The Boots We Wear (On Bucket Boots)

[Pirate Petee]

I started its own post, I didn't want to take away from the Morgan Pic topic.

Boots, yeah. I love this debate. Now see people, we can have a friendly debate, without peoples slops getting in a bunch. GoF, I didn’t get your PM about the Batavia’s boots, but I received those pics from Charity here at the pub. True, if you look at the pics of the “Bucket Boots” who in there right mind would want to wear those stiff looking things on a ship, maybe some, I don’t know. If you look at the pics of the Batavia boots and another illustration of seamen wearing boots, they look totally different, looser, more baggy and more “ship friendly”. Is it possibly that there were several different styles of boots, both tall with folded tops, maybe. A discussion in its own. Now I’m not saying that every pirate or sailor wore boots, hell I’m not even saying that most of them wore boots, I am just saying that some did. Hey, don’t get me wrong I wear buckle shoes too. Shhh don’t tell my boot friends about that . I don’t think Hollywood came up with the idea that they wore boots, there are a lot of early 19th century images of seamen wearing boots, that’s in the 1800’s, a lot closer to the GAoP than we are , with so many depictions of them wearing boots it had to have come from some where.

[dasNdanger]

Wow - you've just proven the size of your....erm...boots...just by startin' this topic!! HUZZAH!!!

I was wondering if anyone has ever contacted the so-called pirate experts on this subject - pirate hunters, museums, etc...?? Of course, I'm sure there are a lot of opinions on the subject, even amongst professionals, but it might be a good idea to let them do a little leg work for us...

Now - I'm leaning towards the concept that boots may have been worn aboard ship during the Buccaneer era, and perhaps even the Elizabethan (not 100% sure about that since I haven't researched yet), but, most likely, only by the man in charge, and only when he wanted to prove he WAS in charge. On shore missions it might be possible that some men wore boots - though the thought that...gah...someone...entertained about men wrapping their legs in cloth also sounds feasible. And around town, well - I think it's very possible that any well-dressed pirate would want to wear what is fashionable, and if boots were the 'thing' at the time, then sure, they wore 'em, but for stepping out, and not for sailing. It's also possible that pirates who had shore residences just kept shore clothes on shore, and so if captured, those boots wouldn't have been part of their personal inventory.

But of course, none of the above is 'proof' - just speculation. Right now it would be better to see some tangible proof - either in the form of a picture, or personal accounts. Of course, like someone else said (boy, the memory is slipping), 'common' things may not have warranted special note...so if boots were ever common, then no special mention may have been made. Still - I don't see the practicality of bulky bucket boots aboard ship - but on shore - well, why not??! This goes back to my other comment about the re-enactor's choice to portray a pirate as he would look in his working clothes, or in his leisure attire.

das

[Pirate Petee]

Here are some Pics of “Bucket Boots” that I have. Ranging from well before the GAoP, to about 20 years after. Four are obviously cavalry boots, the one other pair was found on a ship wreck. The ones from the shipwreck look a bit more, ship friendly. Granted ones from the wreck are from 1629, but it does show that either a sailor wore them or owned them. Now personally I could see reasons for wearing them and for not wearing them. Sailors did have boots made of canvas and of leather, they were the precursor to the gum boot and it is from them where we get the term “galoshes” from. Now I personally, if I were aboard a ship would like to have both.

[JoshuaRed]

Granted ones from the wreck are from 1629, but it does show that either a sailor wore them or owned them.

Have to remember tho, that just because they were found on a wreck doesn't mean they were a sailor's...they could have been in shipment, or intended as a gift, or perhaps WERE a sailor's, but weren't being worn, or maybe were a passenger's...any number of possibilities could be true, yes, even that a sailor was clomping around the deck with them on his feet. :)

[dasNdanger]

Wow - which pair are from a shipwreck (and which shipwreck)?

Here's much earlier pics from the Mary Rose - http://privateer.omena.org/privateerclothe...esfootwear.html

I tend to agree with this statement on that site: "It is unlikely that a common sailor would wear boots on the ship, but a pair of "dress boots" would be acceptable for formal events on land or an officer aboard ship."

das

[JoshuaRed]

I'd buy that. Of course how many "formal events" would a common sailor attend? How many black tie galas does the average low/middle class person attend in a year?

[Fox]

I'm all for friendly debate, it's the only way to move forward.

If you look at the pics of the Batavia boots and another illustration of seamen wearing boots, they look totally different, looser, more baggy and more “ship friendly”. Is it possibly that there were several different styles of boots, both tall with folded tops, maybe. A discussion in its own. Now I’m not saying that every pirate or sailor wore boots, hell I’m not even saying that most of them wore boots, I am just saying that some did

Petee, have you seen this picture? It's of a boot recovered from the Vasa.

The trouble is that neither the Vasa boot nor the Batavia boots are really relevant to the GAoP. The other thing that we really have to consider is the proportion of boots being worn. I've got contemporary pictures of, at an estimate, 250-300 seamen of the GAoP era. 2 of them are wearing boots. I've looked at a good couple of hundred wills of seamen of that time, and I've never, to my recollection, come across a mention of boots in them. OK, I can accept that there is some evidence for seamen in boots, but it must also be accepted that that evidence constitutes something like a fifth of one% of the evidence about seamen's appearance. So if one in every 500 maritime re-enactors wore a pair of knee length soft boots I'd have no argument. Like you, I'm not saying that no pirate ever wore a bucket boot, just that during the GAoP they would have been in a completely insignificant minority.

I don’t think Hollywood came up with the idea that they wore boots, there are a lot of early 19th century images of seamen wearing boots, that’s in the 1800’s, a lot closer to the GAoP than we are  , with so many depictions of them wearing boots it had to have come from some where

I think that Pyle and co are probably more to blame than Hollywood, Hollywood just popularised the Pylesque image. Personally, I haven't seen many early 19th century depictions of pirates in boots, but even if they exist that doesn't mean they were in any way inspired by genuine pirate practice. If you look at pictures of that period a massive range of influences is clear. My favourite is that picture of Kidd burying the family bible dressed in Tudor clothing!

pirate hunters, museums, etc...??

Erm, I'm an historian and former maritime museum curator. Does that count? Actually, I'm of the opinion that the word of "experts" is of little or no value when compared to actual evidence.

Now - I'm leaning towards the concept that boots may have been worn aboard ship during the Buccaneer era, and perhaps even the Elizabethan (not 100% sure about that since I haven't researched yet)

Maybe during the buccaneer era, especially in the early part when they were fashionable. Probably not much during the Elizabethan period - they weren't so fashionable then.

On shore missions it might be possible that some men wore boots - though the thought that...gah...someone...entertained about men wrapping their legs in cloth also sounds feasible.

That would have been me. It's not only feasable, it's proven, we've got pictures of it. No pictures of boots though...

I think it's very possible that any well-dressed pirate would want to wear what is fashionable, and if boots were the 'thing' at the time, then sure, they wore 'em, but for stepping out, and not for sailing.

I agree absolutely. When boots were "the thing" they were probably not uncommon (which is not the same as saying common, but...). So let's look at when boots were actually de rigeur. We being to see boots during the later medieval period, but they appear at that time to be associated with riding, though they do make excellent under-armour wear. In the sixteenth century they remain practical riding boots, and not particularly fashionable - though they were perhaps slightly more popular than they had earlier been. In the Jacobean period they seem to have lost that slight popularity and been reduced once more completely to the status of riding wear, only to come into high fashion during Charles I's reign (1625-49). On the Continent they never seem to have been as fashionable as they were in England, so on Charles II's return to England from a long exile boots instantly went out of fashion and became, once more, specifically for riding in. Shoes remained the fashionable footwear right through the 17th and 18th centuries then until, in the very late 18th century short Hessian boots (which are nothing at all like bucket boots) became fashionable for young men.

Right now it would be better to see some tangible proof - either in the form of a picture, or personal accounts.

Yes it would! the trouble is, if anyone ever manages to come up with the elusive evidence of a pirate in a bucket boot then everyone will instantly jump up and shout in a deafening clamour "Pirates wore bucket boots, look, we can prove it!", which would sadly be ignoring totally the HUGE amount of evidence of them not wearing bucket boots. It comes down to keeping things in perspective.

Of course, like someone else said (boy, the memory is slipping), 'common' things may not have warranted special note...so if boots were ever common, then no special mention may have been made.

That argument is very much a two-edged sword. In Dampier's books (to which JoshuaRed was specifically referring when he said it) Dampier was interested in the unusual things that he saw, not the commonplace. However, the truth is that we DO know a huge amount about the commonplace stuff from other sources, we have huge numbers of pictures (not the "few etchings" that nay-sayers like to think), we have written descriptions of what people were wearing, we have supply documents for all sorts of ships, including pirate and privateer. We have a massive amount of evidence of the commonplace, so we can say with some certainty what was common and what wasn't. If something isn't mentioned at all then we can say with reasonable confidence of accuracy that it was extremely rare at best.

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

It strikes me that in any discussion of this nature there are certain things which must be considered.

ERA: Did pirates wear bucket boots? Probably some did in the 1620s-50s. Did pirates wear togas? Probably some did in the 70s-40s BC. Are either of those questions or answers relevant to the GAoP? No.

LOCATION: Did pirates wear turbans? Yep, thousands of Barbary pirates in the 15th-19th centuries wore turbans.

EVIDENCE: If there's evidence of something being worn then that's good, but we've got to consider how extensive that evidence is. If we have a record of one man during the GAoP who wore pink nail varnish then we can say that yes, one man did wear pink nail varnish, but it would be folly to take it further. If we have two dozen different sources for multiple people in different parts of the world wearing short coats then we can say that the practice was very widespread, if not universal.

Logic: Logic is all very well, but it has to be based on sound information. Take the argument "pirates might have worn boots if they wanted to look dashing ashore". It's not a bad argument as far as it goes, but it is based on the assumption that what we find dashing is the same as what people in the GAoP found dashing, and we know for a fact that that is not always the case. To their contemporaries pirates ashore in bucket boots in the GAoP would have looked like farmers or post-boys, not swaggering gents! Thus the logic comes to pieces.

For wearing anything there are three major possible reasons:

Fashion: I don't mean fashion in the sense of what was in fashion, I mean it in th sense of the fashion, what was actually worn by the multitudes. If we know something was the fashion then there's no problem with it. We must bear in mind though that different sections of society had/have their own fashions - in the 17th and 18th centuries this was particularly true of sailors. If something was not fashionable then we have to look at:

Expedience: If we know something existed (like bucket boots), but also know that it doesn't seem to have been the fashion amongst our particular group or general society (like bucket boots) then it might serve us to look for a reason of practicality. However, even if we can find a reason of practicality we must then be sure that there is no other known alternative which was used instead. For example, one might argue that buccaneers going through the bush might have worn boots to protect their legs, but against that we know of an alternative, which did the job just as well and was cheaper and more readily available (the bandages we can see in buccaneer pictures), so out goes that excuse for wearing boots.

Personal Quirk: Yes, people sometimes wear things for their own unexplained personal reasons, but we must consider that a: people who actively go against the fashion are few and far between in our own time, probably more so 3 or 4 centuries ago, and b: the operative word is "personal", one pirate wearing make-up out of personal preference is weird but not impossible. 2 pirates wearing make-up is a trend, and we know there was no trend for it, so it's wrong.

I need a cup of tea.

[dasNdanger]

Well - for a pirate, just going ashore might be a 'formal event' - depending on the quality of the local doxies, of course...

So, in my travels around the net, it seems as if boots were probably worn by some pirates (for shore ventures, most likely)...say, prior to c. 1670...and after that they gave way to the more popular buckle shoe - both on land and at sea.

Some interesting ideas here - http://www.pubcat.org.uk/clobber_clothes.htm - though the site states that the information is not for academic use, it still sounds like they've done a wee bit of research on the clothing end of things. Any thoughts on this site's information - accurate, or inaccurate?

das

[Fox]

Have to remember tho, that just because they were found on a wreck doesn't mean they were a sailor's...they could have been in shipment, or intended as a gift, or perhaps WERE a sailor's, but weren't being worn, or maybe were a passenger's...any number of possibilities could be true, yes, even that a sailor was clomping around the deck with them on his feet.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Actually, we know that the Batavia (from whence those boots came) was sailing to set up trading posts int he East, and had merchants and passengers aboard as well as seamen and supplies. I suspect the massive pre-fabricated stone arches and other architectural gems also recovered from the Batavia had little to do with seamen's camps ashore.

Here's much earlier pics from the Mary Rose - http://privateer.omena.org/privateerclothe...esfootwear.html

I tend to agree with this statement on that site: "It is unlikely that a common sailor would wear boots on the ship, but a pair of "dress boots" would be acceptable for formal events on land or an officer aboard ship."

Personally I'm a little wary of any site which suggests kung-fu shoes are authentic 16thC sailor wear! The trouble with the Mary Rose is that we know a huge proportion of the crew were not seamen, so we have to be a little careful about what conclusions we draw from it.

Any thoughts on this site's information - accurate, or inaccurate?

I'm sad to say this of people I know, but unless they've got hitherto unseen evidence to the contrary I suspect that DK books helped them out a bit...

[Pirate Petee]

The only written evidence that I have came across of sailors wearing boots, is that of deep sea fishermen, whalers and or sailors mainly sailing in colder climates or during rougher seas crossing the Atlantic. I’m kicking myself in the ass for not saving the sites, but they described them as being tall leather boots, treated for keeping the sailors feet and legs dry and warm. If I can find the sites again I’ll post em. I’m lookin for them.

Nice pic of boots Mr. Foxe, I haven't seen those, kinda look like modern day engineer boots. Is that a buckle on them? Yeah, I have seen the one of Kid in tudor kicking the bible.

[Pirate Petee]

I found one a little late though.

"Method of making Leather impervious by Water (1795)

The New England fishermen preserve their boots tight against water by the following method, which, it is said, has been in use among them above an hundred years. A pint of boiled Linseed-oil, half a pound of mutton suet, six ounces of clean Bees-wax, and four ounces of Rosin are melted and well mixed over a fire. Of this, while warm, not so hot as may burn the leather, with a brush, lay plentifully on new boots or shoes, when they are quite dry and clean. The leather is left pliant. Fishermen stand in their boots, in water, hour after hour, without inconvenience. For three years past, all my shoes, even of calfskin, have been so served; and have, in no instance admitted water to pass through the leather. It is also a good Salve --a Basilicon. [From The American Almanac for the year 1796. Pr. Abraham Blaudelt. New Brunswick, N.J. 1795.]"

[dasNdanger]

Okay - poor Foxe - you're gonna IMPLODE!!! LOL!! Thanks for sharing all your knowledge and research.

And I agree 100% - the era in question MUST be considered, AND clarified.

I just have one more thing to comment on, then I gotta get back to work (though this is MUCH more fun!!).

Regarding fashion - we know that certain items became fashion because someone important wore them first - like wigs for example. Wigs - in my humble - were totally impractical, yet the majority of people wore them because it was fashionable to do so. I think the same may hold true with the whole boot thing - if it was the fashion, then men would wear them, horsemen or not. Kinda like how my husband wears cowboy boots, even though he's never ridden a horse, or roped a bull. And then there is the whole Star Trek uniform thing... See what I'm saying - just like you don't have to be a cowboy to wear cowboy boots, you don't HAVE to be a cavalier to wear boots - IF the fashion has caught on with the general public.

So - that brings me to my next question...or, more accurately, my request for clarification.

1. Did men - in general (gentlemen and/or commoners) - wear boots (esp. 'bucket' style boots) in the early 1600's as part of their normal, about-town attire, or do they seem to be more of an eccentricity enjoyed by only a few?

2. Same question, but late 1600's-early 1700's? (I'm assuming here that the answer is 'no')

3. IF boots were more likely worn by pirates during the earlier part of the 17th century, then why don't re-enactors who prefer boots focus on that era, while shoe lovers stick with the GAoP - I mean, there certainly were enough notable pirates from the Buccaneer era to keep bucket boot fans busy.

4. For the sake of 'fun' - I see nothing wrong with an entire crew of booted pirates showing up at ren faires and pirate festivals. However, I see your point about the percentages...so...why is it that even among some who strive for accuracy, so many want to wear the boots? LOL - could it be that man hasn't changed all that much over the centuries, and 'art' is imitating life?? I can see it now...1650...a crew of 30 men waiting to go ashore for a night on the town...and only one pair of boots between them...I can just hear it now....

"Oi! I'm captain - I should be wearin' the boots!!"

"But all things are equal here - and you wore the boots last time, so it's another man's turn."

"Personally, I don't wanna wear the boots - they smell worse than a barrel o' pork gone off!"

"I know - what if I wear 'em for the first day, and then Smitty wears 'em on the second day, and then..."

"Bloody hell - I'm hungry - I say we EAT 'EM!"

Carry on, fellas...

das

[HarborMaster]

I was always under the impression the Bucket boot was a "Riding Boot" for horse back. Spain for example brought many horses on thier ships. a small breed actually. But a pirate did not live on a ship every moment of his life. Surely he would dress accordingly for the occasion being barefoot climbing rigging., or beating thru the jungle outside of PortaBello with Morgan.

Either adventure would warrant differant attire ?

Most of my fun isnt on Lady Washington , that only comes once a year so for me its pretty much a land based event.

Perhaps dressing for the occasion has something to do with it? Also most of the pictures of the boots in this thread are pulled up., into "Riding position" and can easily be folded down.

(Note *This is the nasty part* Being a rooter service we sometimes wear thigh high rubber boots.,and fold them down at the knee----A rubber bucket boot)

[Pirate Petee]

"Oi!  I'm captain - I should be wearin' the boots!!"

"But all things are equal here - and you wore the boots last time, so it's another man's turn."

"Personally, I don't wanna wear the boots - they smell worse than a barrel o' pork gone off!"

"I know - what if I wear 'em for the first day, and then Smitty wears 'em on the second day, and then..."

"Bloody hell - I'm hungry - I say we EAT 'EM!"

Carry on, fellas...

das

I totally agree that a Whole group of reenactors wearing boots would be a bit silly. I could see one or two though, out of a larger group. Me personaly, I could see wearing something that goes above the ankle for protection, Stubbing a toe, rope or powder burns, and splinters just to name a few. I'm not talking the splinters that go flying like shrapnel, but the ones left over from a fight that were sticking out all over the place. But thats just a personal opinion. And again I have both in my kit bbots and shoes.

[Fox]

Petee, fishermen are different still. You said yourself (or quoted anyway) about fishermen standing up to their thighs in water for hours at a time - seamen don't often do that. Now, if fishermen are of interest I've got a list of the costs of stuff taken out of fishermen's pay in 1641, which includes "boots" at 7 shillings. At the same time a pair of velvet lined shoes could be had for 2 shillings and tuppence.

I can't quite work out the details of the Vasa boot (300 years on the bed of Stockholm harbour have taken their toll), but I don't believe there's a buckle involved.

OK, Das's questions...

1. From about the 1620 boots enjoyed a short time of fashion, BUT they were expensive (see above). Even a pair of really fine shoes might cost a third of the price of a pair of plain working boots. Thus, their use was limited to those who either wore them for working or could afford them for fashion. They were far from common.

2. You got it. No, not really.

3. Pass. Personally I think the history of the early 17thC pirates is far more interesting as well (check out Thomas Salkeld!). I guess what it boils down to is that Blackbeard (or alternative "popular" pirate) wasn't around in the bucket-boot era. Nor were "pirate" coats or tricorns.

4. For the sake of fun there's nothing wrong with every pirate wearing bucket boots and a jolly roger thong. It's just not history.

I was always under the impression the Bucket boot was a "Riding Boot" for horse back. Spain for example brought many horses on thier ships. a small breed actually. But a pirate did not live on a ship every moment of his life. Surely he would dress accordingly for the occasion being barefoot climbing rigging., or beating thru the jungle outside of PortaBello with Morgan.

Depends how you mean really. Yes, the bucket boot was a riding boot, but were those horses ridden by the seamen? Actually, one of the most interesting things is the number of times one comes across references to people ashore disguising themselves as seamen for one reason or another. Seamen had a very distinctive dress, and they seem to have worn it more or less all the time, even ashore. Most seamen's probates tend to show somewhere between 2 and 6 sets of clothes, but they are usually all or mostly typical seamen's clothes, not different sets of stuff for different occasions. As a side-note, barefoot in the rigging? OW!

I totally agree that a Whole group of reenactors wearing boots would be a bit silly. I could see one or two though, out of a larger group.

Personally, I think even one or two would be going a bit far (depending on the size of group), but that's essentially the attitude which I think is sensible - not that you need my approval for a minute Petee.

[Pirate Petee]

Personally, I think even one or two would be going a bit far (depending on the size of group), but that's essentially the attitude which I think is sensible - not that you need my approval for a minute Petee.

I can understand why a re-enactmebnt group wouldn't wear them, it would take away from the groups authenticity as a whole. Not like I’m a 100% down to the T authentic Re-enactor anyway . I don't know why I debate it so much. Maybe for personal approval on an individual persona level. On the pic of the Vasa boot, I was just wondering what that little corroded oval thing was on bridge of the boot. True about the fishermen, just lookin for sefaring men and the benefits of wearing a boot.

[HarborMaster]

In terms of a sailor in general.,not pirates and in terms of sailors in whatever period an event happened some had working clothing and event clothing.,event perhaps being battle.

A Spanish ship for example may have had a boat load of conquistadors crossing the Pacific., however its probably a good assumption to believe they were not wearing metal helmets and armor while sailing. When they landed however in Mactan they were dressed for battle.,armor.,tho it didnt help them very much in the battle against Lapu-Lapu. I bet they were too heavy and ackward to function very well in the surf as they landed.

I know this period of Magellan is not GAoP but they dressed for that occasion.

[Pirate Petee]

I guess what it boils down to is that Blackbeard (or alternative "popular" pirate) wasn't around in the bucket-boot era. Nor were "pirate" coats or tricorns.

I could of sworn that I have seen an engraving with him in an "justa-thingy" and "tri-corn"

[dasNdanger]

I guess what it boils down to is that Blackbeard (or alternative "popular" pirate) wasn't around in the bucket-boot era. Nor were "pirate" coats or tricorns.

I could of sworn that I have seen an engraving with him in an "justa-thingy" and "tri-corn"

Bet yer teachers cringed every time you raised yer hand in class - right?

1. From about the 1620 boots enjoyed a short time of fashion, BUT they were expensive (see above). Even a pair of really fine shoes might cost a third of the price of a pair of plain working boots. Thus, their use was limited to those who either wore them for working or could afford them for fashion. They were far from common.

Yeah - that's why I speculated over a crew of thirty fightin' over one pair of boots.

Of course - pirates WERE pirates, afterall - and no one is saying that they couldn't have swiped a few boots in their time, without paying, right?

Seamen had a very distinctive dress, and they seem to have worn it more or less all the time, even ashore.  Most seamen's probates tend to show somewhere between 2 and 6 sets of clothes, but they are usually all or mostly typical seamen's clothes, not different sets of stuff for different occasions.

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!! *pulls hair out*

Okay - THAT just screwed me all up, and NOT in the 'good way.'

So...if a sailor had a specific and distinct 'costume' (for lack of a better word), and if pirates were sailors, then - why, oh why - did they need to wear coats, breeches, stockings, buckle shoes, etc on land? JUST for the dictates of propriety? Since they were seamen with a distinct set of clothes, was it acceptable - and did they regardless - go ashore in slops and a shirt, scarf around the neck and knife at the small of the back? Or was it always necessary to wear the bloody, hot coat and stockings, and if so, then wouldn't they have just blended with society, and IF SO, then why would anyone try to disguise themselves as a sailor if a sailor was wearing what everyone else was wearing?!!!

GAH!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!! oops...there it goes... me head just exploded...

das

[JoshuaRed]

Sailors were a tight knit fraternity and took collective pride in the fact that they were VERY different than the lubbers they mingled with ashore. They would have had no bones about going ashore in their sailing gear, and there are many firsthand accounts by people like Judge Samuel Sewall who talk about how seamen stick out like a sore thumb from the general populus. They walk a certain walk and talk a different way.

[kass]

[Hands Das her second-best lace handkerchief.]

Here you go, darling. Let's get that exploded brain out of your eyes...

[kass]

I could of sworn that I have seen an engraving with him in an "justa-thingy" and "tri-corn"

Hi Petee!

Foxe isn't saying Blackbeard didn't wear them, I don't think. He's saying that Bucket Boots aren't the same period as Justacorps and Cocked Hats.

If you want to wear Bucket Boots, be English from 1620 to about 1650s. This is when they were in fashion. Boots are generally worn only for riding -- they aren't engineered to be comfortable to walk in (ever wear modern show boots?) -- but during the time around the English Civil War (and a little before and after), they were fashionable. A man might not have a horse, but he'd have bucket boots and "pretend".

I think the trap we're all falling into is mixing periods. Just because something is appropriate for the 17th century doesn't mean the same part of the 17th century. It's kinda like wearing Nikes with a 1920s tennis outfit. They're just the wrong period!

So wear Bucket Boots. But wear an early 17th century doublet and hat with them. Not a Justacorps and Cocked Hat.

[Pirate Petee]

Ah, but you could wear Chuck Taylor All Stars in 1917 and you can still wear them now. True certain types of Bucket Bots would be very uncomfortable, not meant for walking in, while others were. A certain style of bucket boot has been around from early 17th century to mid 18th.

[kass]

Ah... But you couldn't wear Chuck Taylor's outside of an athletic situation in 1917 and not look like an insane person. Yet today, you can wear them nearly anywhere.

I should probably repeat my governing principal at this point:

"Do not make the rare common or the common rare."

Even if we found a picture of a GAoP period man wearing Bucket Boots with his Justacorps, I wouldn't recommend wearing them for your GAoP impression. One picture does not make the practice common.

But if you want to wear Bucket Boots and be sure it's right, just wear the earlier hat and doublet and breeches with them. It's simple!

[Fox]

I can understand why a re-enactmebnt group wouldn't wear them, it would take away from the groups authenticity as a whole.

That's one of the big issues, certainly in UK re-enactment. We turn up to the event as individuals, but the public perceive us as a group, so we have to be authentic, not just on an individual basis, but also on a team basis.

Of course - pirates WERE pirates, afterall - and no one is saying that they couldn't have swiped a few boots in their time, without paying, right?

Ah, the old favourite. Whenever re-enactors want to wear something that isn't reall appropriate they fall back on "I stole it", or "I looted it from a dead body" if they're military types. The correct answer is "stole it from whom?" OK, some of these pirates might have stolen the odd pair of bucket boots, but how many pairs of bucket boots were floating around the Caribbean aboard small merchantmen circa whenever? ...

So...if a sailor had a specific and distinct 'costume' (for lack of a better word), and if pirates were sailors, then - why, oh why - did they need to wear coats, breeches, stockings, buckle shoes, etc on land? JUST for the dictates of propriety? Since they were seamen with a distinct set of clothes, was it acceptable - and did they regardless - go ashore in slops and a shirt, scarf around the neck and knife at the small of the back? Or was it always necessary to wear the bloody, hot coat and stockings, and if so, then wouldn't they have just blended with society, and IF SO, then why would anyone try to disguise themselves as a sailor if a sailor was wearing what everyone else was wearing?!!!

I think the issue here is what constitutes this typical "sailor's" clothing. In the GAoP a typical outfit consisted of hat, shirt, jacket (with or without waistcoat), neck-cloth, breeches or trousers, stockings, and shoes. So, no, they probably didn't go ashore in slops and shirt, but they probably didn't wear that at sea much either. There's a bit in Henry Teonge's diary where his ship is sailing off the North African coast in the middle of summer - one of the hottest and most oppresive atmospheres in the world - and one day he notes that the seamen "put off" their jackets. Even in that climate it was news that the men were in their shirt sleeves. What differentiated them from the landsmen was that they wore wide open slops instead of breeches and short jackets instead of long coats, floppy hats or thrum caps instead of large tricorns etc.

Foxe isn't saying Blackbeard didn't wear them, I don't think. He's saying that Bucket Boots aren't the same period as Justacorps and Cocked Hats.

Bingo! I knew I could rely on you Kass to make sense of my ramblings...