But I stole 'em from a...

[Fox]

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

I'm not deliberately witholding anything relating to clothing, but there's so much of it I can't recall what I've posted and what I haven't, let alone what's been posted by other people. I have dozens of probate inventories, for example, but I haven't a clue which ones I've transcribed for the forum.

So I'm happy to share the info when it's relevant to a question or point that's been raised, but I couldn't possibly post everything I haven't already shared, even if I wanted to.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Since this was the easiest clothing topic to find I post one thing here:

This is from Scourge of the Seas - Buccaneers, Pirates and Privateers made by Angust Konstam

I AM NOT USING THIS AS A SOURCE OR ANYTHING BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHARE CONSTAM'S OLD PIRATE CLOTHING VISIONS until he got influenced by one Rickman named guy ( who changed his visions more accurate but still Konstam's newest book is far from perfect but it is less bad that this book which btw had even more inaccurate illustrations that what H. Pyle had ever made)

Still in this text there is no wery big errors.

DRESS

Pirates were seamen, and their appearance was the same as·that of other seamen of

the early 18th ~century. While 'landsmen' of the period wore knee breeches,

stockings, sleeved or sleeveless waistcoats and long coats, seamen wore their own

distinctive attire. Short jackets Cfearnoughts') were popular, often cut from a heavy

blue or grey cloth, and in bad weather heavier canvas coats were sometimes worn.

Some illustrations show sailors of the period wearing a form of waistcoat (red or

blue), either sleeved or sleeveless. Shirts were either plain linen or checked, frequently

in blue and white. Knee breeches were replaced by canvas trousers or 'petticoat

breeches', cut a few inches above the ankle, resembling the culottes of the French

Revolution. These were reportedly cut from a 'heavy, rough red nap'. Both forms of

trousers were sometimes coated in a thin layer of tar as protection against water.

Shoes were often discarded altogether on board ship, although a pair would be

reserved for visits ashore. If stockings were worn, grey wool was the usual form for

seamen of the day. A neck scarfwas commonly worn, reflecting a style common with

labourers on land during the early 18th century. Headgear consisted of either a

knotted scarf, a tricorne hat, a woollen 'Monmouth' cap, or a form of foul--weather hat

resembling a 17th--century 'montero' cap. Headgear was of vital importance as

protection against the sun in the Caribbean or off the African or Indian coasts.

As well as plundering the cargo of a captured vessel, pirates would also take

clothing, retaining what suited them either to wear at sea or as a suit of shore--going

finery. There are records of pirates facing execution wearing velvet jackets, breeches

of taffeta, silk shirts and stockings, and fine felt tricornes. These were probably taken

from captives or made from plundered materials. Even in the austere navy of the time,

sailors retained well--kept clothes to wear when in port. It appears from several

accounts that many pirates also wore their finery when they were at sea.

Pirate captains frequently adopted the dress worn by successful merchants,

giving the wearer the appearance of a gentleman. This meant wearing breeches, a

waistcoat and a long outer coat. Both contemporary accounts and later

illustrations support the evidence for the adoption of this gentlemanly persona.

One pirate captain based on Madagascar was described in 1716 as 'dressed in a

short coat, with broad plate buttons, and other things agreeable, but without

shoes or stockings'. The leader in piratical elegance was Bartholomew Roberts,

who, according to Johnson and contemporary accounts by his crew, 'dressed in a

rich crimson damask waistcoat and breeches, a red feather in his hat, a gold chain

round his neck, with a diamond cross hanging to it'....

Edited May 14, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

...until he got influenced by one Rickman named guy ( who changed his visions more accurate but still Konstam's newest book is far from perfect ...

That would be David Rickman, artist and clothing historian who, whether you agree with his conclusions or not, has certainly done more original research into pirate (and other historical) clothing that all but a few other people, and who thus probably deserves to be called by his proper name.

And when you say "far from perfect", I presume that what you actually mean is that it doesn't accord with your own opinions - which is not the same thing at all. I don't agree with all of the interpretations on the Konstam/Rickman book, not by a long way, but I struggle to find anything proveably 'wrong' with the stuff I've seen.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Indeed he is quite right and I am not mocking him. Like I said new book is more accurate that that so it is step to the better.

I am perfectionist....

I think that the newest book made by those gentlemen is the most accurate one made yet so little compliments to them..

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I repeat that I have nothing against David Rickman or his works but I don't agree with him in few small things (like trump caps and blue clothing etc.)

[Fox]

Being a perfectionist is fine and laudable, but any interpretation of 'what pirates wore', including Rickman's, mine, and (believe it or not) even yours, can only ever be an interpretation, so it's impossible to say what is 'perfect'.

Just because you (or I) don't agree with him, doesn't make him wrong.

(Please don't take offence, I suspect a big problem here is the language barrier, but the number and tone of your posts relating Rickman's work come across as very disparaging and unnecessarily critical.)

[Mission]

I would argue that being a perfectionist will just set you up to fail as badly as you think others have failed. Perfection requires precision which requires rigidity. That will not work with something as messy and contradictory as history. I've seen nearly every 'expert' on this forum who has stuck around for awhile come to entirely new understandings of this period that were at odds with their previous beliefs based on a random quote, image or remnant from history. (Myself included.)

I think I learned the most about how little we understand history on the granular level (where clothing styles reside) from Michael Crichton's fictional books Jurassic Park and (even better) Timeline. Not the movie Timeline - which is a complete waste of time and celluloid - nor the movie Jurassic Park - which is mostly just a nice fun house ride - but the books. They have nuances the movies necessarily left out.

To think that we can understand history fully is nothing but proud arrogance. And we all what pride goeth before...

[Swashbuckler 1700]

(Please don't take offence, I suspect a big problem here is the language barrier, but the number and tone of your posts relating Rickman's work come across as very disparaging and unnecessarily critical.)

I don't

Indeed you are correct sorry for that. But I am just irritated since that book has got in many to good reviews that I think that it need some critisims as well.

The Book is much more true than false.

Yes I have made too many complain messages about it....

Well to be honest " Four eyed Davy" in pirate forums "ruined" my summer of 2011 and I spent best parts of my holiday to prove him wrong since he had some odd opinions that did not suited to me and I in that time took everyting too seriously. That was true but no real accusation towards him. That was actually the starting point to my more deeper pirate study since before that I trusted many writers like Gordingly without criticism but I have spent circa 10 years of my short life to pirate study ( I have done other things too of course and really deebly it has been only a year) and eventually I asked Foxe about many ( too many ) things and joined here. So that I am here to irritate or to delight you is Davids fault or merit.

who thus probably deserves to be called by his proper name.

But I hate calling people with all their names and I don't take that as impolite way.

It seems that where ever I go and what ever I do I get misunderstood. Since it happens so freguetly reason is mine and not the others.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

But I hate calling people with all their names and I don't take that as impolite way.

It seems that where ever I go and what ever I do I get misunderstood. Since it happens so freguetly reason is mine and not the others.

As I said, I think we all recognise the difficulties of the language barrier and I for one applaud your English. I don't imagine any of the English speakers on this forum speak Finnish half so well as you speak English. Misunderstandings can therefore be overlooked. So, here is a genuinely intended tip:

In English, to refer to someone as 'that Rickman guy', or something similar (which I notice you have done more than once) comes across as very dismissive, as though you think he's worthless. I'm sure that that was not your intention, but that's how it is likely to be read. To call someone by their full name, or just their surname, is simply polite and respectful.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

But I hate calling people with all their names and I don't take that as impolite way.

It seems that where ever I go and what ever I do I get misunderstood. Since it happens so freguetly reason is mine and not the others.

As I said, I think we all recognise the difficulties of the language barrier and I for one applaud your English. I don't imagine any of the English speakers on this forum speak Finnish half so well as you speak English. Misunderstandings can therefore be overlooked. So, here is a genuinely intended tip:

In English, to refer to someone as 'that Rickman guy', or something similar (which I notice you have done more than once) comes across as very dismissive, as though you think he's worthless. I'm sure that that was not your intention, but that's how it is likely to be read. To call someone by their full name, or just their surname, is simply polite and respectful.

ok

He is not worthless ( at least no more that I am) but while he has made good and deep study I don't think that he is too good book maker. After all the "Pirate the Golden age feels more like a lecture of that what H. Pyle has made wrong in his pictures and not a serious pirate book. While I am only average (or below that) artist myself I think that G. Rava (who made illustrations to "pirate the gaop book) is not at his bets when describing the pirate era.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

New book is better that this old

So many errors or (I would say that the "sample" of five pirates is wrong )....

This is better I HAVE POSTED IT MANY TIMES I KNOW I KNOW

in this picture the only thing what I don't agree is that the bottle is not green glass. Tricorn on the captain's head would be accurate enough but the fur hat is perhaps even more accurate. Leather cap is odd but perhaps accurate.

Let us stop this is silly converstion it is just a one book and writer and I have nothig against neither. I actually think that illustration in it are good I would say bit naturalistic but good.

I hope no one hurt or I did not embarrassed myself too badly.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Tartan Jack]

As this thread just keeps going . . .

I'll toss in this one observation:

By reading the sources and the modern interpretations of them, I get the impression that pirates looked something like Americans at Highland games- meaning that they wore an odd hodge-podge of socio-economic garment styles at the same time. I see guys in kilts, "Prince Charlie" jackets (a kilt tails-tux jacket) with hiking boots and a t-shirt and a (non-uasable) plank-fur sporran. It is an odd mixture of styles that would work perfectly fine on their own, and each with a VERY appropriate situation. The hiking boots, simple, usable sporran, and t-shirt are perfectly at home at the games, while a tux-level "Prince Charlie" garb is a bit "overdressed"- basically someone wearing a tux to a baseball or football game. Yet, at a formal dinner (as often proceeds or follows the games), the tux-type garb is PERFECT, while the hiking boots are rather underdressed for the occasion.

How that impact pirates is this: I have a feeling that they would wear a mix of worn "seaman" garb with the finery all mixed together and rather at stylistic odds. If I ever get a "nice coat," I plan to wear it with my blood-stained slops (real blood thanks to the hand-cut at Paynestown a couple years ago) . . . just for kicks- or some other mixed style.

I do think they would purposefully "up their wardrobe" when given the chance, but probably would do so like a "red neck at New York society gathering" (you get the idea, and remember I like where "red neck" is a common and "good" thing)- some ODD mix of jeans, t-shirt, diamonds, pearls, and some very expensive jacket/dress.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

This practically period pic shows that seamen alike would brag if he could afford