'Slops' Not Period?

[kass]

Okay. Even better. Throw out all the period illustrations. No problem. Pictures can lie. I agree with you, John (and Jim). But then how does that prove the existence of petticote breeches (ie "slops") as we're wearing them?

Nothing in the archeological record from 1680-1730 looks like these wide-legged slops like what Greg's wearing in the picture someone posted. The record is extremely limited. However it does contain examples of both open-knee breeches and breeches gathered at the knee. Neither look like Townsend's slops.

Nothing in the slops contracts specifies anything nearly that wide in the leg. We have the dimensions.

So where are the non-pictorial references that make you think the petticote breeches "slops" existed?

Just like many of our ideas about what pirates wore, the picture of a Golden Age of Piracy sailor with wide, short breeches is only in our heads. We need to look at the evidence and change that picture in our heads to what we know.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Don't you just love paradigm shifts?

While I agree that there is various skill levels in the abilities of period artist, I am not one to so swiftly disregard the pictorial record.

There are period caricatures and exaggerations to make specific points, but when more than a few artist depict clothing items in a similar way, we can't just ingnore the evidence because it doesn't fit into our view.

Is there a huge construction difference between the Read and Bonny, Blackbeard, and Guyacil pictures depiction of trousers?

Greg

[blackjohn]

Don't you just love paradigm shifts?

This thread has shifted paradigms at least twice now.

There are period caricatures and exaggerations to make specific points, but when more than a few artist depict clothing items in a similar way, we can't just ingnore the evidence because it doesn't fit into our view.

Sure we can. I, on the other hand, will admit I do like to play devil's advocate, and what I may say may not be what I actually intend to do. (Lets face it, if we all sat back and agreed upon everything this place would loose some of its charm... as evidenced by that whole Col Ethan Walker incident.)

Is there a huge construction difference between the Read and Bonny, Blackbeard, and Guyacil pictures depiction of trousers?

I don't believe there is. Well, except for the above colored pic of Read and Bonny. I'd say generally speaking the rather straight, not particularly baggy trouzers seem most popular among the artistic representations. But I personally believe this evidence really supports Ed's statement regarding the slops shop probate.

[kass]

John, how can I keep agreeing with everything you say and still disagree with you?

I think that whoever was illustrating Blackbeard, Bonney and Read, and Guyacil are trying to show us the same thing. I call 'em trousers. I call 'em that because the slop contracts call garments that wide and that long by that name. You wanna call 'em slops? I won't argue with you. But I won't let that mean that the wide-legged skirty things people wear are the same thing. They're not. And it's those wide-legged things we aren't seeing in the pictorial record from 1680 to 1730.

What they aren't showing is what Greg is wearing in the photo posted earlier. They're too short and too wide to be called the same thing. And they sure aren't the same thing as these.

Regarding Foxe's slop shop probate inventory, I agree with that too. 10 pairs of "open knee breeches" existed. No contest. But were they these wide things we are calling "slops"? I don't think so. I think they are breeches not gathered at the knee. And the reason I think that is because I have a 1670s tailor's definition of "open knee breeches" and they are distinctly different from "petticote breeches" defined by the same tailor, which, if you recall, is what even Foxe is calling the wide-legged things.

Greg, your slops are glorious, bro! I'd just date them to the 1670s or the 1750s instead of the GAoP.

To sum up:

Open Knee Breeches -- existed

Calf-length to ankle-length trousers -- existed

Wide-legged, short, skirt-like petticote breeches that we are modernly calling "slops" -- no evidence of their existance from 1680 to 1730.

Why do I feel as if I'm repeating myself?

[Capt. Sterling]

Okay, I would normally side with Blackjohn regarding period illustrations and trusting artists of a certain time frame. Let’s face it some people just can’t draw, some people draw from memory, some people draw from description supplied by others and then you have some that use live models and may try to get it spot on… sometimes they are superb and sometimes they are just awful…. It almost becomes like a visual game of “Telephone!”

BUT one has to agree with Kass here that since not much in the way of actual clothing has turned up yet, where else can we look but to art work of the time, tailors books, Admiralty contracts and other period sources… And I think Kass does have a very valid point where the width of the breeches and trousers are concerned… we might NOT like depending on the period illustrations BUT SO FAR they all seem pretty consistent and do NOT show huge petticoat style breeches on sailors of the GAoP.

[blackjohn]

John, how can I keep agreeing with everything you say and still disagree with you? 

Those silly words keep getting in the way, that's how!

To sum up: 

Open Knee Breeches -- existed

Calf-length to ankle-length trousers -- existed

Wide-legged, short, skirt-like petticote breeches that we are modernly calling "slops" -- no evidence of their existance from 1680 to 1730.

If you don't mind repeating yourself, what do you see the distinction being between open knee breeches and wide-legged, short, skirt-like petticote breeches? Is it the width of... for lack of a better term "bell-bottom" of the pants leg? Or the length of the inner thigh? (ha, I got to say inner thigh!)

[blackjohn]

Okay, I would normally side with  Blackjohn regarding period illustrations and trusting artists of a certain time frame.  Let’s face it some people just can’t draw, some people draw from memory, some people draw from description supplied by others and then you have some that use live models and may try to get it spot on… sometimes they  are superb and sometimes they  are just awful…. It almost becomes like a visual game of “Telephone!”

Some years back I did some research into existing pairs of sailors' breeches recovered from wrecks, and if memory serves, found only one pair recovered from a wreck in Polish waters, dated to the late 18thC. If anyone knows of any, please share.

BUT one has to agree with Kass here that since not much in the way of actual clothing has turned up yet, where else can we look but to art work of the time, tailors books, Admiralty contracts and other period sources…    And I think Kass does have a very valid point where the width of the breeches and trousers are concerned… we might NOT like depending on the period illustrations BUT SO FAR they all seem pretty consistent and do NOT show huge petticoat style breeches on sailors of the GAoP.

I personally believe the trousers on the colored print of Read and Bonny are huge. They aren't short. They don't flare out. But they are huge.

As an aside... regarding artwork and accuracy... have you ever paid attention to weapon details in these illustrations? Such things as crossguards, lock mechanisms, or axe heads?

[kass]

I don't mind repeating myself, John. Not if it helps.

The distinction between the open knee breeches and petticote breeches has to do entirely with width. Open knee breeches would be cut straight (or tapered) and not gathered at the knees.

I found some extant examples of breeches from this period that look for all the world like modern shorts! But they were an even length from top to bottom and they didn't gather much. I would call those "open knee breeches". And according to the tailor's notes from 1671, so would he.

Petticote breeches on the other hand are so wide and gathered so much into the waistband that they almost look like a skirt. The tailor from 1671 actually says they are a skirt (they have no crotch seam), but other extant examples of petticote breeches do have a crotch seam although it hardly matters. There's even a story about a gent in the 1660s who put both his legs in one leg of his petticote breeches and didn't realize it until much later!

(ha! I got to say "crotch seam"... twice! )

Open knee breeches could become petticote breeches if they were cut wide enough in the leg. I'm just not seeing any evidence of that in the pictorial record. And in the Slop Contracts, breeches are only something like 15" wide across the bum. That's narrow.

There's a picture from 1738 with sailor's sitting around a table, drinking where you can start to see the widening of the open knee breeches occurring. In a 1752 picture, you've got full on "slops".

I don't think Bonney and Read's trousers are huge. That's what my pajama bottoms look like and they're only about 12-14" across! And there are those black and white illos of Bonny and Read -- you've seen 'em -- those look more realistic and less stylized to me. They are definitely trousers (remember that "trousers" in the slop contracts were short -- 34" long on the outseam).

And I think you're not reading the visual evidence correctly if you think any of these flare out like bell-bottoms. None of them do -- not even the modern "slops". They are straight cut. But when you gather that much fabric, it tends to pouf out at the bottoms.

Foxe was making some noises when I saw him in March about a set of sailor's clothing in the Museum of London. I don't know what time period it's from though and it's not on their website. But I am anxious to see it when I get back there.

[jim hawkins]

There's even a story about a gent in the 1660s who put both his legs in one leg of his petticote breeches and didn't realize it until much later!

Must be an ancestor of mine!

[kass]

You know, Jim, I think he very well might have been!

[MadMike]

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

I hand sewed my open knee breeches using a breeches pattern, adjusting the width at the knees for more freedom of movement (I also have a pair of breeches- keeps the mosquito's out).

My "slops" aren't the wide skirt like pants, since those came into being after the period.

http://www.geocities.com/flpyrate/index.html

Go to the "Projects" link, then scroll down to bottom of page.

Yours, Mike

[Cire]

I'm awaiting the naked mud wrestling to determine who is correct...

[Francois]

I was looking at the photo of Bonney and Read. It accrued to me that. If I take the ties out of my Knee Breeches cut the seem out and let the legs hang they would look just like the pants in the photo. Is it possible this is the way straight leg pants evolved. Also if you cut the leg up higher depending on the style or maker of the breeches you might get what look like slops. Just a thought.

François

[kass]

François, you hit the nail on the head right there! My thinking exactly.

Except for the idea that if you made them shorter, they'd be slops. But I think that's because I think of slops as the huge skirty things.

Cire, Cire... We don't wrestle naked in mud. The Pirate Brethren wrestle naked in period-accurate chocolate sauce!

[Rabbitz]

So what is William Dampier wearing here?

NY Library Photo

Rabz

[Rabbitz]

A better copy of the image is here:

Ny Public Library Digital Collection

[blackjohn]

Hard to say... looks like an early 20thC artist (is that date 1903?) did a pretty good job of looking at period buccaneer pics and extrapolating.

It looks like he took Matthew Amt's breeches this (seriously, this guy does look just like a friend of mine):

And combined it with the untucked shirt look from here:

[kass]

Definitely breeches that tie at the knees with ribbons. That's very clear.

But it looks like the artist forgot to put buttons down the front of his waistcoat (that's what I'm interpretting that light-coloured thing under his coat as).

[kass]

Looks more like this to me, John. I can distinctly see ribbons at his knees.

[blackjohn]

I'm guessing it to be a hunting shirt. But that's just a guess. It's just a smock. Worn over your shirt to pro... well... you get the idea... but in the heat of the tropics, it really looks like these guys were letting it hang loose. It could just be an untucked shirt. Or... honestly, looking at those buccaneer pics, I wonder just what they were wearing down below!!!

[kass]

Oh yeah! It makes sense on the Buccaneers! I just don't know what the hell it's doing on Dampier. Seems out of place...

I agree with your assessment that this is a later drawing. But he's still wearing breeches tied at the knee, not "slops" (to beat a dead horse).

[blackjohn]

Looks more like this to me, John.  I can distinctly see ribbons at his knees.

Pffffttt! Same thing! C'mon, it's Matt! He didn't bother to tie his ribbons... or he lost them! Or... he needed to use them to make a field expedient repair to some other more crucial item in his kit.

[blackjohn]

Oh yeah! It makes sense on the Buccaneers! I just don't know what the hell it's doing on Dampier. Seems out of place...

I agree with your assessment that this is a later drawing. But he's still wearing breeches tied at the knee, not "slops" (to beat a dead horse).

Weeeellllll... Dampier is a buccaneer... sooooo...

I think the artist took some liberties. I think he did a pretty good job though.

And yeah, I agree they are knee breeches. But I think that navigator dude is wearing knee breeches too. I just think whatever is holding them at the knee is not visible in the pic, not tied, or has been removed.

[kass]

Oh, it's Matt! I forgot it was Matt. That sure sounds like Matt. Next thing you know, he'll be throwing himself at the native's feet!

[blackjohn]

Of course, the Italians are rather sloppy...

1730 baggy drawers

Still, this is outside the GAP. And the guy in the foreground is wearing... something that we'd call more conventional.