But I stole 'em from a...

[Mission]

I was looking for something else when I stumbled across this thread, which, while very long, was also very interesting to read. Keep in mind that (as of this posting) the bulk of this thread occurred 6 years ago and many of these people are no longer around! So arguing with them will get you no where.

I also don't recommend adding your thoughts until you have read at least 3 pages in because it takes that much to get the flavor of the thing. (It is one of our many fantasy vs. accurate garb discussions, although it is one of the better ones from my reading.)

Wait... Let me repeat that for the overeager and impatient... I don't recommend responding until you have read at least 3 pages into the thread. Otherwise you may end up sounding rather stupid. And nobody wants that. (Mostly.) If you're not patient enough to read that far in, I suggest you skip this entire thread!

Oh, and in case you don't make it this far, this is almost prose poetry:

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)

(It would actually be poetry, if Foxe hadn't indulged in a little contemporary Simpsons joke. )

[Fox]

Aaw shucks

Wait... are you saying that it's six years since I wrote anything worth quoting?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

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.

I find interesting that in Gaop both English navy and army had reddish outfits....

I think that reenactors (if they want to be accurate) should look much like sailors. But few can well have nicer clothing but then it should be casual and that kind of clothing that could get in pirates hands like fine coats (evidence) wigs or nice hats but not odd stuff like riding boots.

Truth is some where in the middle of "pirates always looked just like sailors" and "pirates were dashing rogues". There is some evidence To support both visions (GHoP, Snelgrave, Labat etc.) but I think the guess that they looked more like sailors is more closer

Edited April 11, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Hawkyns]

Thanks for rebooting this thread, Mission. It's one we should all reread from time to time.

Hawkyns

[Mission]

Aaw shucks

Wait... are you saying that it's six years since I wrote anything worth quoting?

Exactly.

No, I just think it summarizes the whole debate well without a lot of "In order to play pirate properly you must..." type statements. Plus it emphasizes the seaman aspect which makes logical sense. And it says, if you want to present yourself as being correct, consider these things.

[Mission]

Thanks for rebooting this thread, Mission. It's one we should all reread from time to time.

Hawkyns

This is actually the first time I have sat down and read the whole thing. It was a good, spirited discussion. And I thought your moderation was spot on, sir. There when needed, but not so heavy it killed the discussion.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Thanks for rebooting this thread, Mission. It's one we should all reread from time to time.

Hawkyns

This is actually the first time I have sat down and read the whole thing. It was a good, spirited discussion. And I thought your moderation was spot on, sir. There when needed, but not so heavy it killed the discussion.

But has anyone anything new to say? since there is pretty much same evidence as always and it is all matter how you/ we interpret it. like how much we think that stuff like Snelgrave's coat affair or Labat's writings of pirates can be applied to casual pirate look. I personally think that mainly pirates looked like sailors but there could have been and was exceptions like situations like shore parties or people like Bonnet or Roberts..

Edited April 11, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Thanks for rebooting this thread, Mission. It's one we should all reread from time to time.

Hawkyns

This is actually the first time I have sat down and read the whole thing. It was a good, spirited discussion. And I thought your moderation was spot on, sir. There when needed, but not so heavy it killed the discussion.

But has anyone anything new to say? since there is pretty much same evidence as always and it is all matter how you/ we interpret it.

"Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size." -John of Salisbury, 1159

[William Brand]


But has anyone anything new to say?


Aye, but themes from this thread are oft repeated.

This thread answers so many questions that are asked again and again, but where Twill is concerned, we tend to agree that the basic sailor is the least arguable in any debate over interpretation. If you have basic sailor kit then you're accurate for historical Interpretation and acceptable for all other interpretations. Also, there were more sailors than captains, so the basic seaman discussion answers the 'Too Many Captains' issue which has come up again and again. The basic sailor interpretation also becomes the answer to such questions as 'Where do I start?', 'What kit should I focus on?', 'What did they wear?', 'How did they live?', 'How were they paid?', and so many other questions like footwear, head gear, shirts, weapons, etc. Focus on exotic additions and interpretation can sometimes paint over the basic little things like sewing palms, fids, sailor's knives, monmouth caps, and every other simple thing a working man would keep aboard ship.

[Swashbuckler 1700]


But has anyone anything new to say?


Aye, but themes from this thread are oft repeated.

This thread answers so many questions that are asked again and again, but where Twill is concerned, we tend to agree that the basic sailor is the least arguable in any debate over interpretation. If you have basic sailor kit then you're accurate for historical Interpretation and acceptable for all other interpretations. Also, there were more sailors than captains, so the basic seaman discussion answers the 'Too Many Captains' issue which has come up again and again. The basic sailor interpretation also becomes the answer to such questions as 'Where do I start?', 'What kit should I focus on?', 'What did they wear?', 'How did they live?', 'How were they paid?', and so many other questions like footwear, head gear, shirts, weapons, etc. Focus on exotic additions and interpretation can sometimes paint over the basic little things like sewing palms, fids, sailor's knives, monmouth caps, and every other simple thing a working man would keep aboard ship.

(I am not actual reenactor but) I think that we should advertise sailor clothing as pirate clothing since it is at least accurate. But occasionally finery can be used if it makes even little sense like in shore... For starters I would say sailor's cap, breeches and jacket and for captain small/ medium brim hat( not musketeer style) or occasional tricorn with jacket or coat and small tied shoes or buckled ones to all who use shoes..... But those are just my thoughts

Edited April 11, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[William Brand]

(I am not actual reenactor but) I think that we should advertise sailor clothing as pirate clothing since it is at least accurate. But occasionally finery can be used if it makes even little sense like in shore... For starters I would say sailor's cap, breeches and jacket and for captain small/ medium brim hat( not musketeer style) or occasional tricorn with jacket or coat and small tied shoes or buckled ones to all who use shoes..... But those are just my thoughts

I agree. A foundation of the basic clothing. Occasional finery 'ashore'.

[Mission]

it is all matter how you/ we interpret it. like how much we think that stuff like Snelgrave's coat affair or Labat's writings of pirates can be applied to casual pirate look. I personally think that mainly pirates looked like sailors but there could have been and was exceptions like situations like shore parties or people like Bonnet or Roberts..

You talk like it's a foregone conclusion that a new reenactor would start with basic sailor garb. Having watched many new pirate reenactors appear at events, I can tell you that that's not what many of them start off thinking. Even 'serious' reenactors sometimes start with long jackets with brass buttons and piping, tricorns with feathers, ornate trim and so forth. Why shouldn't they?

Even period drawings from the general history show this sort of thing. Like the ones below (many of which have been recently posted on this forum):

Bart Roberts (hand colored in gaudy tones)

Edward Teach/Blackbeard:

Henry Every/Avery

Stede Bonnet

Jack Rackham

I just found it interesting that in this thread the idea of dressing like a common sailor seemed almost a bit novel when it first came up. (Although it had been mentioned on this forum before that, just never debated on this scale from what I can tell.) It was neat insight into how the conversation has developed over time and it raises points we discuss even still.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

it is all matter how you/ we interpret it. like how much we think that stuff like Snelgrave's coat affair or Labat's writings of pirates can be applied to casual pirate look. I personally think that mainly pirates looked like sailors but there could have been and was exceptions like situations like shore parties or people like Bonnet or Roberts..

You talk like it's a foregone conclusion that a new reenactor would start with basic sailor garb. Having watched many new pirate reenactors appear at events, I can tell you that that's not what many of them start off thinking. Even 'serious' reenactors sometimes start with long jackets with brass buttons and piping, tricorns with feathers, ornate trim and so forth. Why shouldn't they?

Even period drawings from the general history show this sort of thing. Like the ones below (many of which have been recently posted on this forum):

Bart Roberts (hand colored in gaudy tones)

Edward Teach/Blackbeard:

Henry Every/Avery

Stede Bonnet

Jack Rackham

I just found it interesting that in this thread the idea of dressing like a common sailor seemed almost a bit novel when it first came up. (Although it had been mentioned on this forum before that, just never debated on this scale from what I can tell.) It was neat insight into how the conversation has developed over time and it raises points we discuss even still.

I know that many persons don’t give any regard to Ghop or its illustrations. I don’t like that and I think that they are not so bad at all. For example one new book “Pirate the Golden Age” made by Angus Constam and David Rickman railed against those GHoP pictures as bad and “too imaginative”. While it is possible there are little or little bigger errors here and there (since picture maker had not seen those persons) but to me it seems really absurd that all or even most of the stuff in those pictures is false and incorrect. Since I cannot agree with those critics I don’t mock those images as bad evidence and that is one reason why I boycott that book and its too harsh arguments.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I am not saying that all pirates used fine clothing often but it seems that it happened occasionally

Here is some period description of pirates

I have found these from here (forums) or from books and good websites and they should all be real and there is no dougth of it.

From The Memoirs of Pére Labat 1693-1705

“[Filibuster] Daniel kept the most valuable portions of the cargo [of an shipwrecked English vessel], such as silver, gold fringes, brocades, ribbons, Indian silks, etc., etc., for his own ship, not counting loot that the crew had taken for themselves. The men dressed themselves up in all kinds of fine clothes, and were a comical sight as they strutted about the island [Avis Island, to the leeward of Dominica according to the ms.] in feathered hats, wigs, silk

__

stockings, ribbons, and other garments. They discovered [learned] from the slaves that some cases of valuables and silver had been buried [by the English crew of the wrecked ship], so an inventory of all the cargo that had been found was shown to the supercargo [the person hired by the ship’s owner to manage, buy, trade and sell the merchandise on the ship] of the wreck and compared with his bills of lading. The two lists showed that many valuable articles were missing, and our quartermaster told him that if the lost goods were not found at once that filibusters knew the way to make him open his mouth. Fear made him disclose everything.”

one victim of pirates in 1720s described what happened when pirates found his wig:

"I could not refrain laughing when I saw the fellows, for they had, in rummaging my cabin, met with a leather powder bag and puff, with which they had powdered themselves from head to foot, walked the decks with their hats under their arms, minced their oaths, and affected all the airs of a beau with an awkwardness that would have forced a smile from a cynic."

Captain Samuel Cary's ship, the Samuel, is 13 July 1720, the Boston Newsletter Reported That "[t], they first thing the Pirates did was Thurs strip Both Passengers and Seamen of All Their Money and clothes ... with a loaded pistol to every one's breast ready to shoot him down Immediately to the WHO did not give an account of Both, and Resign Them up. "(Sanders, 113) In 1721, a pirate appropriated all the clothes of John Wingfield, the Royal African Company factor aboard the Hannibal, and for a week paraded in front of the factor in all his finery purloined.

A passenger, who sailed aboard a vessel seized by Captain Low, submitted an advertisement to the Boston Newsletter, published in the 18-25 June 1722 issue, that listed a variety of garments the pirates took:

…one scarlet suit of Clothes, one new gray Broad Cloth Coat, 1 Sword, with a fine red Velvet Belt…nine Bags of Coat and Jacket Buttons, a considerable quantity of sewing Silk and Mohair, Shoe Buckles…one Scarff of Red Persian Silk, fringed with black Silk…one Beaver Hat bound with Silver Lace… (British, v. 1, 287)

This is by Snelgave:

" Amongst my Adventure of Goods, I had in a Box three second-hand embroidered Coats. One day the three Pirate Captains…enquired for them, saying, “They understood by my Book such Clothes were in my Ship.” I told them, “They were in a Box under the bed place in the State-room. So they ordered them to be taken out, and immediately put them on.” But the longest Coat falling to Cocklyn’s share, who was a very short Man, it almost reached as low as his Ancles. This very much displeased him, and he would fain have changed with Le Boofe, or Davis: But they refused, telling him, “As they were going on Shore amongst the Negroe-Ladies, who did not know the white Mens fashions, it was no matter. Moreover, as his Coat was Scarlet embroidered with Silver, they believed he would have the preference of them, (whose Coats were not so showy) in the opinion of their Mistresses.

The Pirate Captains having taken these Cloaths without leave from the Quarter-master, it gave great offence to all the Crew; who alledg’d, “If they suffered such things, the Captains would for the future assume a Power, to take whatever they liked for themselves.” So upon their returning on board next Morning, the Coats were taken from them, and put into the common Chest, to be sold at the Mast"

This is new addition

When HMS Swallow’s surgeon boarded Roberts’ Ranger to tend the wounded he found the villains dressed in “white shirts, watches, and a deal of silk vests.”

Edited April 12, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Yeah, but Labat's and John Evan's (the "powder puff") accounts appear to be pirates making fun of people or putting on airs, not dressing normally. It sort of sound like you're using exceptions to try and define a rule. As for the items the pirates stole which the victim advertised for, you can't say what became of them. Were they worn? Were they sold or traded? Were they thrown over the side? We don't know. The most logical conclusion to me would be that they would be sold, which seems to agree with another comment (which I believe is earlier in this thread) about pirates stealing finery to sell and wearing practical clothing shipboard. Snelgrave's coat thing was also discussed at length in this thread (as well as in one of the threads you started) as being improper enough (and thus out-of-the-ordinary) that the men demanded that the pirate captains return them.

As for my re-posting of the pirate captain illustratrations, my point was actually in agreement with your own that I quoted, where you said "I personally think that mainly pirates looked like sailors but there could have been and was exceptions..." I was trying to show that it follows that most pirates looked more like sailors than captains, although some new reenactors could find such images and design their apparel around them thinking it was accurate. Which it might be, depending on their portrayal.

That's why this is always a timely thread in its way - if everyone follows this example, we end up with an event filled with many captains and few sailors. This is not a very good representation of the period. It kind of reminds me of Kass's comment in a related thread that "...if you're a reenactor, you're not one person -- you're a group of people. If that group consists of ten guys in frock coats and no one in common man's dress, then nine of the ten guys in frock coats have to take them off and change into lower class gear because no ship had all officers and no common seamen." (Although I don't think anyone doing this has to do anything. We are all just playing, after all. It would probably be stated that they should take off their frock coats because it would make a whole lot more sense if they did that.)

[IvanHenry]

"We are all just playing" - sometimes that is the case, but when there is an educational element involved, it is my opinion that authenticity and an effort to conform to known norms is important. That said, you usually see me in a frock coat of some sort. :-)

[Fox]

But has anyone anything new to say? since there is pretty much same evidence as always and it is all matter how you/ we interpret it.

Oh I dunno, I know that I have uncovered (and mostly shared) a great deal of evidence, both about pirates' clothing specifically and seamen's clothing in general, than was available in 2006. And I'm not the only one, by any means.

By and large it confirms our earlier thoughts, there's nothing wildly contradictory except for the solitary source showing a pirate in possession of a pair of riding boots, but the more evidence that can be brought to bear the more reliable our impression of "what pirates wore" becomes.

[Mission]

"We are all just playing" - sometimes that is the case, but when there is an educational element involved, it is my opinion that authenticity and an effort to conform to known norms is important. That said, you usually see me in a frock coat of some sort. :-)

So do you have to be the one and the other nine the frock coat removers?

I only wear my coat when it's cold. I don't think it's a frock coat, though, it's something Michael made that a period surgeon would likely have worn. (I think.) The way Michael explained my character's outfit, I understand he would often only wear the waistcoat over a shirt. (Again, I think.)

My blue coat:

[Cascabel]

I don't think anybody is suggesting that pirates wore fancy hats and coats, etc. while working aboard ship. I expect that when going ashore to frolic with the ladies that pirates would make an effort to look more presentable and perhaps even impressive if they had the means.

Re-enactors at events are not necessarily trying to portray pirates in their working clothes aboard ship, but pirates ashore in whatever "better" garb they could come up with. However, I think an over-all scruffy appearance is good, even when dressed in nicer clothing.

>>>>> Cascabel

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Yeah, but Labat's and John Evan's (the "powder puff") accounts appear to be pirates making fun of people or putting on airs, not dressing normally. It sort of sound like you're using exceptions to try and define a rule. As for the items the pirates stole which the victim advertised for, you can't say what became of them. Were they worn? Were they sold or traded? Were they thrown over the side? We don't know. The most logical conclusion to me would be that they would be sold, which seems to agree with another comment (which I believe is earlier in this thread) about pirates stealing finery to sell and wearing practical clothing shipboard. Snelgrave's coat thing was also discussed at length in this thread (as well as in one of the threads you started) as being improper enough (and thus out-of-the-ordinary) that the men demanded that the pirate captains return them.

As for my re-posting of the pirate captain illustratrations, my point was actually in agreement with your own that I quoted, where you said "I personally think that mainly pirates looked like sailors but there could have been and was exceptions..." I was trying to show that it follows that most pirates looked more like sailors than captains, although some new reenactors could find such images and design their apparel around them thinking it was accurate. Which it might be, depending on their portrayal.

That's why this is always a timely thread in its way - if everyone follows this example, we end up with an event filled with many captains and few sailors. This is not a very good representation of the period. It kind of reminds me of Kass's comment in a related thread that "...if you're a reenactor, you're not one person -- you're a group of people. If that group consists of ten guys in frock coats and no one in common man's dress, then nine of the ten guys in frock coats have to take them off and change into lower class gear because no ship had all officers and no common seamen." (Although I don't think anyone doing this has to do anything. We are all just playing, after all. It would probably be stated that they should take off their frock coats because it would make a whole lot more sense if they did that.)

I just wanted to show that pirates could get their hands on finery. I agree and I am not defending too dashing pirate image.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

But has anyone anything new to say? since there is pretty much same evidence as always and it is all matter how you/ we interpret it.

Oh I dunno, I know that I have uncovered (and mostly shared) a great deal of evidence, both about pirates' clothing specifically and seamen's clothing in general, than was available in 2006. And I'm not the only one, by any means.

By and large it confirms our earlier thoughts, there's nothing wildly contradictory except for the solitary source showing a pirate in possession of a pair of riding boots, but the more evidence that can be brought to bear the more reliable our impression of "what pirates wore" becomes.

My thoughts are still the same but I wanted to say that occasional( it is a kinda magic word ) finery could be used but I am not putting together rule that pirates were dashing out of those quotes. If I would need to say did pirates looked like sailors or gentleman and I could not chose nothing between those opportunities I would say of course that pirates looked much more like sailors. I am not changed my opinions. I hope you understand what I mean .Things are not so simple.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I don't think anybody is suggesting that pirates wore fancy hats and coats, etc. while working aboard ship. I expect that when going ashore to frolic with the ladies that pirates would make an effort to look more presentable and perhaps even impressive if they had the means.

Re-enactors at events are not necessarily trying to portray pirates in their working clothes aboard ship, but pirates ashore in whatever "better" garb they could come up with. However, I think an over-all scruffy appearance is good, even when dressed in nicer clothing.

>>>>> Cascabel

( Foxe Don't hang me for triple posting) I agree totaly that reminds that coat affair that happened or Labat's writings.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Yeah, but Labat's and John Evan's (the "powder puff") accounts appear to be pirates making fun of people or putting on airs, not dressing normally. It sort of sound like you're using exceptions to try and define a rule. As for the items the pirates stole which the victim advertised for, you can't say what became of them. Were they worn? Were they sold or traded? Were they thrown over the side? We don't know. The most logical conclusion to me would be that they would be sold, which seems to agree with another comment (which I believe is earlier in this thread) about pirates stealing finery to sell and wearing practical clothing shipboard. Snelgrave's coat thing was also discussed at length in this thread (as well as in one of the threads you started) as being improper enough (and thus out-of-the-ordinary) that the men demanded that the pirate captains return them.

As for my re-posting of the pirate captain illustratrations, my point was actually in agreement with your own that I quoted, where you said "I personally think that mainly pirates looked like sailors but there could have been and was exceptions..." I was trying to show that it follows that most pirates looked more like sailors than captains, although some new reenactors could find such images and design their apparel around them thinking it was accurate. Which it might be, depending on their portrayal.

That's why this is always a timely thread in its way - if everyone follows this example, we end up with an event filled with many captains and few sailors. This is not a very good representation of the period. It kind of reminds me of Kass's comment in a related thread that "...if you're a reenactor, you're not one person -- you're a group of people. If that group consists of ten guys in frock coats and no one in common man's dress, then nine of the ten guys in frock coats have to take them off and change into lower class gear because no ship had all officers and no common seamen." (Although I don't think anyone doing this has to do anything. We are all just playing, after all. It would probably be stated that they should take off their frock coats because it would make a whole lot more sense if they did that.)

Snelgrave's coat was sold before the mast and that means that some of the crew could buy it (and use it ). But if finery was always sold why not just sell them and then share money? But what these pirates did they sold them to own crew and why did captains stole them Since they wanted to impress the ladies. Reason why crew did not want captains having them is that they violated the rules since "The Pirate Captains having taken these Cloaths without leave from the Quarter-master" so there was no " captains can't have nice coats" rule but captains stole them because they did not want to buy them from purser or quartet-master. Say if was wrong ( you can always do that )

At the end I repeat my view of pirate look "I personally think that pirates looked mainly like sailors but there could have been and was some exceptions "

I think that 70- 90 % of reenactors should use sailor's clothing and not big coats etc etc to be accurate...

See also my art there is visible how I see real pirate clothing (link is in my signature )

Edited April 12, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

"We are all just playing" - sometimes that is the case, but when there is an educational element involved, it is my opinion that authenticity and an effort to conform to known norms is important. That said, you usually see me in a frock coat of some sort. :-)

So do you have to be the one and the other nine the frock coat removers?

I only wear my coat when it's cold. I don't think it's a frock coat, though, it's something Michael made that a period surgeon would likely have worn. (I think.) The way Michael explained my character's outfit, I understand he would often only wear the waistcoat over a shirt. (Again, I think.)

My blue coat:

Don’t take this too serious

For being 100% authentic reenactors should use clothing that looks like it has been worn ( u know what I mean not ragged but perhaps little worn and patched) they also should smell like: fish, tar, sweat, gunpowder, booze, tobacco etc and have bad hygiene and some should have scurvy and who knows what diseases .

Edited April 13, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

But has anyone anything new to say? since there is pretty much same evidence as always and it is all matter how you/ we interpret it.

Oh I dunno, I know that I have uncovered (and mostly shared) a great deal of evidence, both about pirates' clothing specifically and seamen's clothing in general, than was available in 2006. And I'm not the only one, by any means.

By and large it confirms our earlier thoughts, there's nothing wildly contradictory except for the solitary source showing a pirate in possession of a pair of riding boots, but the more evidence that can be brought to bear the more reliable our impression of "what pirates wore" becomes.

Could you share some of those evidence that you have not shared yet? please? But if it is hard let it be.

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.

To me it seems that writer wanted to believe that it is possible to get a lot of information out of solitary source. But is just a opinion so nothing to complain....

To give some constructive criticism ( you can give it to me also ) to people I feel that Gentleman of fortune site exaggerates (but only a little) popularity of slop clothing as well as one new pirate book that I don't care to mention anymore...

Edited May 2, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700