But I stole 'em from a...

[Mick MacAnselan]

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

IIRC, blue and white checked shirts were specified in one of the Admiralty contracts, so I reckon it's more than likely that some pirates wore them. As for blue jackets... dunno, but I think grey was specified at one point.

[Daniel]

The spelling in the original text is "dublet." I modernized it to "doublet," I hope correctly.

I included the children's clothes in the list because some percentage of pirate crews were young boys, although I don't know whether it was a significant percentage or not. My colleague Tony Malesic mentioned one pirate trial where a boy of 14 was hanged, and his lawyer claimed him to be even younger. I believe Douglas Botting's The Pirates reports a captured pirate crew that included boys as young as 10, though I'll have to double-check to be sure. Finally, in keeping with the standard maxim that the characteristics of pirates are largely the characteristics of seamen generally, there are certainly many recorded instances of boys going to sea at quite a young age. So while there certainly weren't many physically immature pirates (average age of a pirate was 27 per Cordingly), there could have been enough for it to make a difference what clothes they had available.

Adult female pirates, in contrast, were not only vanishingly rare, but almost certainly wore men's clothing when they did occur, so I excluded women's clothes.

GoF, demity waistcoats and scarlet parragon coats were not fancy? I have no basis to contradict you; I'm just surprised to hear that such items were in financial reach for the general public.

[Red Maria]

Adult female pirates, in contrast, were not only vanishingly rare, but almost certainly wore men's clothing when they did occur, so I excluded women's clothes.

.

According to an eyewitmess on board ship account ( a captive) Anne Bonney & Mary Read wore women's clothing except when they prepared for action when they changed to men's clothing. It's a lot easier to fight in trousers that skirts! So you could have added women's clothing. :)

[Fox]

<EDIT> Double post cock up - apologies

[Fox]

The Mariner's Mirror article deals almost exclusively with Admiralty slops. The author briefly looks at the coats of arms of two naval officers which included seamen supporters, and at the clothing of officers in portraits, but otherwise ignores references from other sources of the period, so it presents IMHO a fantastic overview of the official slops, but very little else. The clothing of Shelvocke's privateer officers is the closest it comes to discussing pirate clothing (or indeed any other non-RN clothing). Of course, since the other records do show that seamen wore much the same thing whatever their trade - and we must not forget that seamen moved from one service to another freely - any discussion of RN clothing has a certain relevance to the study of clothing of any English or colonial seaman. Sadly, the MM article is also fairly short (18 pages, including fully quoting 3 or 4 sets of ASC specs).

Personally, I disagree with the extent to which the author thinks slops were worn, but that's definitely a matter of opinion. There's no doubt that Admiralty slops would have been common, even outside the RN, but I think the case for their universal wear is overstated.

Blue coats were part of the ASC specs prior to 1706, and clothing fragments recovered from the wreck of HMS Stirling Castle include a blue coat pocket flap. After 1748 the ASC slops also included blue coats. Blue is also a relatively common colour for clothing in period probate inventories for seamen (and others). However, it was far from universal: as has already been pointed out the ASC specs between 1706 and 1748 called for grey coats, Woodes Rogers took on 50(?) red coats at Kinsale, and probates list plenty of non-ASC clothing in different colours.

Most modern dictionaries describe dimity as being sheer, but the term crops up relatively often in period parlance and seems then to have been a universal description for a cotton (but possibly not always) fabric with a distinctive ridged weave. It's not too unusual to find it used to describe seamen's clothes (I'm working from memory 'cos I'm not at home, but I'll do my best to find sources when I get home if this becomes a debated point).

Yes, female clothing could be included for the benefit of those female pirates, but that would only include two out of thousands so the haul from one ship like the Providence would probably be enough to keep them in frocks for a good while

The question of boys is perhaps more pertinent. According to Johnson when Bannister's men were captured two young boys were taken with them and carried into Port Royal hanging by their waists from the mizzen peak. The story is semi-borne out by the Governor of Jamaica writing at the time that he let two boys go who had been aboard Bannister's ship. Physically immature boys were probably rarer among pirates than among other seafaring groups, the evidence suggests that the old and young made up a smaller proportion of pirates than the general seafaring population (Roberts' articles specifically forbade them for example), but there is no doubt that boy-pirates did exist.

[Capt. Sterling]

Most modern dictionaries describe dimity as being sheer, but the term crops up relatively often in period parlance and seems then to have been a universal description for a cotton (but possibly not always) fabric with a distinctive ridged weave. It's not too unusual to find it used to describe seamen's clothes (I'm working from memory 'cos I'm not at home, but I'll do my best to find sources when I get home if this becomes a debated point).

Yes according to An Elegant Art, Fashion & Fantasy in the Eighteenth Century from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art Collections of Costumes and textiles... Dimity is "fine ribbed cotton fabric woven with raised stripes or figures; made first in Damietta, India. Used undyed for beds, bedroom hangings, and for garments. 'A half bedstead as the new mode, dimity with fine shades of worstead works well made up.' Fiennes, Diary, c.1710. 'His waistcoat was a white dimity, richly embroidered with yellow silk.' Fielding, Life of Jonathan Wild the Great. 1743."

And all you wig wearers will LOVE this... "Dildo: (M)Sausage-shaped curl of a wig. Worn throughout the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries." (M) denotes those used by males.

Same reference.

Hector

[Capt. Sterling]

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

Know anyone who does 18th C. Physician?

We've discussed this on a 19th century list and tinted glasses were considered healthful for those inflicted with VD. But I believe it was only certain colors and most folks, it seems, refused to wear them because it marked you.

If you want, I'll go search the archives....

Hector

[oderlesseye]

Don Maitz Is cool. I got his calender this year.

the stuff you guys have been disgussing and the things spoken about David Cordingly has me in a twist of what to belive , wear at faire( I'm still gettin outfitted) -whats aceptable and whats not..

I have given some effort "to do it right" yet seems to be at a loss due to lack of hard evedence, lots of opinions, and conjecture. How many books do I need to find answers "to period" before I can "just have fun" without being Poked fun of under a "more period than thou" (to steal the phase) types. It all seems to come under ugly PRIDE. When I went to faire it was like nother world to escape ,and a chance to be an alter ego.That would be my draw for being there in the first place. Wearin wot I wind up wit would be for myself and to have fun. I feel caught up in should I "be period" or be hollywood. I like both camps.Yet in this pub I see division and wunder.. I know my post ain't the most "Mature" or even educated however that said I still have been readin and take interest in your posts. I look to make an appearance as Oderlesseye the pyrate at faire in April. Up till now it's been play time in the pub. Now eys jest thinx about which ~way~ to go.. It's jest my issue I felt needed to be posted for those that may feel intimadated .

And just how much should such rig cost anyway?

[Patrick Hand]

oderlesseye, No one is going to hastle you if you garb is or is not period. and making it correct is an ongoing project. If you are just starting with your garb, try to make it out of period materials, and with a period cut. Because most Fairs are in Summer, you don't need a jacket to begin with.. Just start with a linen shirt and some slops... then build from there......

For some reason there are a lot of post that the authentics will "get you" if your gear and garb is not 100% correct..... and this just isn't true ! The authentics will tell you what was worn, (that's why there are threads like this one....) and give you information, what you do with that information is up to you..........

[William Brand]

I had just enough money for plane tickets, a tent, food and a minimal costume when I went to PIP. Nobody said a thing about my sketchers. I couldn't afford footwear, but I think people were glad I was there.

People will always take you over your kit. It's often better to be in attendence than accurate.

[JoshuaRed]

Up till now it's been play time in the pub

Heck, it's always play time in the pub! I see no one poking fun at anybody...I see no one intimidating anybody. Nobody is saying "this is what you have to wear". The thought that ANYONE could decree what is "acceptable and what's not" is laughable. Do you really see anyone here cutting such a wide swath as that? On the contrary, I think the fine posters here on both sides of the various issues have gone out their way to state the obvious: If you like wearing something in particular, wear it. You don't have to justify it or make excuses for it. It's all about fun. For some folks that means having a good time at the faire and accuracy be damned, for others the good time comes from that quest for accuracy. Did I miss the meeting that said we had to choose just one and stick with it forever? Who's to say you couldn't go to a true re-enactor event one weekend, then strap on the boots, bandana & four foot sash and hit the faire the following weekend? One thing I can tell you, is that you'll probably spend more $$ putting together that fantasy kit vs. the less glamourous and more accurate kit.

If reading some information forces you to rethink what you wanted to believe about history, what's so bad about that? And just because an item may not ever have actually been used, worn or coveted by pirates doesn't mean it's no longer "Acceptable" for faire-wear. It sounds like that's what you're getting at. All I can say is just have fun, do what feels right for you.

[Fox]

Here's the rub with "authentic" kit:

We KNOW (no opinions or conjecture) that some, maybe even most, pirates looked like normal seamen of the time. One of Maynard's RN men was killed at Ocracoke in the battle with Blackbeard by one of his own side because the combatants all looked the same; we have numerous references to pirates forcing their seamen captives on deck during a battle to make it look like there were more pirates (which wouldn't have worked if they looked markedly different); we know that pirates went ashore and mingled freely with people who didn't know they were pirates; and of course most pirates started out as normal seamen and many had very short careers - "new" pirates would certainly have looked like common seamen at first. On the other hand we have NO records or depositions of people saying "I knew he was a pirate because of his outfit...". Some pirates may have augmented their outfits with other more piratical items, but there's more speculation than evidence of this.

Dress like a common seaman and you will definitely be accurate, no question. Dress like a "pirate" and you may be right, but it's harder to prove (if you want to prove it).

Now, as well as the (admittedly limited) amount of original source material we have about the dress and appearance of pirates we do have a huge amount of information about the dress of the common seaman - which as we've seen is entirely relevant. Typical complete outfit should consist of a short jacket, short waistcoat, hat, slops/breeches/petticoat breeches/trousers, stockings, shoes, shirt, and neckcloth. As has been pointed out you may want to start with the very basics - slops, shirt, and hat. I would recommend a jacket or waistcoat too - if for no other reason than for the benefits of the pockets. :)

There's no reason to label yourself as Hollywood or authentic if you don't want to... BUT if you have authentic kit then you can do authentic events as well as fantasy, but if you have fantasy kit you can't do authentic. Dress as a normal seaman and you'll still be recognised as a pirate, and there's certainly nothing stopping you from doing all the inauthentic faire activities you want.

As has been stated, you really can wear what you like, but if you want to go authentic then look at the evidence of the common seaman, follow it, and you can't go wrong.

The only person you have to justify your kit to is yourself. Personally I can't bring myself to tell people that my kit is "what a pirate wore" unless I've done my best to make it as accurate as possible, but unless you're trying to convince others that your gear is authentic there's no need to go to those lengths. Of course, telling people that your gear is authentic if you know it isn't is lying to the public, and we all know that lies make baby Jesus cry (thankyou Rod and Tod)

[JoshuaRed]

"ROD...TOD....THIS IS GOD....."

Hey I think Kidd and Avery, Israel Hands, etc... would all tell us that trying to look like a pirate while going ashore might not be the best idea.

[Cascabel]

In my over 30 years of experience doing various events, I find that you never have to justify or explain anything unless someone asks, which they usually don't. Just go and have fun.

The authentic re-enactors are more than happy to help you out, but only if you ask, and they are, with a few exceptions, a friendly bunch. They realize that some folks are quite happy with their "look", and have no desire to change, but those that want advice can ask without fear of harsh criticism. Most festival type events also do not strictly require absolute authenticity.

>>>>>> Cascabel

[PirateQueen]

Blue coats were part of the ASC specs prior to 1706, and clothing fragments recovered from the wreck of HMS Stirling Castle include a blue coat pocket flap. After 1748 the ASC slops also included blue coats. Blue is also a relatively common colour for clothing in period probate inventories for seamen (and others). However, it was far from universal: as has already been pointed out the ASC specs between 1706 and 1748 called for grey coats, Woodes Rogers took on 50(?) red coats at Kinsale, and probates list plenty of non-ASC clothing in different colours.

I guess that speaks to the color question. Again, all Cordingly said (and perhaps at this point we are playing what I like to call the semantics game) was "most" common seaman wore blue coats. I don't know what he means by most, but I took that to mean that blue was quite a common color, and that's probably why later the British RN chose to adopt blue as the official coat color; but certainly coats came in other colors as well. I think we are agreed that the coat of the common sailor was short, regardless of the color, and that common sailors had been wearing short coats for some time, since short coats were worn by common folk and laborers, and sailors, I think, could be counted among the laborer class.

One aspect of "pirate costuming" at faires etc. that I find amusing is the preponderance of the skull and crossbones motif. I doubt that pirates would have so blatantly advertised their illegal status, no matter how pirate-friendly the port. Perhaps the bolder fellows sported discrete symbols; but "most," no. Thoughts?

[kass]

Sure enough, Pirate Queen! Blue is a cheap and common colour, even today. I mean, look at the dominant colour of jeans! And that's even the same blue. It's from indigo (still is, natural or artificial) and it's cheap and durable. Unlike red dyes that are notably fugitive, blue tends to stick around. As early as the 14th century we see peasants wearing blue. I was just looking at some pictures of working women in the late 17th century and there are an astounding number of blue aprons on them.

A note of interest -- even though blue is a common and cheap dye, it was a VERY expensive paint. Blue paint comes from the semiprecious stone lapis lazuli and was wildly expensive through the 18th century. Don't ask me why they couldn't make paint from indigo. I only know about dyestuffs...

I agree with your conjecture about the Skull and Crossbones not being worn. But I don't have the sources to prove or disprove that. However I know one of the guys expounded at length on the subject some time ago, so I'll let them do their bit. Suffice it to say that I think any pirate who wanted to keep his neck nice and unstretched by a noose wouldn't have worn a skull and crossbones anywhere on his person when ashore.

[Daniel]

One aspect of "pirate costuming" at faires etc. that I find amusing is the preponderance of the skull and crossbones motif. I doubt that pirates would have so blatantly advertised their illegal status, no matter how pirate-friendly the port. Perhaps the bolder fellows sported discrete symbols; but "most," no. Thoughts?

I agree that it wouldn't make much sense for the pirates to have a skull and crossbones in town. The Jolly Roger was intended to warn your victims to surrender while there was still time. When you're not actively robbing people, there's no point in displaying it.

If I were actively seeking to justify bringing a Jolly Roger to the ren faire, I would say I was plundering the fair. Granted, Jolly-Roger-era pirates usually didn't attack shore settlements. But George Roberts did report that Ned Low's pirates robbed a small island settlement somewhere (Tenerife, was it?). Granted, even Roberts does not say that Low flew a Jolly Roger at the time. But I suppose you could kinda sorta justify a Jolly Roger ashore that way. And for faire purposes, it does have the great virtue that it tells people right away what your persona is.

[Patrick Hand]

I think we are agreed that the coat of the common sailor was short,

I just wanted to point out.... short as compaired to Landsmen's coats..... a lot of the pictures that have been posted show the jackets about the lenght of a modern man's coat......

On Skull and crossbones..... yah... I'm guilty of that.... (see my avitar...) For my play Pyrate stuff I wore a tarplin hat... broad brimmed, and with a skull and crossed bones painted on the front.....and a bunch of black ostrich feathers...... I have a handknitted and felted monmouth cap that I'm going to wear now....(see signature...) I know the tarplin hat with a skull and crossed bones painted on it is'nt the least bit period.....but it was fun...... And no one ever hastled me about it....

[Fox]

I don't know how common blue was prior to 1748, but as I say it had been part of the ASC specs until 1706 so that does suggest a certain popularity. There is great debate about why the RN chose blue as its official colour, but one of the most common theories (and one well supported, but not proven, by the evidence) is that when RN officer began to petition for a uniform in the 1740 several different colour schemes were suggested, including grey and red, which was the colour of the slops at that time. One of the officers (I forget which) fancied blue and white, and to show her support his wife had a riding habit made in that scheme. The king saw Mrs whatever out riding and liked the blue and white, so it stuck. At the same time as the officers went into blue the colour of the slops changed over too. So, whatever the reason for the officers getting blue uniforms, it probably influenced the change for the whole navy from grey.

I suspect that Cordingly is simply rehashing an old misconception - one certainly perpetuated by some of the sources he quoted, like Jarret. When the authors of various works were writing in the earlier parts of the 20thC blue had been the "traditional" colour of the Navy for so long that they assumed all the black and white etchings of seamen showed blue coats. They then wrote that seamen of the 18thC habitually wore blue. Cordingly was working from those sources and so perpetuated the myth.

Personally, I have never seen an example of a pirate using the skull and cross bones on clothing. It's illogical, and we must also bear in mind that the skull and cross bones was not a universal pirate symbol anyway - many pirates used other emblems. Nor was the skull and cross bones unique to pirates by any means.

However, the skull and cross bones was a more or less universal symbol for death and mortality, and jewellery known as "memento mori" was popular at the time (more so at the beginning of the GAoP than the end - it kind of declined during the era), so it is possible that some pirates had some kind of skull and cross bones device about their person. It must be stressed though that any such memento mori would not have been worn to mark the person out as a pirate, and any other person seeing a memento mori would not have pointed and said "hey look, that guy's got a skull and cross bones, must be a pirate...".

Skull and cross bones on the hat - nah!

[oderlesseye]

We'll my tricorn I bought at my second ren faire then goes to the "fantisy side" obviosly due to the skull -n- cross bones.

What was the authentic material for the tricorn ? was black the only color? Why not leather?

A thought about blue in the RN - was not blue a distinction used amounst the different branches of service? During GAOP ? Did not the Brittish army wear REd ? _ Hence "red coats" was coined durring the revolution.. I realize 1770's may be a little later than.. Was there distinction in color used purposely between the French and the English navies durring GAOP? The prevous war between them> And if so would not some pYrates ware other colors depending on their country of origin? HMMM...

[Fox]

Tricorns came in all sorts of colour, black (or off-black) was certainly one of them, but brown, grey, and tan were also pretty common. Felt would have been the most usual fabric. I'm not convinced that leather hats are totally wrong, just perhaps rare - in fairness though I've never come across an actual example of one.

The English, and then British army were largely dressed in red from about 1645 onwards - soldiers were known as "lobsters" by seamen from at least the 1670s. However, despite the availability of Admiralty slops there was no "regulation" colour for the navy until 1748. One of the reasons the naval officers cited for wanting a uniform was that they didn't get the same respect as army officers. Interestingly one of the earliest examples of a naval semi-"uniform" was when lieutenants and masters of ships on the Mediterranean station bought up old red coats from the marines and decorated them with black braid in the 17teens. This was definitely a trend rather than a uniform though. It is interesting to note that in a play of the 1680s (IIRC) there is a reference to red coats being fashionable for sea-officers.

The French had uniforms earlier, the first limited issues came in the 1660s. In the 17teens French naval officers used grey and blue for their uniforms. However, at the same time the RN slops were grey, and that colour scheme was one of those proposed in 1748 so there was not necessarily much in the way of an obvious distinction between colours of the French and English during the GAoP.

Blue was certainly worn, but by no means universally.

[Patrick Hand]

Sorry...... Silly mood this morning.....

But arn't you glad that Pink wasn't the most common color for Sailors.......

[kass]

Hey Pat, did you know that pink was actually thought a very masculine colour in the 18th century?

[Patrick Hand]

Yah.... I know that...... but eeeergh..... I'd still have a hard time wearing Pink.... see that was kind of my point....

[kass]

So you won't be asking to borrow Bob's outfit in this picture, huh?

Okay... It's salmon. But the linings are pink.