GAOP Encampment

[Gentleman of Fortune]

BoB?

Well... hmmmm

****EDIT**************************************************

This looks like it might be or become a pissing contest... I really don't want it to be and there is no offense meant

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

I will agree that the term "Cask" could mean any size container. I personally do not have enough information to say that a cooper living in the 17th/18th century would use "Barrel" interchangeably with "cask" or when describing "any" size container.

Since these words meant specific things, It would make sense to use "Cask" in the generic term, but to using any other term to mean "any container" would probably be just as misleading then as it is to us now

While it is convenient for us to use the term "barrel" to mean anything from 55 gal to a 2 gal container in 2006, I think it would be a stretch to say that a GAoP era cooper did as well.

My guess is, that's because they were infinitely more familiar with different size storage containers for both dry and wet goods, they would be "specific" with the words that they used.

If someone said, "go to the market and get a barrel (36 gallons) of oats", and didn't mean a "barrel" they could end up with any number of meausres that would result in various quantities of oats. Did they really mean, "go get a strike (16 gallons), or a bag (24 gallons), or a tun (256 gallons) of oats?

Your first set of quotes is a little out of bounds (1756) for a good GAoP reference, by about 25 years. While it is interesting, we should probably limit ourselves to refrences for the time frame that we are trying to portray.

For me personally, its 1690-1720, but if you are doing 1756 pirate, its more relevant so charge right on ahead.

Quote 9 It does say a "tun", and we have already established that it was a more common practice during the GAoP to have the largest casks iron bound.

Quote 10 As you say, it is a little ambiguous. Since they are talking about beer, it could be a number of sizes, but probably a hogshead or even a tun. Many pubs in England are named "The three Tuns, or "The eight tuns" in refrence to the Beer storage container.

It says too that only "3/4ths" of the beer should be bound with iron.

So the other portion of beer is bound with wood? Again, no particular size is mentioned. If it is the larger sizes, this may make sense, but we cannot know for sure, and, as it is a 1756 reference, I don't think its worth splitting hairs.

The second set of quotes is "in" bounds. And it's an interesting find too!

So thanks for posting.

There are some interesting considerations though. The first is this seems to be only for provisioning Royal Navy ships, as its an instruction from Parliament to the Admiralty. Also, its interesting that it is only for certain types of voyages, specifically outlined in the order.

VII. They are also to allow each Ship they shall be ordered to victual for the Sea, Four Hogsheads, with Eight Iron Hoops on each; the said Hoops to be hammered Hoops, of good Substance, and well wrought; or milled Hoops, where they shall think them sufficient for his Majesty's Service, for Water-Cask[/b]; with One Bundle of wooden Hoops, and another of Flags; for every One hundred Men, a Month; and so proportionally for a greater or lesser Number of Men; and such further Quantity of Water-Cask for foreign Voyages, as the Ships can conveniently stow, or shall be thought necessary.

The emphasis is of course mine. It seems that in this instance, the iron bound casks are used solely for the water storage, and, it specifically calls for a hogshead (63 gallons). The same order also calls for a bundle of wooden hoops, which we know is a common way of binding cask staves.

IX. They are also to cause to be delivered, in Iron-bound Cask, hooped with Iron Hoops of good Substance, hammered, and well-wrought Iron, as aforesaid, One complete Moiety of the Proportion of Beer, ordered to each Ship designed for the Chanel, or any other Voyage than for Guinea, or the East or West-Indies; and for any Ship designed for Guinea, or the East or West-Indies, Three fourths of their Proportion of Beer is to be put in Ironbound Cask, hooped with Iron Hoops of good Substance, and well-wrought Iron, as above.(2)

This is interesting too. For Royal Navy Channel voyages, or any "shorter" voyage, a moiety (half) of the beer can be in iron bound casks. For longer voyages, 3/4ths will be in iron bound hoops.

Speculation comes into play here too. It seems that the iron bound casks are used for longer term storage. This may also mean that the casks themselves would be of the larger variety as it doesn't make as much sense to use smaller containers for long storage than it would to have larger one, but I can't confirm that. As said above, we know that large casks could be iron bound, but it's a shame that no size is specified.

I have a feeling though that since the second quote (IX) is coming right after the first one (VII) and concludes with the words " as above ", I think that it would be safe to assume that that they would be referring to a hogshead.

And despite the etymology of the term "scuttlebutt", it doesn't seem to be mentioned at all, (though Cask and Hogshead are). I guess scuttle-hogshead was too much of a mouth full for a GAoP sailor.

At the end of the day, it is unwise to take one extreme or the other. There is support for both forms of cask-binding, depending on the intended purpose of the cask.

and

From a practical, reenacting standpoint, we must refuse to let the best be the enemy of the good.

Wait a minute... this is coming from the "Object Acquisition Triangle" guy????...

Heresy!

Well I don't know. I refuse to let "good enough win. I prefer better as way point to best. You can re-enact your way, and I can re-enact mine right?

Lets face it, there are plenty of areas where we have to make exceptions due to lack of good reproductions.

Some of these things are necessary though. Like stockings. Most of us wear the cotton or wool knitted ones that, frankly, are not right.

But to me, that is much different that having a wrong item that you really don't "have" to have anyway. I mean, is a cask that necessary?

Even if it is a correct one, I can just imagine the throngs of pirates with tankards dangling from their belts sauntering up to ye old hogshead to slake their piratey thirst....

Now to the champion of good enough, this would be ok. And you know what? Pirate is a big enough re-enacting tent for everyone and if, In your camp, you want an iron bounded firkin, you can go for it! I'd even come over and drink any beer that came out of it.

But to me, its a modern cask or at best an un-authenticated style that is not a:

Hogsheads, with Eight Iron Hoops on each; the said Hoops to be hammered Hoops, of good Substance, and well wrought; or milled Hoops, where they shall think them sufficient for his Majesty's Service

I just wouldn't use it at all. I would rather "not use" an unnecessary item than to use a wrong item that wasn't necessary. But again, you re-enact your way, and I will do it mine.

To recap the cask debate, what we have established is that:

1) The largest of casks were or could be iron bound

2) That on certain RN voyages, 4 Hogsheads, iron bound, of water could be found

3) On specific Royal Navy voyages, 1/2 of the beer (shorter range?), and on other voyages (longer ranged?), 3/4ths of the beer should come in casks (more than likely Hogsheads) bound in iron hoops.

4) The physical evidence that we have is period pictures (see Lowthar and "camp in Flanders in 1707" and casks recovered from period wrecks. That evidence seems to point to wooden hoops being the norm and iron for larger casks in certain situations

So we can't say that iron hoops didn't exist for GAoP, what we can say though is that the evidence points to their use in certain situations and then on the larger (hogshead or greater) casks.

So, if you have enough information to comfortably put a iron hooped firkin (9 gallons) in your camp, then dude, go ahead.

For me though, I would get some willow or chestnut hoops and replace the iron ones, or, not use any at all and put the igloo cooler with the red bull in the car.

GoF

[MadMike]

Anyone have a copy of the OED handy to look up terms?

Speaking of provisions (and experimental archaeology), anyone ever try eating one pound of biscuit (hardtack) a day? The daily gallon of beer a day, did that many times while in service...

Yours, Mike

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Bump

greg

[Captain Bob]

Has anyone got pictures of barrels with wooden hoops? Preferably with close-ups showing how they were secured to the barrel?

~~Cap'n Bob (Or Captain Redd Roberts. Depends on who's askin'.)

[Captain Tightpants]

Sorry about the switch in usernames; I had no idea that a few weeks of inactivity would make my old username go away. I'm back now.

And no offense is taken at all! Rigourous debate is, after all, at the heart of any good scholarship. So long as we omit referring to each other as "great big poopiehead," I think we'll be all right.

I will agree that the term "Cask" could mean any size container. I personally do not have enough information to say that a cooper living in the 17th/18th century would use "Barrel" interchangeably with "cask" or when describing "any" size container.

You missed the salient point, sir. Modern academics will use the terms "barrel" and "cask" interchangeably, not a 1680s cooper. The same terms for liquid measure have been in use since at least the 1560s, when England was inundated with hopped beer by the Dutch (i.e., firkin, kilderkin, pin).

As for the dates on my quotes, they were the first references I could find quickly. I knew they were out-of-date, but, lacking any other handy reference, I extrapolated therefrom.

Taking Articles VII and IX in context together trumps your analysis that only water was stored in iron-bound casks. Note the use of the word "aforesaid". You did point that out a few sentences later, but I wanted to rub your face in it.

That certain types of voyages specified a certain type of cask is not surprising. The beers stored therein were still actively fermenting at racking (putting the fluid into the cask). As you know, fermenting booze produces prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide, which can put a great deal of pressure on the cask's structure. Since introducing air into the cask will spoil the beer lickety-split, you keep it sealed, which means more and more carbon dioxide is being produced, which means more pressure on the cask the longer you travel - never mind the rocking motion of the vessel keeping the yeast in suspension longer, making it work more, making even more carbon dioxide! (Whew!)

Which is, I think, where we're suffering from this disconnect. You come from the nautical side of research, where I come from brewing. Your information, while valid, can be dashed to pieces on the rocky shore of practical brewing knowledge and detailed research into historical brewing.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but only an idiot apprentice would put fresh beer in a wood-bound cask. The bleedin' thing would burst the first week out from Southampton, because the wood simply cannot handle the pressure. That's science, me-ladd-o.

I think the spare wood for hoops is there to maintain the casks, after the beer has been drained and replaced with pressure-less water. I could dig up a reference from somewhere in my expansive historical brewing library, but I'm at work, so THPPT!

Wait a minute... this is coming from the "Object Acquisition Triangle" guy????...

Well, yeah. There is no easy and inexpensive source of wood-bound casks. Fact. I can support from many different sources the use of iron-bound casks for storage and dispense of beer, maybe not at sea, but definitely on land (and when we're reenacting, we're almost always on land, not at sea). Also fact. I'm not going to schlep a hogshead to events, because it is not only freakin' huge, it's freakin' expensive. Also fact. I'm not going to schlep the extremely long distance from my camp to my vehicle every time I want to top off my tankard, whether with water or beer. Also fact.

If that makes me a farb, so be it. I think it makes me smarter than the average bear. You think it an unnecessary item; I think such an opinion can only be based on opium dreams, given the heat present at most if not all of our events. You have to drink water! Therefore, a place to hold that water within easy reach is necessary, necessary as hell. And since the public will always be ducking into our tents, there's no easy way to hide the Igloo cooler, either.

If I knew how to replace the iron hoops on a firkin (most people hereabouts use pins, by the by), I'd do it. I don't know how - best I could do is cover them up. Based on my research, I'd still use an iron-bound cask for barley-pop.

That's what I meant by not letting the best be the enemy of the good. I'd rather have a well-stocked larder near at hand.

This next bit is going to sting a little. Brace yourself.

I mean, seriously. If you want to take your stance to a ludicrous extreme, put away all of your firelocks and weaponry. After all, they use modern metallurgical techniques to make the pieces, right? And the alloys are different. They're not perfect, so keep 'em in the car. But me, I don't know the difference. Plus, neither you nor I would put out the kind of cash necessary to purchasing a "perfect" piece like that.

See how stupid that kind of thinking can get? Think about that before you get up on your high horse and talk about "you reenact your way and I'll do mine." If you're going to care enough about one thing, care about everything - and then do it, brook no excuses. Then and only then are you far enough away from your glass house to throw stones.

Sorry that got vituperative, but I wanted to be clear. I hold you in high regard, dude, and don't want to see you going down that road. Call it "tough love". And I never once called you a poopiehead.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Are you going to stick to one forum name from now on or what?

Now just relax a bit, take a good sip o' home brew and don't get your dander up.

The bottom line for me is that, as said in an earlier post, you can make the argument that a percentage of beer and water was put into the largest of cask, iron bound, for certain long range voyages, but not all of it.

If your beer making book collection covers all of 17th/18th century storage containers, than I would certainly enjoy seeing period refrences to iron bound smaller casks.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but only an idiot apprentice would put fresh beer in a wood-bound cask. The bleedin' thing would burst the first week out from Southampton, because the wood simply cannot handle the pressure. That's science, me-ladd-o.

Thats funny, using your own refrences, not ALL of the beer was ordered in iron bound casks... And its only for the LONG voyages that 1/2 -3/4 of the beer is even ordered in iron bound casks.

The must have had a slew of idiot apprentices putting beer into something, as I would imagine that they counted on the 1/4-1/2 of the beer in wooden casks to last longer than a week....no?

I read what you have written, but I don't think my earlier recap has changed.

1) The largest of casks were or could be iron bound

2) That on certain RN voyages, 4 Hogsheads, iron bound, of water could be found

3) On specific Royal Navy voyages, 1/2 of the beer (shorter range?), and on other voyages (longer ranged?), 3/4ths of the beer should come in casks (more than likely Hogsheads) bound in iron hoops.

4) The physical evidence that we have is period pictures (see Lowthar and "camp in Flanders in 1707" and casks recovered from period wrecks. That evidence seems to point to wooden hoops being the norm

But anyway, its a moot point. A hogshead is a hell of a lot of beer (as you said), and no one wants to lug one around... which just leaves us with the smaller, easier to manage casks in the pin to kilderkin range.

I have not found any refrence to these sizes being bound with iron. The refrences that I have found all point to just the largest of casks in iron. But if you have them, please share.

So, unless I have a misunderstanding with what authenticity is, an iron bound firkin aint' authentic for GAoP.

We already have to "accept" that some things used in our modern interpretation of GAoP sailors are not correct because there are no reasonable facsimiles.

We already have to make exceptions for a lot of things .... stockings pop into mind, and buckles too.

So what I think I hear you saying is "small casks that are bound with iron aren't authentic for GAoP, but at this point, there is no work around" ?

I can deal with that, but at the same time, I am trying to figure out how to replace the iron bands on my freakin firkin.

I mean, seriously. If you want to take your stance to a ludicrous extreme, put away all of your firelocks and weaponry. After all, they use modern metallurgical techniques to make the pieces, right? And the alloys are different. They're not perfect, so keep 'em in the car. But me, I don't know the difference. Plus, neither you nor I would put out the kind of cash necessary to purchasing a "perfect" piece like that.

ahhh now why did you have to go and say that?

You know better than that.... Right? If we follow that logic, than we might as well buy a Simplicity pattern and make no attempt at authenticity at all.

That is the same argument that the fantasy crowd uses.... The "your DNA ain't 18th century, so why bother with any authenticity as you can never be "right" anyway".

Use what you want.... I don't care. We all have things that are near and dear, whether its patterns, shoes, or Beer Casks.

Hell, paint an igloo cooler brown and put banding iron around it if It tickles your fancy....

I can only be responsible for me and my kit, and lend advise when asked. To me, authenticity is not a buffet table where I take what I like and leave the rest. If I have something that I can't prove or know is wrong, it gnaws at me until I get it fixed. Sometimes I just avoid sticky wickets altogether so as I don't get stuck.

If an onion bottle or bellermarine jug are authentic and will hold water/beer/wine that is where I will go.

Greg

[blackjohn]

I can only be responsible for me and my kit, and lend advise when asked.  To me, authenticity is not a buffet table where I take what I like and leave the rest.  If I have something that I can't prove or know is wrong, it gnaws at me until I get it fixed.  Sometimes I just avoid sticky wickets altogether so as I don't get stuck.

I like that quote. I'm not sure how I feel about it in relationship to my view of the hobby, I'll have to chew on it a bit first, but I do like it.

I do think it's relative to the original theme of this post. IF a GAP encampment is a buffet table, what is there to choose from? And what should we be leaving behind?

I think I'd go with impromptu tentage... things that look like they are jury-rigged sails. I'd take every one of those stinkin' folding camp stools and throw them in a fire. And... hmmm... I guess it depends. Are we reenacting a careening? Or are we reenacting buccaneers ashore, preparing to attack a town?

[Patrick Hand]

This gets into an interesting arguement on authentisity vs. austetics (and I know I didn't spell that right..... so what looks "right")

OK... I will argue Rendezvous for this one.....

At a Rendezvous,(in Primitive camp)there are many good looking tents and teepees.... tables and chairs, barrels and chest... looks great.... but it would take a wagon to carry all that stuff..... Historicaly, everything (well most everything) is autentic.... but it would not have been carried by a "working" Mountain Man.... he has more important stuff to load his pack horses with.....

But at most Rendezvouse, a buncha guys sleeping under a lean-to made from an old blanket..... just not that Kodac moment.......

So we cheat ......

The same for a Pyrate encampment..... the extra barrels, and chairs are nice.... it's not 100% period..... but it looks "right"......

At a Hard-core Historical Pyrate reenactment, well most of the stuff would get left a home...... but for most of what we do, all the extras just add to the overall impression........ (oh yah.... and the foam pad to sleep on... not period.... but comfortable..... )

[LongTom]

A potential dumb question: Why would a ship bother with tents, when it is full of spare canvas and people who are veritable genii with rigging things with it, along with rope and lumber? I would think a sail and some spars rigged in a picturesque manner would say "pirate" more than a wedge tent would, any day.

The extra barrels might well be ashore for re-watering. (how did they refill in the field, anyway?) Whatever other stuff might come off the ship when expecting an extended stay? Chairs, who knows? Hammocks?

just speculating...

[Cire]

This gets into an interesting arguement on authentisity vs. austetics (and I know I didn't spell that right..... so what looks "right")

You mean aesthetics? Yeah, can be a pain to spell.

[Rabbitz]

A potential dumb question:  Why would a ship bother with tents, when it is full of spare canvas and people who are veritable genii with rigging things with it, along with rope and lumber?    I would think a sail and some spars rigged in a picturesque manner would say "pirate" more than a wedge tent would, any day.

I am not so sure that tents wouldn't be used, for exactly the same reasons (strangely enough). Given that quantities of sailcloth and duck cloth would be available it would take a boatswain/sailmaker no time to run up some servicable ridge tents for extended stays.

The cloth used for the tents wouldn't be first quality, I am sure that old sail suites would be turned to exactly this purpose.

Rabz

Topman

Barque James Craig

[LongTom]

A potential dumb question:  Why would a ship bother with tents, when it is full of spare canvas and people who are veritable genii with rigging things with it, along with rope and lumber?    I would think a sail and some spars rigged in a picturesque manner would say "pirate" more than a wedge tent would, any day.

I am not so sure that tents wouldn't be used, for exactly the same reasons (strangely enough). Given that quantities of sailcloth and duck cloth would be available it would take a boatswain/sailmaker no time to run up some servicable ridge tents for extended stays.

The cloth used for the tents wouldn't be first quality, I am sure that old sail suites would be turned to exactly this purpose.

This is plausible.

My thought was that the creation of a dedicated tent would require at least part of the cloth goods to be cut up and tailored, at which point they would be less serviceable as sail materials. Not necessarily something one would want to risk while far away from home. To leave the sail intact, and accomplish the tent via some creative rigging would be more economical (cloth ain't cheap) as well as better conservation of your repair stores.

Regarding the time factor, the rigging of awnings and other shelter from large pieces of cloth is probably an order of magnitude faster than sewing up real tents, even with an experienced sailmaker. They are stitching by hand, after all, and you are talking about tens of feet of seam per tent. The crew could string up ten crude but perfectly serviceable shelters in the time it would take to sew one tent.

I'm thinking of this from the perspective of an ultralight backpacker, having seen some of the perfectly marvelous shelter configurations you can get out of a tarp with some creative folding and guying; no cutting or sewing necessary. I'm not saying that these would be the actual rigging techniques used (some of them look distinctly outlandish and modern). More a matter of speculating on what would be important to the sailor of the period.

That, and working up a justification for a shelter with the ends of spars and sweeps sticking out all over the place, for visual effect.

[Captain Jim]

Okay, just re-read the thread and pirates ashore with sail shelters seems perfectly normal for the short term. But if I am to be ashore for long, I want something to keep the wind off at night. Ships carried lots of spare canvas, and a successful pirate ship would carry even more, the canvas of several ships, having pillaged it along the way.

So let's set up a scenario: It is late hurricane season, don't want to go north now so the crew votes to pull into a small but snug harbor to winter. So now it's mid-December and a succession of cold fronts have moved through and we, the crew, have had enough. We all want to head north in the spring, so going south is out. Besides, thar be wenches here. (Sorry, pyrate speak foul) We all want tents, privacy and to keep our bums warm. So we set the sailmaker to making us tents. Especially me. I'm the captain, after all.

In case you're wondering, I'm setting up an argument for having a tent at PiP this year.

So the question is this; Is this tent and fly plausible for a sailmaker-built period shelter?

Storage tent and fly.

Also, I intend to go back next year as a vendor and this tent could serve double duty as living quarters and "booth", saving me from having to spend money twice.

So, what's the verdict?

[William Brand]

A good rule of thumb is simple and functional, especially in the face of little evidence and in lue of the ongoing speculations.

This tent is simple so it works on many levels. Straight pieces. No unnecessary flash. And given your future plans to travel to events as a vendor, it is also pragmatic.

If you can add to it some hemp ropes and hand forged stakes, not to mention some stains and a little wear over time, then I think this would be a good tent.

[Captain Tightpants]

I mean, seriously. If you want to take your stance to a ludicrous extreme, put away all of your firelocks and weaponry. After all, they use modern metallurgical techniques to make the pieces, right? And the alloys are different. They're not perfect, so keep 'em in the car. But me, I don't know the difference. Plus, neither you nor I would put out the kind of cash necessary to purchasing a "perfect" piece like that.

ahhh now why did you have to go and say that?

You know better than that.... Right? If we follow that logic, than we might as well buy a Simplicity pattern and make no attempt at authenticity at all.

That is the same argument that the fantasy crowd uses.... The "your DNA ain't 18th century, so why bother with any authenticity as you can never be "right" anyway".

That it is the same agument fails to lessen its truth or its impact. It is a matter of expertise on the part of the beholder and, for lack of a better term, scale on the part of the error.

I see beer in a glass that is clear, not cloudy, and I see inauthenticity, but very very few other people see any fault with that. Kass can spot a waistcoat with machine-sewn seams at ten paces, but very very few people have a problem with that, much less the expertise to spot it.

I call your stance on this argument "letting the best be the enemy of the good." You won't have a "close to authentic but not quite there" object in your camp, so you make sacrifices like not having a convenient water source in your camp. But you go further than that:

Hell, paint an igloo cooler brown and put banding iron around it if It tickles your fancy....

That's letting the best be the enemy of the good. No one ever suggested such an action. Yet you clearly see no problem in painting the same person who would use an iron-bound wood cask with the same brush as someone with a painted Igloo cooler!

I can understand your desire for perfection; I share it. It's just that our perception of "acceptable" differ. Moreover, I'm not willing to make the sort of sacrifices you are in your quest towards perfection. Even something as simple as walking to a storage or parking area for stuff instead of having it near to hand is a sacrifice I'm unwilling to make if there's an inconspicuous alternative.

It's akin to my absence at events which threaten foul weather - this is my hobby. I'm not going to freeze or get drenched or suck up mud on my weekend off; I spent enough time wearing camouflage face-paint getting paid to suck up mud and rain to want to do it, years later, on my unpaid time off. I also have Dr Scholl's foot-comfort products in my machine-made Fugawee straight-last shoes. Makes 'em much more comfy and fairly weather-resistant.

If my not-obvious use of modern amenities makes me less of a living historian, I'll bear that cross.

I'm not saying, "If they'd've had 'em, they'd've used 'em." Any fool can plainly see that.

I can only be responsible for me and my kit, and lend advise when asked. To me, authenticity is not a buffet table where I take what I like and leave the rest. If I have something that I can't prove or know is wrong, it gnaws at me until I get it fixed. Sometimes I just avoid sticky wickets altogether so as I don't get stuck.

And that's your choice, just like it's mine to turn a blind eye to things that are pretty damned close, but not quite there, if those items are used in an inconspicuous or invisible way. To clarify that statement: Dr Scoll's insoles = invisible. Why? Because noone can see inside my shoes, less'n I take 'em off (look out, nose!). Iron-bound casks = inconspicuous. Why? Because most professional historians wouldn't notice, much less the public we attempt to edu-tain.

If an onion bottle or bellermarine jug are authentic and will hold water/beer/wine that is where I will go.

I need to get some appropriate bottles myself. I've got some pewterware, but insufficient to hold enough liquid for satisfaction.

Speaking of appropriate stuff, can someone point me to some pics of seachests? I know they existed, but I haven't a clue what they looked like. (And I'm having no luck with Google. ) I intend to use some sawn-in-half, tired old barrels for seating/storage, and a coupla seachests would also be ideal.

[Patrick Hand]

This isn't a good picture of my new sail / tarp..... Space was limited at Ojai, so I had rig it kinda funny......

But it is all hand sewn...... (hey how's that for crazy..... )

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Hey tightpants, maybe I am missing something here...

Going back to the original discussion, which I believe started with a discussion about encampment water containers.

The point I was trying to make was this

Wooden containers for liquids, in a size manageable by a re-enactor, was bound by wood during the GAoP.

Yes hogsheads and tuns could be bound in iron, but smaller containers were wood bound during the gaop. And the two photos that Foxe posted in this thread backs that up.

That is all I said, and that is all I meant to say.

Now, if we have proof that "smaller" containers (that is anything under a hogshead, about 60 gallons), I will retract my statement and jump on the iron bound bandwagon.

And as we have said earlier, some things you just have to work around. Period stockings comes to my mind.

But, just because your average viewer doesn't know the difference or can't tell the difference doesn't make it correct... which I am sure you are not saying.

Which is why, at the end of the day, the things that I can take care of I will try my best to do so. I won't force my agenda on anyone esle, but I will provide comment when asked, or participate in open discussion opportunities like this.

Greg---

we will have to continue this, in person, at TORM.

[blackjohn]

Speaking of appropriate stuff, can someone point me to some pics of seachests?  I know they existed, but I haven't a clue what they looked like.

Hey there Tighty, I believe you and I are cut from very similar cloth... I'm banging me mug on the table in agreement... ouch... should've used me other mug!

As for seachest, this could very well be in here at the bottom of this pic. Foxe, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe I've seen some evidence pointing to slope-sided sea chests.

I remember discussing chests once, but I don't remember if that was here, or on the Pirate Brethren forum...

[Scrounger]

Ahoy Pat Fantastic Rig!!! Ye Given Me A Idea CHEERS

[William Brand]

I good point was brought up another thread about the good of the ship being offloaded before the ship could be hauled over on its side. This would allow us an explanation for all of the extra barrels and bales lying about in camp. Perhaps even unassembled cannon are in order.

[Captain Jim]

Actually, assembled cannon ashore would have been likely, as a ship aground is helpless. Defensive strategy would have been high on the priority list in selecting a place to careen. Cannon ashore would have been able to outshoot cannon on a ship coming into the shore, keeping them back until the ship could be re-floated. Then you attack with your freshly careened ship which is now fast and nimble.

Cannon located on a rise or cliff would have been devastating, to the point of sinking or disabling any ship foolish enough to try and take a careened ship.

[William Brand]

The big question is, can we make a truly authentic looking cannon? Of course, much of it might be faked, but if the cannon is going to look fake, I'd almost rather not do one. I'm confident I could make one, but I'm far away and I'm flying.

The ever present problems are the logistics of transportation and cost.

[Patrick Hand]

Or the cannons are set-up at the same place where we are careening the ship..... (outside the fort....)

Sorry.... I could have moved part of this to the PiP thread.....

To kinda put this back on topic.....

I figure that other than Buccaneers who camped much of the time, the only times Pyrates would have camped would be when they were Careening thier ship.... (part of the reason we are portraying that for our encampment at PiP)

Anyone interested in a period 1720's pyrate camp, can check out the threads in the Pirates in Paridice ... the Careening Camp threads..... Some of the information could be posted in Capt. Twill, but some of it is specfic to the camp at PiP.....and some of it will only "look" right... we have some problems with transporting a lot of gear to PiP... so quite frankly... were going to have to "fake" some of it... for the time being..........

[capnwilliam]

4 - And of course...the don'ts

Plastic and resin cast skull candle holders, homemade rotting corpses lounging about as caricatures of doom, metal hope-chests and blanket trunks from WalMart, etc.

The biggest "don't: should be: don't use Edward England's or Jack Rackham's flags, unless you're reenacting specifically THEM.

Capt. William

[capnwilliam]

I find that sea-chests are the ideal camp furniture: they look nautical; they can be sat on; I would take my chest to an event anyway, so I just don't need to take a chair; and most importantly you can store stuf in them - whether it's delicate living history gear you don't want left out all the time or your modern stuff you don't want on show. My advice based on experience though, is bear in mind that the public will open your chest if they get the chance so either lock it or be careful what you put in it.

Kegs come in handy for the same purposes, also.

Capt. William