Fashion Conjecture

[Jib]

First let me state, this is not to justify grab at the faire, my pirate kit, or the reasons why pirate fans wear what they do. No justification, just a question/ idea.

Background: I'm watching "Napoleon Dynamite" and I say to my sister-in-law, "Wow this movie is set in the 1980's. Listen to the music and look at the fashion." She replies, "Nope it is supposed to be current. It just shows how certain parts of the USA haven't caught up with today."

I don't know how well this translates in Europe but we have folks today who still wear "mullets" and acid wash jeans. They believe they are at the height of fashion. In my beloved MN we often see them at the State Fair or watching Nascar. Big hair on women is still the norm in certain parts of the States and is worn with pride. While growing up in the Midwest in the 70's and 80's I knew a fellow who still put grease in his hair like he did in the 50"s (and his son did too!)

Now let's turn the clock back to the time frame we all know and love. Imagine a small island with a tiny plantation. A place where contact from Europe or the rest of the colonies is limited. Wouldn't it seem possible that they would wear older fashions or often out dated styles? Couldn't we concieve that time might pass these people by and they cobble together a style from an ealier time and wear it proudly? Maybe they even used out dated weapons and techniques? A place where local artists might not document the fashion (or is it possible that this type of documentation is only doe in large population centers)???

Time and distance. Rural vs. Urban. Isolation vs. contact. Parts of the world might have had different styles based on location and less on time frame.

Oh and did I mention that this has nothing to do with the justication of my kit or any one elses? It's a conjecture open to debate. I request your historical replies...

[Patrick Hand]

You also left out "class".... poorer people wore what they could afford, not what was the height of fashion... Not all, but a lot of the pictorial references show the upper class...

[Hawkyns]

This is not conjecture, it is fact. The colonies, especially in the early to middle 17th C would see one or two ships a year, if that. Whatever was on those trading or supply ships was what they had to make do with, so if there was a large amount of one type of cloth, a lot of the members of the colony would be wearing similar clothing. When clothing was worn or torn, it would be recut, reused, shortened and passed on, etc. Clothing was frequently mentioned in probate records as being passed down.

Even in London and other continental cities, you had the fripperers, used clothing sellers. Fashion would start at fashionable society levels and work it's way down as it passed to the maids and servants, the lower servants, and finally to the labourers.

So yes, finding clothing 20 or 30 years behind the fashion would not be such a stretch at all.

An excellent book on this is "Great Reclothing of Rural England"

by Margaret Spufford, Oxbow Books

Hawkyns

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

I read in one of my colonial history books that fashion trends spread faster here in the colonies than they did in Europe due to the heavy traffic of goods shipped here for trade from all over. I will try to find that passage to pass on for proving that statement. A good evening project for me.

Capt. Bo

[Hawkyns]

I read in one of my colonial history books that fashion trends spread faster here in the colonies than they did in Europe due to the heavy traffic of goods shipped here for trade from all over. I will try to find that passage to pass on for proving that statement. A good evening project for me.

Capt. Bo

I would be very date specific on that. My post, as I said, reflected the early to mid 17th c, say 1620-1670/80. I would think that what you are reading would apply more to the 1750's on, when there was a massive amount of trade. I will be very interested to see if your source gives specific dates.

Hawkyns

[Fox]

Fashion is very much a two edged sword. On the one hand you've got what's in fashion, and on the other you've got what's the fashion. The two are sometimes, but not always the same.

Certainly styles linger, perhaps more in isolated communities like island colonies. Only the community leaders, if anyone, would have had access to the latest trends, and it would not be surprising to find people wearing clothes that were some years behind the times. To a certain extent it depends perhaps on who the people are. Hawkyns mentioned class as one factor, another would also be age - the young tend to adopt fashions more quickly than the old.

There is however a natural limit to how lonf fashions can last beyond their time, determined by the life-expectancy of an item. Clothes, in general, cannot reasonably be expected to last much more than, say 30 years or so (yes, I know, we've all got clothes older than that, but generally that's a reasonable estimate I think) perhaps less in a more manual community. Shoes and footwear might last a little longer, but even so they will wear out (shoes are perhaps tougher than clothes, but their treatment is much harsher).

Some things work the other way. For example, archaeology suggests that during the early Colonial period in America the flintlock was comparatively more popular than it was in Europe. Probably this was because it was a much more essential tool in the new frontiers than in the Old World, and the early settlers naturally wanted the best they could get.

[JoshuaRed]

This is a very interesting idea, Jib. It's crossed my mind, but I haven't given it too much thought until now. While I'd say it's very feasible that an isolated rural island community might be far outdated in the fashion sense, I also can't see clothes even lasting long enough to be that out of date in the hard working lower class, of which sailors were a large part. Factor in the salt spray, the sun, the wear and tear, I'd be willing to bet a seamen's wardrobe would be the shortest lived of all except maybe miners.

But I DEFINITELY know what you're saying about certain pockets of American society being woefully behind, and seemingly oblivous to it. I grew up in rural coastal Maine, so I know first hand. It would be very interesting to find some period reference to this phenom.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Absolutely true Mr. Hawkyns. It was towards the end of the Seven Years War that the passage I remembered was referring to. I mistakenly placed it earlier in my feeble memory. It was a reference in the Philedelphia news of 1760 from one of my Eckert books. Sorry for the momentary lapse of memory.

Capt. Bo

[Daniel]

Working clothing might wear out fast, but clothes purchased as Sunday best might last quite a while, both because they were worn rarely and because they were subjected to less strenuous conditions. That's just inference, though; I have no source.

Granted, not everybody could afford a spare set of "Sunday best" duds, but apparently sailors could afford special clothes to go ashore in, and sailors were only marginally richer than the average workman.

[Fox]

The interesting thing about sailors' fashion particularly is that much of it really didn't change all that much. Certain things did for sure, but the general style remained more or less the same for several decades.

Compare these two pictures for example:

The seaman standing up in the first picture (1642) and the seaman on the right of the second picture (1736) are wearing basically the same clothes. By the second picture the doublet has been replaced by a waistcoat, and the hats are different, but the basic outfit of coat, breeches, neckcloth, shoes, and stockings has changed very little in almost a century. Sure, there are fine differences, partially I expect because of the different styles of drawing, but if we look at the basic garments they are more or less the same. It is not that the figure in the second picture is wearing old clothes, it is that certain garments are just very practical and so enjoy a long time in vogue.

The introduction of trousers in the very early years of the 18thC was certainly one big change, and the more "civilian" items changed with the fashion (hats, waistcoats etc), but even in the second picture the guy stood behind the captain is wearing a very similar cap to the seaman in the first picture.

It would be possible of course to show two pictures of wildly different seamen's clothing from the same two periods, but that would only serve to accentuate the similarites as well as the differences.

[Jib]

What about cobbled together clothes? As you all mentioned clothes do fall apart but people of that time period didn't throw much out. I know they often made felt of ruined cloth. Re pairing garments over and over is possible too?

So conjecture might show us that you could find "bits" of English Civil War era garb being worn by the poor, old, and the very rural at the time of the Restoration?

No motive here, just a question.

[Fox]

At the time of the Restoration certainly there would have been bits of ECW era clothing kicking around, not necessarily just amongst the poor and old. Probably by the later 17thC most of it would have been worn out beyond repair, but certainly in 1660 there would have been much stuff still around from the 1640s.

[Jib]

But it would be safe to assume that some one might pull buttons off an old doublet/ waistcoat and sew them on a new one?

What about mis-matched items? Wearing 2 differnt boots, stockings, gloves?

[Capt. Sterling]

Okay fashion, at least in England, fine clothing seemed to be everyone's ambition. Sumptuary Laws were a thing of the past and everyone, especially the middling sort, were able to obtain what they wanted. The ragmen, or second hand shops were suppliers, according to Maureen Waller, to tens of thousands of Londoners during the late 17th century early 1700s. Business was so competitive that shop clerks seemed to have jumped potential customers in the streets and, starting to take off their garments, dragged them into shops to try on their wares..

"Ned Ward was walking in Long Lane, he was suddenly accosted by a 'parcel of nimbel-tongued sinners' who 'leaped out of their shops, and swarmed about me like so many bees about a honeysuckle. Some got me by the hands, some by the elbows, others by the shoulders and made such a noise in my ears, that I thought I had committed some egregious trespass unawares, and they had seized me as a prioner. A pox take you said I, you are ready to tear a man's clothes off his back, and then ask him whether he'll buy any. Prithee let mine alone, and they will serve me yet for this six months.' But still they hustled me backwards and forwards like a pick-pocket in a crowd, till at last I made loose and scampered like a restless prisoner from a gang of bailiffs."

Tom Brown suffered a similar experience "But their rudeness continuing at every door, relieved me from these panic fears; and the next that attacked my arm, with 'Wht d'ye buy, Sir, what d'ye lack?' I threw from my sleeve into the kennel, saying, "Though I want nothing out of your shops, methinks you all want good manners and civility; you are ready to tear a new suit from my back, under pretense of selling me another one. "

Markets trading in second hand clothes could be found in Monmouth Street :George Hartley's and Daniel Jones; Godfrey Gimbart's in Long Lane; Rosemary Lane, East Smithfield, Houndsditch, the Minories, Petticoat Lane, Chick Lane, Long Lane, and the Barbican. According to Waller, the ragmen, enabled Londoners to wear clothes above their rank and beyond their means had they been brand new. No one threw away used clothes. A good wardrobe was the equivalent of a savings account-it could be used to realise cash if the need arose.

Certainly fuel for the thread would a pirate keep what he stole??

Old clothes could be repaired and refitted, and many remaining originals often show new stitching lines where garments were refitted or restyled to bring them closer to the current fashion of the day.

Rich folks could actually trade in older garments as a down

payment for a new suit. There were regular adverts in the press for second-hand clothes, auctions of unclaimed pawned clothes, and sales for the effects of the dead... Executioners could keep the fine clothes often made to be worn for hangings and sell these themselves after them that were hanged no longer needed them. Stealing clothes as well as wigs was a profitable business as long as one was not caught, and folks that had been robbed of their clothes often went to second hand shops to hunt missing items down... A smart shop keeper would quickly change the look of any items he purchased that he deemed questionable.

One foolish highwayman was arrested because he not only stole an elaborately decorated coat from a lord, but wore it in public. The coat was easily identified and he was apprehanded..

So the rag men made fashion available to the English at least. In The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits, Bernard de Manderville wrote: " Handsome apparel is a main point, fine feathers make fine birds, and people, where they are not known, are generally honour'd according to their clothes and other accoutrements they have about them; from the richness of them we judge their wealth, and by their ordering of them we guess at their understanding, It is this which encourages every body, who is conscious of his little merit, if he is any way able, to wear clothes above his rank."

Pepys, the son of a tailor, was up and coming as an official in the Navy Office, paid close attention to his wardrobe. Overall clothes ate up no small part of his carefully hoarded savings. By the way guys, he spent far more on his own clothes than he allowed his wife. In 1665 he paid 24 pounds -about half a year's income for a family of the middling class even in 1700 - on a new silk camleott sute. Four years later he was wearing gold lace sleeves, unmistakably the mark of a gentleman and was given to understand that he had gone too far in dressing above his station... and yet he wore them and was able to get them.

Daniel Defoe warned aspiring tradesmen to be very careful in their choice of a wife since accordling to Manderville, I believe, "the poorest labourer's wife in the parish, who scorns to wear a strong wholesome frize... will half starve herself and her husband to purchase a second-hand gown and petticoat, that cannot do her half the service; because it is more genteel."

John Evelyn "was appaled at the cost of a bride's trousseau but thanks to his daughter's Mundus Muliebris; The Ladies Dressing-Room Unlock'd, there is a record of the contents of a fashionable lady's wardrobe.

Cesar de Saussure wrote "English women are fond of luxury, they spare no trouble to be becomingly attired."

Manderville also wrote "This haughtiness alarms the court, the women of quality are frighten'd to see merchants' wives and daughters dress'd like themselves."

Guy Miege wrote "And herein the citizens wives, and maidservants, do run into such excess as makes a confusion. So hard it is sometimes to know a tradesman's wife from a lady, or the maid from the mistress."

A friend of Tom Brown's was equally confused "I have not learnt to distinguish female quality from the wives and daughters of mechanics any other way than by their coaches."

But even Samuel Pepys soon had one of those...

and of course many of the men were no better... referred to as fobs because fashion in order to impress the ladies, was one of their chiefest goals... even despite the cries of "French Dog!" when they passed in the street.

So to sum it up many folks in England tried hard to copy their betters of the court, even down to wearing gold and silver lace. BUT they copied the current fashion not older fashion,(garments being recut to fit the styles of the times!!!) and the tradesmen were willing to sell to anyone. Manderville wrote as an example " A highwayman having met with a considerable booty, gives some common harlot he fancies ten pounds to new-rig her from top to toe; is there a spruce mercer so conscientious that he will refuse to sell her a thread sattin, tho' he knew who she was? "

Now were there older folks that held on to older styles like folks do today,,, could be... and as far as fashion making it to some deserted island, if a ship or two was expected once a year and they did happen to have women on that island who MIGHT pick the brain of them onboard, odds are the styles wouldn't have been too far behind.

Were the French and Spanish the same regarding styles? I have no evidence to back this up, but since many looked to the French for fashion....

Since boots, other than to ride in or WORK in, (remember a gentleman was someone who did not work for a living! so would a gentleman where boots other than to ride and perhaps be mistaken for a working slob???)went out of style by the late 17th century and would not fall back into style again until the late 18th century, I very seriously think that folks as fashion conscious as the English, and Foxe correct me here if I am wrong, it seems many, many pirates came from some sort of UK background, that styles would NOT have been extremely far behind, even in the American West prior to trains, fashion history shows that styles may have only lagged behind no more than 7-10 years. So why wear something that was 40-70 years behind the times??? Oh and by the way, during the later 17th century, except for the military, boot cuffs tended to shrink considerably... they seem to be referred to as cups not buckets....

MY question is, if places like the Carolinas and Rhode Island, specifically Newport, owed their growing into prosperous cities to pirates, would not some BUT NOT ALL, have some decent clothes that were in line with current fashions? Honestly, though, how many pirates other than the most well known, such as Teach, Roberts, Tew, etc, were successful enough to dress above their station on a day to day basis? And where if you did have a good extra suit would you keep it? And how many could you keep in the space alotted you? I'm talking every day sailor now, not the captains?

Hector

[Capt. Sterling]

But it would be safe to assume that some one might pull buttons off an old doublet/ waistcoat and sew them on a new one?

What about mis-matched items? Wearing 2 differnt boots, stockings, gloves?

I can't say about the mismatched items, but pulling off buttons, especially metal ones would certainly be something worth thinking about, metal can be melted down and recast even into a more current fashionable design, or sold for cash. Passimaterrie (SP) buttons could be used again if they were in decent condition. By the 1700s they were still used although according to the Verneys of Claydon, who had a rather large correspondence regarding their clothes... a Lady Fermanagh wrote to Mr. Verney "I have spoke to Mr. Bedford and he tells me that nobody has such a thing as silk buttons to a silk waistcoat, and that if you have it done with silver it will be very handsome, and my lord thinks so too. " So at one time they may have been unfashionable but hard evidence from actual garments show that embroidered buttons remained in fashion through out the 18th century.... considering most clothes were refashioned over and over until most likely the fabric was worn through, salvaging buttons would seem to make a lot of sense...

Hector

[AllByMeOnesies]

I think it's interesting in Defoe's History of the Pyrates how the pirates who volunteered to go aboard a prize first often were guaranteed a new shift (change) of clothes from the prize as reward for volunteering. Shows how much a change of clothes was prized among them.

[Gabriel]

Well, this isn't exactly on the topic, but is pretty related I think, and is also just a thought. I haven't done a lot of research on the topics of fashion, I do know a few pretty basic observations on the way people act, and I've always been under the idea that, whether historians take it into account when analyzing things or not, human beings have always been human beings. So, going from there, look at modern society... If you go out and just look around at a mall, you'll see a lot of different fashions portrayed by a lot of different people. However, looking at modern art, photographs, or accounts in books, not even a decently sized portion of those fashions are portrayed. Media sorta covers the "average American", even if they only make up 25-50% of the population. I think that same observation can be applied when looking at history, which is why I don't necessarily take period pictures or accounts as complete and unquestionable truth on things. I tend to view historical things as an outline of what the society of that place and time was like, and that it's more psychology and sort of putting yourself in the place of a person from the time, or when looking at historical documents, figuring out what influences the author. To quote Winston Churchill, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

I could see a pirate, or anyone for that sake, who, having spent time among native americans, may decide he likes the look of some native jewelry or trinkets and wear it. Or perhaps he's had contact with arabic or other asian people, he may somewhat mimic that culture's clothing styles, combining these things to make you a rather not-historically-accurately dressed sailor. But is it really that inaccurate to wear things that aren't considered the fashion of the culture? How many pub-goers are from America? Us Americans are a very fashion oriented culture, watch five minutes of TV, sort of like how it was earlier mentioned that the English were. Yet, despite that fact, my brother and some of his friends are into the 80's British Punk Rock subculture, with dyed hair and mohawks, and what regular society would call weird clothing. I doubt you'd see many of them either shown, or even portrayed truthfully in most American media, and even more that 300-400 years from now you'd find a lot of historical evidence that more than a couple people dressed crazy like that, even though there's a very large number of "Punk Rockers" out there. Now imagine what it'd be like to find historical evidence of them without the widespread use of media technology, and a significatly reduced number of artists and authors. You'd likely only find 'enough' evidence to support that only a few styles of fashion were worn in the early 21st century.

Did that make any sense? Anyway, as I said that's just kinda my thoughts about it, and I'm not exactly trying to justify fantastical garb or that sort of thing, I just have a hard time believing that only one type of fashion style was around in any culture. Especially seeing as people in general tend to see what's different as weird, and like to ignore those weird things and focus on their generally accepted lifestyle. And now ends my quasi-off-topic rant.

[Capt. Sterling]

So, going from there, look at modern society... If you go out and just look around at a mall, you'll see a lot of different fashions portrayed by a lot of different people.

We are all human beings yes, but our ancestors were a product of their times just as we are a product of ours. Very much alike, yes and no. Going to the mall and seeing numerous different styles now,yes, back then no... the average person then could NEVER hope to own as many pieces of clothing as we do now. Even some nobility only indulged in maybe four new suits a year. Not only that but many people then dressed to "be like their betters" not make a statement about being different.

Being different back then usually got you in trouble. Were there some 17th/18th century "punk rockers", not with Mohawks and dyed hair, but I am certain there was some verison of it BUT it was NOT the status quo. Fops could come to mind as the punks of their day and they were very much ridiculed for being so. They were there but not the status quo. What we are trying to say here is when portraying history, if everyone protrayed what was NOT the norm, than the public learns a swayed view of history, one that is just not true.... as Kass will tell you, if every single woman out of say 100 showed up to a pirate event dressed in an elegant riding habit it would NOT be an accurate protrayal of what was truly historical. One or two, unless some group is protraying say the King of France and his court out on a hunting party, would be more appropriate.

Were their people who didn't care about fashion? I'd be surprised if there weren't! But again, humans all, yes, but the influences of society can be very different. For instances, when was the last time you packed up your picnic basket, took the day off from work, and joyously went to an execution for a holiday?? And were you glad to be able to pick up horse droppings or dog's fecees on the way so you could toss them at the condemned? Common occurance now? it was then.

Hector

[John Maddox Roberts]

Then as now there were probably also "classic" designs that changed little or at all over decades and even centuries. In our own time we still wear: Levi's (1850s), the trench coat (WWI), the black leather motorcycle jacket (1940s), Ray-Ban aviator glasses (WWII) all those cool aviator jackets (WWII-Korean War) and others.

As to those bucket boots...they were horseman's attire, rather impractical for seafaring though very swashbuckling. They lasted a long time, too. Cromwell wore them, and there is a photograph of Robert E. Lee wearing a pair. For riding they were pulled up to almost crotch-length.

[Gabriel]

Eh, like I said, random thought. Good points mate!

[Jib]

I suppose this begs the question of "need" vs. "want". Perhaps the average person wanted to appear in the lates fashion but could not either do to cost, location or availabiltiy.

[Fox]

I think it's interesting in Defoe's History of the Pyrates how the pirates who volunteered to go aboard a prize first often were guaranteed a new shift (change) of clothes from the prize as reward for volunteering. Shows how much a change of clothes was prized among them.

I don't recall that passage, which chapter is it in?

O/T and purely out of interest, Onesies, is there a reason for the Kennedy thing?

[Daniel]

I think it's interesting in Defoe's History of the Pyrates how the pirates who volunteered to go aboard a prize first often were guaranteed a new shift (change) of clothes from the prize as reward for volunteering.  Shows how much a change of clothes was prized among them.

I don't recall that passage, which chapter is it in?

O/T and purely out of interest, Onesies, is there a reason for the Kennedy thing?

Sounds like Roberts' Article II, though that one gives everybody a shift of clothes, not just volunteers to go first aboard. "Every Man to be called fairly in turn, by List, on Board of Prizes, because, (over and above their proper Share,) they were on these Occasions allowed a Shift of Cloaths."

[Fox]

Thanks Daniel

[Fox]

There's also this passage from the Roberts chapter, describing specifically cutting out parties:

"The Pyrates are all Voluntiers on these Occasions, the Word being always given, who will go! And presently the stanch and firm Men offer themselves; because, by such Readiness, they recommend their Courage, and have an Allowance also of a Shift of Cloaths, from Head to Foot, out of the Prize."

As GoF commented on another thread, we can only speculate as to what that clothing consisted of.

There are a couple of other mentions of the practice which make it clear that the new suit of clothes was an incentive above their usual share of the plunder. However, all of the references seem to be in the Roberts chapter making me wonder whether this was a widespread practice or one confined to Roberts' and possibly a few other crews. The absence of similar clauses in other sets of articles suggests that this latter may have been the case.