[The Doctor]

Keep the clothes, and sell the children! Whoops! Was I speaking aloud?

[JoshuaRed]

C'mon -- everyone knows the kids clothes were saved for the monkeys!!

[Fox]

And this is very late for anything called a "doublet". Unless "doublet" means something other thant the man's upper-body garment from the 15th and early-to-mid 17th century that I'm thinking of...

I dunno, I think we still see doublets this late, particularly in the colonies

1709 - look at the boy on the left

From Esquemeling, 1680s. The above-knee breeches are a little confusing though

I suspect that the gradual evolution of the waistcoat from the doublet probably included an evolution of the terms as well.

[kass]

In fact, I would have called both waistcoats.

I know that the term "waistcoat" is in general use for an undergarment at least by the English Civil War. Don't know how much earlier it comes into use. But I'm also well aware that there are often multiple terms for the same garment without any distinction between them. I generally think of a doublet as a garment to which the wearer points or hooks breeches to and a waistcoat as a garment worn for warmth under a coat. But I know that they were pointing breeches to "waistcoats" in the ECW so that distinction doesn't hold water either.

I'm just surprised to see the word "doublet" this late...

[Fox]

If you described either of those garments as waistcoats I wouldn't argue, but I think they could equally describe either as doublets - evolution of garments and terms

[Patrick Hand]

Couldn't Doublet also be used to describe a padded (or maybe quilted) garment ?

[kass]

The original derivation of the word in the late 14th century, Pat, indicated a double layer. So yes, possibly it referred to a padded garment. But we also know that non-padded garments were called doublets too.

Language is a funny thing. As historians, we want everything to fit into nice little mutually exclusive categories. And there are many costumers who will tell you things like "a doublet always has sleeves; if it doesn't, it's a jerkin." But that's a modern costumer's distinction, not one made in the 16th century (for this example). And later, it breaks down even further.

What we need is Johnson's bloody Dictionary for the 1680s-1720s!

But that would probably say:

waistcoat (n) -- a type of doublet

doublet (n) -- a kind of waistcoat

:)

[Patrick Hand]

I was thinking that maybe he just used doublet to describe somethng that was maybe padded or quilted.... I think I can explain what I was trying to say better with an example....

I have a down filled vest....kind of like a down jacket, but without sleeves...... but if someone didn't know what that is, and they were reading about men's three piece suits, and wondered why someone would wear a quilted down filled garment under thier suit coat..... I call it a vest, because I can't think of a better name to call it......

Like Kass said.... "Language is a funny thing."

Unless he was a reenactor, and wore the doublet to Fairs....

[Red Maria]

Most of those sources are books that detail post GAoP (but maybe still 18th century) sailors.  If any of them go into more than a brief look at pre 1720 sailors clothing, I would be surprised.

The really sad things is that there is no academic work out there on 1680-1730 sailor clothing and equipment. 

GoF

There is The Dress of the British Seaman from the Revolution to the Peace of 1748 Mariner's Mirror v.10, 1924 pg.31-48. I used to have a master copy of this but it's packed away some where. However the bound volume (there is a complete run of Mariner's Mirror here) is here in the Huntington and I can make a photocopy of it for you if you wish. Please just reimburse me for copying and postage.

If you want it PM me.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Red Maria...

Yes, thats Manwaring's piece in the Mariners Mirror.... I am familar with it.

That article in The Mariner's Mirror is about the only thing that even looks at sailor clothing (I don't recall if he even mentions pirates) for pre 1750. Manwaring is a big proponet of sailors wearing clothing from the Admiralty Slops contracts with which I agree.

Thanks!

GoF