'Slops' Not Period?

[Mick MacAnselan]

I was reading the historical information that Kass sends with her breeches/slops pattern and was quite surprised (if I'm interpreting correctly) that there's no evidence during the GAoP for the loose open bottom slops (short or long) so many of us wear. Well, I don't wear them yet...that's why I bought the pattern, only to find out that it's either breeches or trousers, but not 'slops'. So are there hundreds of enthusiasts/reenactors running around in the wrong garmet, or is there some evidence that what we normally think of as slops existed in period?

[kass]

I know you probably want to hear from someone other than me, Mick. But just for the people who haven't seen my pattern notes, I'd like to clarify -- in my research, I didn't find any verbal reference, extant garment or pictorial evidence that showed what we call "slops" from 1680 to 1730. Before 1680, yes. After 1730, yes. But not in between those years. And since those are the years we call "The Golden Age of Piracy", I have to conclude that wide-legged, open-kneed "slops" were not worn during the GAoP.

[Mick MacAnselan]

Kass,

You're one of my absolute favorite people to hear from, but in this case, you're right, I was looking for a 'second opinion' if there is one!

[kass]

I know Foxe differs with me on this conclusion -- I can tell you that. He believes sailors wore slops throughout the period. But unfortunately I cannot remember his reasoning. And he's offline until the 19th of this month.

And please, if anyone is holding back for the sake of my feelings, don't! I just report what the evidence tells me. If someone has other evidence, I will be the first person in line to look at it, and the first person to change my pronouncements if the evidence proves to the contrary. :)

[Rumba Rue]

I strongly suggest you contact Jamiaca Rose at No Quarter Given for answers.

NQG

[Fox]

Foxe does have occasional use of an internet cafe when his purse can take it...

Ned Ward mentions "Wide kneed breeches" in his Wooden World Dissected (1707)

The probate inventory of Joseph Haycock's London slop shop (1699) mentions "5 pair of open kneed breeches" twice (10 pairs in total).

Compared with the number of breeches and trousers mentioned in the same inventory these "open kneed breeches" seem to have been less common than either of the others, but they certainly were worn.

[Capt. Sterling]

Well then the debate now becomes, how wide? what exactly does open knee breeches mean as far as dimensions? My question, looking at some of the pictures in Foxe's collection, would also have to include, where exactly do breeches end and trousers begin? A number of the pants seem to be more mid calf and certainly open but not what I would think Kass is referring to as the very wide, almost like petticoat breeches of the earlier 1660s which do seem to make a reappearance come the Am. Rev. War. Does anyone know whether the term open kneed breeches has anything to do with the way they were closed/fastened...ie.. could those that just tied at the bottom be considered "open" as there are no buttons running down the side of the leg at the opening?? Can anyone clear this up for me?

[Capt. Sterling]

Also.... taking a deep breath and starting in again... two buttons at the waistband.... were these running vertical or horizontal? Any actual sizes given for the buttons as well??

[kass]

Yay Mr. Foxe swoops in valiantly and saves the say!

Thanks for the refs, Ed. I do appreciate it.

So there you are, Mick. Some mention. Not as popular as in other areas. Also probably not as wide in the leg as we see people wearing.

In my pattern, by the way, you'll notice that I give the option of not gathering the breeches at the knees. This would give "open kneed breeches". The Tailleur Sincere from 1671 mentions "open knee breeches", but it also mentions "Sailors Breeches" and describes them as big full in the leg and gathered into a band below the knee.

As with everything, there was no "uniform" and people wore different variations of things, much like today. But I stand by my statement that what we call "slops" (the huge skirt-like breeches sold by many Rev War sutlers) were not in common use by sailor's from 1680 until the 1730s.

Hector, the extant breeches from the period have the buttonhole horizontal ie at right angles to the front edge (like all buttonholes I think I've ever seen on historical clothing), but they are stacked vertically, if that's what you mean. No sizes given in the slop contracts.

I think "open" meant that they weren't fastened, yes. But also that they weren't tight to the leg at the knee. However, I don't think they had to be huge to be considered "open".

I don't quite know where breeches end and trousers begin because, unfortunately, none of the illustrators at the time have done us the service of labelling everything. In my personal vocabulary, I call anything more than a couple of inches below the knee "trousers".

[MadMike]

"Open kneed breeches" seems to be the keyword. More than likely they referred to them as "breeches" in period documentation, adding to the confusion.

Yours, Mike

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Could it be semantics? Trousers/Slops are relatively new to the scene in the in garment history and come in to play during the GAoP, and sailors appear to be early adopter.

Even today we don't really have a distinctive word for the short or long "slops".

We know that "slops" meant, at the time of GAoP, the suit of clothing that sailors wore.

For what we know as the trousers/shorts, I have seen slops, slop hose, sailor's breeches etc.

What exactly is this sailor wearing, second from left? Open leg breeches? Slops?

(this is Foxe's 1700 west indian traders map picture)

Greg

[kass]

He looks like he's wearing one of those torn-to-hell justacorps like we see in the Cryes of London, like this guy:

He may even be wearing something like those long shirts and legwraps that we see in Buccaneer pictures.

I just didn't find any definitive evidence of the huge, wide, skirt-like things we modernly call "slops" like what Townsend sells and Kannik's makes a pattern for. Not from 1680 to 1730.

Doesn't mean they didn't exist. But it sure means that I'm not going to say they did, or that they were common.

The stuff in my pattern is based on extant garments, pictures of seamen from the period, and the stuff described in the slop contracts. I just didn't find what we call "slops" anywhere in the period.

[Mick MacAnselan]

I hope Greg doesn't mind, but what would everyone call what the two studly gents in this picture are wearing?

[Rabbitz]

Although I have no historical evidence for this, it would suprise me if sailors wore wide cuffed trousers/slops/trews/pants while on watch. It is simply less than pratical to do so.

Even today's long shorts type pants are dangerous on a "Tall ship". There are many oppurtunities to snag these wide cuffs on belaying pins, shrouds, blocks, handy-billies etc etc. (I have learnt this from experience... It IS embarassing to go base over apex when alighting from the pin rail)

In addition it would make sense that as a lot of sailors started with a Navy that the tradition of self made clothes would be strong (all sailors could sew) and I think that the naval patterns with a band close around the knee would therefore have been popular.

Regards

Rabz

[Francois]

I was under the impression that the slops were used as work pants that went over a pair of breeches. This was so they didn't get there good breeches dirty or ruined. Also the slops had pitch tar or wax on them so that when in poor conditions they would not get wet and prevent the sailor from getting wet. They are open wide at the bottom so that the sailor can climb the rate lines with ease. This I can verify from experience. I had a pair of slops that were too narrow and they tore right up the middle as I climbed. My other pair that were much wider worked perfect. So from what I know they were more for practical use and not fashion.

François

[Gentleman of Fortune]

The picture from my website that you have posted of the two guys... the handsome figure on the left is wearing peticoat breeches.... I know because its me and I made the breeches. Maybe not as volumnous as some would like for peticoat breeches, but that was all the material I had to work with...

The figure on the right, Bloody Davy Cash... is wearing the long version of the trousers.

As far as trousers in general go...

again, with the GAoP we see things that either had not existed before (or at least were not popular contemporarily) come in to fashion and develop during the GAoP.

Slops/trousers are one of these items. We go from closed knee breeches and petiticoat breeches in 1650ish to long trousers being worn (like the Woodes Rodgers Guyacil picture) at least by 1712.

My guess is that they got from point A (breeches) to point E (long slop trousers) with several stops along the way.

We know that petitcoat breeches were popular for Early GAoP, and we have documentation from Foxe of Open Kneed' breeches, and pictorial evidence of long trousers.

It would be hard for me to believe that they went to a long trousers before the development of a short slop (which we have evidence of from around 1730).

I would say short slops would be logical... but that might not be enough evidence for some.

Can't go wrong with the long versions though as we do have lots of documentation on those... and I think that they look cooler.

Greg

[kass]

Francois,

You're right about slops being for practical use and not fashion. But the idea of them being worn over breeches as protection for the breeches has never been proven. It's an assumption based mostly on the fact that we call them "slops". Foxe has some interesting experimental evidence to bolster the idea that slops don't work well as overalls.

Rabbitz,

I agree with your ideas. But the trousers of this period weren't wide in the leg. They look like modern girls' capri pants in fact.

Greg,

I would call what you're wearing "petticote breeches" and date them to the 1670s at the very latest (or the 1740s when we start seeing them on sailors). I can't see the bottom of the legs in DJ's picture, but I think his trousers are a little too wide as well. But it's hard to tell without seeing the bottoms. If he's wearing what I think he's wearing, I'd date them to 1737 but no earlier.

Le Taileur Sincere from 1671 lists Sailors' Breeches (which are gathered at the knee, not open), Petticote Breeches (which have no crotch but are open at the bottom like a kilt), and Open Knee Breeches (which are not gathered at the knee). I think Open Knee Breeches aren't huge in the leg, just not gathered at the knee.

Fact it, guys: For a long time, we've been buying F&I and Rev War stuff from Townsend and Flying Canoe and other places and trying to make it work for the GAoP. But clothing was significantly different in the 1750s than it was in the 1680s-1730s. A number of items of clothing that were in common use in the mid-18th century were just getting their start in the GAoP and you can see the "growing pains", if you will, of a number of innovative garments.

But the petticote breeches we're calling "slops" -- nuh uh. Don't see 'em. Not from 1680 to about 1737. Not even anything approaching that width. So I stand firm on the idea that the developed later (which we do have evidence for).

I guess this is going to be my "boots"!

[Kathyrn Ramsey]

As with everything, there was no "uniform" and people wore different variations of things, much like today. But I stand by my statement that what we call "slops" (the huge skirt-like breeches sold by many Rev War sutlers) were not in common use by sailor's from 1680 until the 1730s.

Ok so what did the fashion experts on the ships just flip thier hand and say 'Oh no these are all wrong we need something else?'

I seems hard to accept that 50 years between something that works they decide not to wear them. The men on these ships were not into fashion... If they were then they would wear what all the dandy's on shore were wearing whether it was harder to wear or not.

I would like to see where you got your documentation from though Kass.

[kass]

Sure, Kathyrn. I make my documentation no secret. It's all right there in the pattern historical notes. But to reiterate, I base my findings on period illustrations of seamen (look at Foxe's Pirate Pictures for the most extensive collection), the Admiralty Slop Contract Specifications from 1690 to 1739 (these can be found on the Pirate Brethren Forums as a sticky), and extant breeches of common men in museums in England, Ireland, and Scotland.

I was as surprised as any of you not to find evidence for slops in the GAoP. I expected to find them. I HOPED to find them! I mean, after all, I make my living selling patterns to you guys. If my patterns say something you don't like, you won't buy them. And then my greyhounds will starve...

But I simply cannot say something existed when I find no evidence for it. I don't do research to please people or to bolster my pet theories. I do research to discover the truth about historical clothing. And wide-legged petticote-like breeches like we see sailors wearing in the Rev War period aren't in the pictorial, documentary, or archeological record for the years 1680-1730.

There are many examples of things that "worked" that went away and came back later. Cartridge pleating comes immediately to mind. In the 17th century, so much of a woman's attire was cartridge pleated that it was ubiquitous. But in the 18th century, it drops off the face of the earth. For an entire century, the extant garments, the tailors' account, the pictorial record show narry a single cartridge pleat. Not on a noblewoman. Not on a commoner. And then in the 19th century, they came back and were everywhere again.

It's not "fashion". It's just that sometimes there's a better idea out there for a while. Petticote breeches started out as fashion in the 1660s. Frankly, I can't see why sailors would ever wear them at all, they're so impractical to me. But we have pictures of them wearing them. So I can point at those pictures and say "petticote breeches were worn by sailors in the 1670s". But then they disappear. And we don't see anything nearly that wide until 1737. I can't say something was there when I see no evidence of it.

And believe me, I will be the first one to hold up an example of slops from this period if one is found. But even if one is found, it certainly doesn't make them common if only one is found among hundreds of sources!

[blackjohn]

But the petticote breeches we're calling "slops" -- nuh uh.  Don't see 'em.  Not from 1680 to about 1737.  Not even anything approaching that width.  So I stand firm on the idea that the developed later (which we do have evidence for).

I have only unpacked one book... so I'll refrain from making too comments...

Fact it, guys:  For a long time, we've been buying F&I and Rev War stuff from Townsend and Flying Canoe and other places and trying to make it work for the GAoP.  But clothing was significantly different in the 1750s than it was in the 1680s-1730s.  A number of items of clothing that were in common use in the mid-18th century were just getting their start in the GAoP and you can see the "growing pains", if you will, of a number of innovative garments.

however... on one hand I agree. What Kass says is true about taking later period square pegs and forcing them into round holes. On the other hand... I suspect the clothing from the 1730s has more in common with the 1750s than the 1680s.

Anyway... whatever... just my opinion...

Pics... wide legged... 1720s...

ps - I've experienced something much like what Francois has experienced. I was poling a batteau during a revwar event, wearing a pair of rather tight in the knee breeches, with the leg buttons unbuttoned, they were kind of old, and damp from me being in the river, and at one point I bent down and... RIP, my knee came popping out of one leg... and a little while later... rrriiiippp, the other knee tore through. Sooooo... make of it what you will.

[blackjohn]

Sorry, that pic makes me think of Blackadder...

Mossop: Oh, ah, sir... about costume. Any thoughts?

Prince George: Well, enormous trousers, certainly. And I thought perhaps an Admiral's uniform, because we know what all the nice girls love, don't we?

(They all laugh.)

Prince George: I'll tell you what, why don't I go and try them on for you?

Mossop: Oh, super.

G: Help yourselves to wine. You'll need a stiff drink when you see the size of these damn trousers!

[kass]

I totally agree with you, John, on all points. I just wouldn't call what Bonney and Read are wearing in that picture "petticote breeches", would you? They certainly aren't as wide as what Townsend is selling (and we're wearing) as "slops".

Those are trousers. They correspond with the Slop Contract specs for trousers. Or one could argue that they're open knee breeches (although if you look at the Slop Contracts, they're way too long). But they most certainly aren't the skirt-like things we call slops. Slops are HUGE! These are just baggy.

Is no one seeing this difference but me?

And about the breeches giving at the knee -- why do you think they wore OPEN knee breeches? I don't think these are simply not gathered. I think they are cut straighter in the leg (little to no taper).

[blackjohn]

Yeah, I know the things you are talking 'bout... did they even exist at all? Then again, the skeptic in me asks, "did any of these things exist at all?" Sorry folks, I don't trust artists as much as I do artifacts. As far as I'm concerned, these are all artistic representations, and thus subject to artistic license.

[blackjohn]

I mean... seriously... do you really expect any of these guys got this stuff spot on? It's like the GAP version of Hollywood! And like that, some are better than others, but still... anyway... just a little rant in the middle of a debate.

[Captain Jim]

I have to go with John on his criticism of the illustrators of this time. So how is it that we have so much information about the years before 1680 and after 1730, but so little in the very period that we are trying to represent? Seems that there is more evidence and atrifacts of ancient Egyptian clothing 3000 years ago than for the GAoP 300 years ago. Did a black hole open up and swallow all of the clothing worn during this period, especially that worn by sailors?