'Slops' Not Period?

[Capt. Sterling]

Of course, the Italians are rather sloppy...

And the guy in the foreground is wearing... something that we'd call more conventional.

So is the guy way in the back to the left.

Perhaps the baggy red breeches are some form of livery? Or do you know exactly what those two men are supposed to be work wise?

the red breeches also look closed at the knee not hanging lose like the wide slops....

[Captain Jim]

The guys in the red pants are some sort of livery: household, taxi driver or military boatman. But look...on their feet! Could those be...BUCKET BOOTS!?

*turns and dives for cover*

Hey, where is Petee?

[blackjohn]

I suspect those two belong to some sort of Venetian bargemen's guild or some such. Thus, it could just be an example of workmen wearing a traditional uniform. As you are suggesting, a livery of sorts, a la Victorian servants wearing 18thC clothing.

My whole point here is to really say, "Kass is right," but there are oddball exceptions. Should one, as a reenactor be reenacting oddball exceptions? Hey, that's your call. If that's your gig, go for it. Should one, as a GAP reenactor, be purchasing Kass' patterns and trusting her research? Without a doubt!!!

ps - my favorite guy in this pic is the one in the lower left, looking at us. I think it's Patrick Hand, wearing a pirate hoodie!

[Black Hearted Pearl]

It seems rather obivious to me that we are talking about the same pants, just at different times in their 'lifecycle'.

As a mom, I can tell you that I start off the kids with trousers. Which then become shredded around the ankle, so I cut them off at the knee. Hence breeches. Next the knee gets worn, so I cut them off again. By this time, they are too small for the oldest and get passed to the youngest who is skinner. Now they are wide kneed breeches.

Just as sails are cut down to eliminate the shredding on the leech, it seems to make sense that what we are seeing is the evolution of a pair of trousers in GAoP.

Just my two dubloons worth.

[Jack Roberts]

The guys in the red pants are some sort of livery: household, taxi driver or military boatman. But look...on their feet! Could those be...BUCKET BOOTS!?

*turns and dives for cover*

Hey, where is Petee?

Yep thats what they look like to me. So i'm wearing them. See there is the proof that I can wear bucket boots. See, see..... Hehe...

I say this in total jest. (with tongue in cheek attitude).

[Hawkyns]

I've been wtaching this one and I think Pearl has a good point. Above and beyond that, we seem to be indulging in a 21st c habit of trying to define everything to the nth degree. When do slops become pants, become wide breeches, become ?????. We are dealing with artistic license, cottage industry. availability of fabric, home made clothing, and many other varieables, and a very limited sample of extant garments, and not a particularly large sample of primary source art.

I have to say that trying to pigeonhole this item to a specific pattern for a certain span of years seems to be an excersize in futility. We can all strive for accuracy as much as we want. Sometimes we will have good info, sometimes we won't. sometimes we will have to go with best guess/logical theory. But for anyone to say that any one idea is the only way is the height of arrgance, IMNSHO.

Hawkyns

[MadMike]

Excerpts from the 1719 edition of "Robinson Crusoe" by Daniel Defoe-

"I had a short jacket of goat's skin, the skirts coming down to about the middle of the thighs, and a pair of open-kneed breeches of the same; the breeches were made of the skin of an old he-goat, whose hair hung down such a length on either side that, like pantaloons, it reached to the middle of my legs; stockings and shoes I had none, but had made me a pair of somethings, I scarce knew what to call them, like buskins, to flap over my legs, and lace on either side like spatterdashes, but of a most barbarous shape, as indeed were all the rest of my clothes" (Chapter XI, p. 173)

"I had the Mortification to see my Coat, Shirt and Wast-coat which I had left on Shore upon the Sand, swim away; as for my Breeches which were only Linnen and open knee’d, I swam on board in them and my Stockings:"

Picture on site-

http://www.pierre-marteau.com/editions/171...son-crusoe.html

Yours, Mike

[Hazzards, M.]

My whole point here is to really say, "Kass is right," but there are oddball exceptions.  Should one, as a reenactor be reenacting oddball exceptions?  Hey, that's your call.  If that's your gig, go for it.  Should one, as a GAP reenactor, be purchasing Kass' patterns and trusting her research?  Without a doubt!!!

Well always remember Kass's favorite chant... don't make the common rare or the rare common!

Hector

[MadMike]

Earliest pic I can find of what we would term "slops" comes from 1762-

PortCitiesLondon

Anyone run across any earlier pics?

Yours, Mike

[Fox]

Loathe as I am to to question the NMM, I could have sworn that Lowry was executed in 1752, not 1762. Interestingly, the print of Lowry's execution is clearly based on a woodcut from one of the early Dutch editions of Johnson, in which the figure wears ankle length trousers.

1760

1740

1738

Circa 1630-40

Anyone care to offer an opinion on this sketch of 1664?

[MadMike]

Foxe,

Great stuff as usual!

Is that fellow in the 1630-40 pic wearing a belt with a round buckle?

Yours, Mike

[Sir Beachem Quick]

Here is a related website on the subject for those interested in a little edumacation.

Galligaskins

[Francois]

I found this. I know it is a little earlier than we are talking but take a look anyway. Check out the Plate below and the date. Once again this is my opinion. These were very large knee breeches. If on a ship it is very hard to do all that climbing with the breeches tied at the knee. Not to mention that every time you bend your knees one of two things happen if there tied. If there too loose they keep sliding down and you have garters on and they are loose your socks will slide down. If you tie them too tight all that knee bending will eventually start to hurt and cut off your circulation. Now remember these are every day cloths as we wear everyday cloths today. S what would have kept them from untying it cutting out the lower seem and just letting them hang down. So with the amount of material shown in the photo below this could have been something like we are calling slops. Also check out then defffinition I found. I have added the link.

Tempus Sewing

slop, sloppe, slops

A term used in the singular from the Middle Ages to refer to many different kinds of loose-fitting garments: in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, a magic bag or a cassock, jacket, mantle or cloak, gown or overdress, also a slipper. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth century slops, in the plural, were the full trunk hose or wide, baggy breeches of the time; one leg of such hose was called a slop (see Hose). The term was also especially applied in the seventeenth century to sailors' loose breeches which were ready-made from inferior quality material. From this slops came to designate particularly cheap, ready-made garments of any type. Spanish slops were the trunk hose made fashionable in Spain in the second half of the sixteenth century, Dutch slops, the Dutch or German pluderhosen of these years and the early seventeenth century, while small slops were plainer, less full breeches open at the knee.

And This

Dutch slop

This is a slang for the type of wide leg pants that Moll was being fitted for by the taylor. The Oxford English Dictionary referred to the term slop as "to provide with slops or cheap ready made clothing" (1140 IV). This is a picture of Moll on the cover of the 1611 printed version wearing Dutch slop pants:

Francois

[kass]

Anyone care to offer an opinion on this sketch of 1664?

Sure, Foxe! I think those are open knee breeches. Could even be as big as what we call "slops". That's what I'm seeing on all those 1660s guys from that source. Of course, they are so sketchy that they could also be tied at the knee and just hugely baggy. But I'll say "slops" for that one.

However, as you've just so delightfully affirmed, nothing between the 1670s and 1730s looks like that.

Francois, they absolutely were wearing open knee breeches (called "Dutch Slops" in the early 17th century) earlier than the GAoP. The point is that they kinda fall off the face of the earth from 1680 to 1725. And that's the Golden Age of Piracy. Ergo GAoP reenactors should not wear big, baggy, open knee breeches.

This isn't as strange occurance as you may think. Oftentimes items of clothing go out of use and then come back later in history. This has nothing to do with fashion. It just happens now and then. The quote you list about slops, Francois, makes it sound like there's a continuous and unbroken timeline from the 14th century and that's just not true. The term "slops" may have been in use from that time, but look at all the wildly different items of clothing to which it referred: cloaks, gowns, jackets, even a type of slipper! To put it in perspective, think of all the different permutations of what could be described today by the word "shirt" or "pants" or "jacket"...

If you must wear your slops, go earlier or go later with your date. That's all. No biggie, really...

[Tatu Ni'all]

Foxe's picture dated 1738 looks pretty close to what we have come to consider "slops", aren't they? So is it hard to assume said individual was not wearing those in years prior?

I guess I understand what is being said about concert proof, but I'm just have a hard time buying there were "slops" close to 1680 and soon after 1730 but that no one wore them during that time period. It's like saying some sailor was wearing them on Dec 31 1679 and on Jan 01 1680 he decided he was no longer going to use said "slops".

Bellbottoms were the rage during the 70's and all but disappeared during the 80's only to make a resurgence in the mid to late 90s. Could the same thing not have happened during this period as well?

[Cire]

I believe that is what Kass is getting at. They were worn, the new fad came along and they stopped wearing them, only for them to make a come back. They just timed it conveniently to confuse the masses centuries later.

[kass]

Sorry, Tatu. I just can't "assume" that something existed between 1680 and 1730 when I have no visual or archeological proof. My research methods are more precise than that. 1738 is the first time I start seeing slops. But that's not between 1680 and 1725 -- the Golden Age of Piracy. Shall I say that again?

As I said earlier (and I really hate repeating myself...), there are many examples from history when something went out of use for 50 or 100 years and then came back in again. My favourite example is cartridge pleating. It's all the rage in the 16th and 17th centuries. Then almost as soon as the turn of the 18th century (actually, it stopped in the last quarter of the 17thc), it disappears. And you don't see cartridge pleats again until the 19th century.

Why? Who knows. We just have enough pictures and extant examples from the 18th century to know it wasn't the method of pleating used.

I have no personal agenda with this assertion. I would have as gladly proven the use of wide, baggy slops in the GAoP. But the evidence is not there to support their use. Wear whatever you like. But you'll be ignoring the available information. It's not just pictures, you know. It's slop contract specifications that include measurements. The measurements simply aren't wide enough.

Sure the "bell bottoms" of this period could have gone out of style and resurfaced later. In fact, that is EXACTLY what I am trying to get across! They go away in the 1670s and come back in the 1730s. What you have in between is "the 80s". Get it?

[Kathyrn Ramsey]

You know I am getting very tired of this... We know they were worn, there have been pictures from Foxe and others to show that they were... Can we leave it at that and stop rehashing this over and over again.

It is to the point that I do not want to even look in this thread anylonger as I am tired of what is happening.

Kass, fine you do not find any evidence of what you consider 'slops' in the GAoP and others do, lets just agree to disagree and move on...

Kathryn Ramsey

[Tatu Ni'all]

I guess what I do not get and I by no means am trying to make hay but I guess I am anyway is, you say you have no personal agenda, yet whenever there has been some other theory (and yours is also a theory)mentioned, it seems to be all but dismissed. History is not that concrete.

I've been following this thread for a bit and while you say hey, wear slops if you want to, but don't call it GAoP, you are suggesting yours is the only research worth merit.

From what I have gathered from these and other posts you have a vast knowledge of fabrics and clothing in general, certainly more than I. I guess it just comes across to me as you are suggesting there is no middle ground and I find that hard to "get."

[Cire]

But if a person is trying to go for authentic, why not wear something there is evidence for, rather than something there isn't. If authenticity isn't your main goal, sure, go for what you like. If you wear something that was definitely worn in the period, you can't go wrong. Wear something that you can only assume was worn because of lack of evidence, and then something definitive is found in the future (I know this is highly unlikely) that says one way or the other there is a 50% chance you were wrong, whereas wearing something else there is no harm done.

[kass]

Well, Tatu, I do tend to see things as black and white. My husband is always complaining about this. Me, I think it's part of what makes me a good researcher.

You see, research is not about guessing what might have been. That's creative interpretation. Research is about looking at the available evidence and saying, "From this evidence, we can conclude this." It's not about why and it's not about maybe. It's "is" and "is not". Very black and white.

Which is precisely why I say, "Wear what you like." I'll probably never meet you and if I do, I'll probably like what you're wearing. But if you want to say that slops date to the years 1680-1725, I cannot tell you there is any evidence that supports that statement. And believe me, if there is a sailing vessel or a slop shop dug up tomorrow that dates to that period and it is full of huge, wide-legged, petticote breeches-type slops, I will be the FIRST person to post that information here at the Pub!

Is my research the only research worth merit? Of course not. I encourage you to do research on your own. But I have just spent the last six months trying to find evidence of slops in the GAoP and cannot find anything at all to indicate they were worn then. So I'm gonna tell you what I've found.

Kathryn, no one here has posted evidence of slops in the GAoP. The pictures Foxe has posted are all pre-1680 and post-1730. So are all the rest that people have posted. Are the dates on them only visible on my computer?

If you want to move on from this, it's simple: stop reading this thread. No harm, no foul. Why are you so drawn to something that obviously annoys you? Relax...

[Tatu Ni'all]

Kass, I understand research, I have been doing such in my professional life for about 15 years...unfortunately I have not been able to make a living researching various parts of history, working on it...but has not happened, yet.

That said, what I have found is most things are not black and white. Here we differ and thats fine. Where you say there is no evidence to support their existance, I could say there is nothing to suggest they didn't exist except for evidence has not yet been found to support it. But there could be many factors as to why that was so. Common pirates were not known for their journaling skills. Its also possible "slops" as we have come to know, started out in another form, long pants or some variation cut down for whatever reason. Much like the jeans shorts example.

Six months is quite a long time to research a particular subject and you are to be commended but its also likely you have only covered but some of the information available and the rest remains unknown at this time...which makes it hard to put a definate on anything.

It is a strong supported theory however and does demand attention.

[Cire]

So ignore what evidence there is for the time being and hold out for something that supports your own beliefs?

Surely it should be the other way around: go with what you know is there until something turns up that gives you the other option?

[Cascabel]

My favourite example is cartridge pleating. It's all the rage in the 16th and 17th centuries. Then almost as soon as the turn of the 18th century (actually, it stopped in the last quarter of the 17thc), it disappears. And you don't see cartridge pleats again until the 19th century.

Kass....

I am REALLY curious. What exactly is "cartridge pleating" ? Can you show an example ?

>>>>> Cascabel

[Tatu Ni'all]

Cire,

Its not ignoring the evidence. I think I have stated well enough that Kass has done some great work in her research but it is a presentation of what she has found, based on her interpertations and ideas she has formulated. That is not to say, someone would not research the same topic from a different angle or find other evidence which Kass may not have come across in her research.

So suggesting hers is but a well researched theory and not "gospel" is not ignoring what she has discovered at all.