First published 2007

© 2007, 2019 Kass McGann and Reconstructing History

ISBN

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced,

scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form or by any means
without the express permission of the author. Please do not encourage or
participate in the piracy of copyrighted material. It hurts the people who bring
you this work.

Cover design by Tugboat Design

Illustrations by Robert P. Davis

Photography by Zack Nall

Edited by Robert P. Davis

 Visit

reconstructinghistory.com
to get all our patterns and information
on Golden Age of Piracy clothing
(and other time periods as well!)

Stay in touch with what we’re up to. Join our email list.
We will never sell your address or send you spam.
 Table of Contents
Introduction.....................................................................................4
Overview of the Period...................................................................5
The Golden Age of Piracy in Europe.............................................5
The Shift.........................................................................................8
The Petticote..................................................................................9
The Stays..................................................................................... 11
The Stomacher.............................................................................12
The Mantua..................................................................................13
The Shoes....................................................................................16
The Headwear..............................................................................19
The Hats.......................................................................................19
The Hair........................................................................................20
The Neckwear..............................................................................21
A Word on Closure Methods........................................................23
The Materials................................................................................24
Getting Dressed Step-by-Step.....................................................34
The Patterns.................................................................................47
The Sources.................................................................................47
About the Author..........................................................................49

page 3
Introduction
Since the publication of Janet Arnold’s work on 1660s-1860s dress
in the 1970s, not much has been written about the clothing of late
17th century to early 18th century Europe. For people who wear
reproductions of this clothing at historic sites, reenactments, pirate
festivals, and Restoration plays, this body of knowledge is lacking
one essential piece — a simple guide on how to get dressed.
What pieces are essential to be dressed properly? What garments
can be omitted for reasons of comfort without compromising the
accuracy of the outfit?
Reconstructing History’s Golden Age of Piracy Getting Dressed
Guide is meant to fill that void.
The Getting Dressed Guides are not intended to be books of all
knowledge. In these pages you will not find debates about the
construction of justacorps or what silk weaves were being
imported through Venice. You will simply find a list of garments
commonly worn by upper and lower class women in the 1680s
through 1725 and the manner in which they were worn. General
fabric types and other pertinent information is included, but more
detail than this is outside the scope of this Guide. In other words,
the Getting Dressed Guides are guides to teach you how to get
dressed for this period.
Perhaps some background is in order. The Getting Dressed
Guides were conceived when a bunch of ECW (English Civil War
1642-51) and AWI (American War for Independence 1770s-80s)
reenactors decided they wanted to do a Golden Age of Piracy
(1680s-1725) event and they wanted to know what garments from
their ECW or AWI kit they could wear and still be historically
accurate. I wrote the first Getting Dressed Guide to say things
like: “Stays from the AWI period can be worn under GAoP gowns,
but ECW shoes are a better choice since AWI shoes are distinctly
post-1750s in style.”
In other words, if you find a garment listed in a Getting Dressed
Guide, you can be sure it was worn in the period covered. If you
do not find a garment in these pages, that only means it was not
common enough for us to include.
page 4
A Note on Spelling Conventions
Latin, French, Italian, Middle English, and other European
language terms are italicized the first time they are used in this
text and appear in plain text thereafter. In all cases, the original
period word for the garment is used, if known. Since this Guide is
in English, the original English word is given preference. If a
modern costuming term is being used, it is clearly noted at the
introduction of the term.

Overview of the Period

The Golden Age of Piracy in Europe
The Golden Age of Piracy — roughly from 1680 to 1725 — was a
time of globalization, scientific discovery, and opportunity for the
brave and bold. The rising wave of mercantilism provided opportunity
for people not born to the monied classes. International trade was
making ordinary men wealthy. Most of this trade was centered on
the Caribbean. Endless riches were streaming out of the new
colonies there, and traders profitted from funding expeditions.
But the real money to be made in the Golden Age of Piracy was
by taking goods from someone else. In an effort to blunt the flow
of gold artifacts flowing from the New World into Spanish hands,
England undertook a policy to encourage civilian attacks upon
Spanish ships. This was called "privateering". England did not
yet have a navy large enough to affect the Spanish fleet on its
own. So ship captains were issued letters of marque to legitimize
what was essentially piracy. These privateers attacked Spanish
ships and confiscated their cargo. In exchange, privateers were
expected to relinquish the majority of their booty to the Crown.
Many more sailed without letters of marque and kept all their takings
for themselves. The penalty for piracy was severe and included
various undignified forms of death. However the appeal of being
able to retire to a foreign paradise after one good voyage was so
appealing to the man with no prospects that many took the risk.
The practice of piracy is sometimes suggested as responsible for
the Age of Enlightenment concept of the natural equality of all
men. Indeed the captain of a pirate crew was not captain because
page 5
of an institutional system of rank or hereditary position but rather
because he was a good leader and could control his sailors.
There are also incidents of pirates capturing slave ships and
freeing the slaves. In fact this was more a proposition of "join us
or swim home". Regardless, the level of equality on a pirate ship
was probably higher than in the general population but only
perhaps because the importance of birth and rank on land was
entrenched in law and society and aboard ship those paradigms
were broken.
An often-overlooked element in the rise of equality must not be
ignored: the coffeehouse. This institution of the Muslim world was
much written about by travellers to the Ottoman Empire and
Persia. In the first half of the 17th century, they began to appear
in Venice. In 1650, a Jewish man named Jacob set up a coffeehouse
in Oxford. In 1652, the servant of Turkish goods trader Daniel
Edwards, a man named Pasqua Rosée, set up the first coffeehouse
in London in St Michael's Alley, Cornhill and sold the coffee imported
by his master there.
One might wonder what coffeehouses had to do with the equality
of man. It must be understood that in the stratified society of
Europe at this time, men of different ranks simply did not come
into contact with one another. The aristocracy kept to themselves.
The gentry ate and drank at their private clubs. Common men
frequented public houses. But never the twain (or, rather, three)
would meet.
Coffeehouses were different. Unlike establishments that served
alcohol, they were largely unregulated. The institution was simply
too new to be of concern to the government. King Charles II of
England tried to supress the London coffeehouses calling them
"places where the disaffected met, and spread scandalous reports
concerning the conduct of His Majesty and his Ministers". But his
efforts were in vain. People continued to meet there to hear the
London Gazette read aloud (many people couldn't read) or to hear
news from a variety of sources. Dissidents did use coffeehouses
to plot against the government. Indeed French traveller Antoine
François Prévost described coffeehouses as places "where you
have the right to read all the papers for and against the government"
page 6
but he also called them "seats of English liberty". It has been
posited that the idea of the American Revolution began in a
coffeehouse in Boston. Coffeehouses were the only places in
Europe when a common street vendor could sit next to a man of
property and discuss his opinions. In this period before the dawn
of the Age of Reason, to this mixing of the social classes is
attributed an understanding of human equality that would
characterize the Enlightenment in the 18th century.
Coffeehouses were not only influential the political realm; they had
a greater and far-reaching effect on trade. World-famous insurance
company Lloyd's of London was originally Edward Lloyd's
Coffeehouse where the proprietor took bets on which ships would
come back intact from their perilous journeys. This is considered
the beginning of the insurance industry. Bets on merchandise
prices and company shares also made the coffeehouses into a
kind of secondary stock and commodities market. Indeed the
modern world of financial products can be traced to gambling
done in coffeehouses in the late 17th century.
More than one ship's crew was assembled from the patrons at a
coffeehouse. And more than one ship was backed with money
from one.

page 7
The Pieces
The Shift
The shift is a woman’s body garment. It is worn next to the skin
by all levels of society. Shifts were constructed very simply of
rectangles and squares. The body of the garment often had no
shoulder seams, being a continuous rectangle front and back.
The sleeves were also squares or rectangles, bound at the wrist
with cuffs or turned in a small hem. A square gusset under each
sleeve provided range of movement and a bisected rectangle
(forming two triangles) added width to the sides from under the
sleeve gusset to the hem. Seams were tiny and finished carefully
by flat felling the seam allowances. Hems were equally tiny. A
woman’s shift reached below her knees to mid-calf.  They were
not floor- or ankle-length.  Shifts made specifically for sleepwear
were longer but a common woman would likely sleep in the same
shift she wore during the day.
Shifts in the early to mid-17th
century had small stand collars.
But in the Golden Age of Piracy,
shifts with low scoop necklines
became the norm for women of
all classes. Sleeves also
shortened to just below the
elbow, foretelling the elbow-
length shifts of the 18th century.
In addition to shortening, sleeves
widened making them very full.
Although shifts of the
upperclass were adorned with
lace at the collar and cuffs,
there is no evidence to suggest
that common people decorated their shifts in this fashion. One
must remember that a collar of lace in this time period cost the
same amount as an estate in Ireland. So unless you were
extremely wealthy, you would not have much lace.
Shifts were never worn pulled or falling off the shoulders, not even
by prostitutes.
page 8
Often the word “chemise” is used to describe this garment.
Chemise, however, is a French word that was not adopted by
English-speakers until the 19th century. Shift is the proper word to
use in the period. In her article on "Elizabethan and Jacobean
Smocks and Shirts," Janet Arnold tells us that the word “shirt” is often
used interchangeably for men’s and women’s undergarments. But
smock is the word most commonly used in the 17th century to
describe shirts for women. The word shift was first recorded in
1598, and originally used for both men's and women's garments.
In the 17th century, shift began to be used as a euphemism for
smock but was itself displaced, for similar reasons of delicacy, in
the 19th century by "chemise". So in the 17th century, the proper
English word for this garment is "shift".
The Petticote
Possibly the most ubiquitous female garment in every time period
is the skirt. Allied so closely to femininity, "skirt" became a slang
term for women in the 1930s. But it was not always so. At its
beginning, the word "skirt" didn't refer to a female garment at all.
The modern English word "skirt" comes from the Old Norse word
skyrta, meaning a shirt, a man's garment. During the Golden Age
of Piracy, "skirts" referred to the bottom part of a man's jacket or
waistcoat — the skirting or tabs around the waist of the garment.
Until the 19th century, the proper term for what we call a woman's
skirt was "petticote/petticoat".
The word petticote too did not always refer to a woman's garment
either. Like the skirt, the petticote was originally a male garment —
a padded upper-body garment worn under armour, a small coat
when "cote" was the word for the man's upper-body garment or
gown in the 1300s. By 1464 it was applied to a garment worn by
women and young children. By 1593, it meant the typical feminine
garment, hence a symbol of female sex or character.
In the early 15th century, the introduction of a waist seam in
women's clothing led to a difference in construction of body and
skirts. By the 16th century, petticotes were what we modernly call
skirts. Worn under gowns as extra layers for warmth or to give
more body to the gown skirts or worn in multiples themselves with

page 9
jackets and doublets, petticotes are essential to female living
history impressions from the 16th through the 18th centuries.
Petticotes in the Golden
Age of Piracy tended to be
square. Square petticotes
were constructed of
square or rectangular
pieces of fabric — usually
a loom width or multiple
loom widths — gathered
or pleated onto a
waistband to form a shape
like those at right. They
could be closed by buttons
on the waistband or by ties.
This is not to say that petticotes were plain. While a common
woman's petticotes were simple rectangles of wool or fustian, the
petticotes of fashionable women were made from silk and very
elaborately decorated. Rows of flounces and horizontal and
vertical stripes were quite popular. Embroidery and applied
decorations were common. Under-petticotes were sometimes
tiered to make the upper petticotes stand out from the body.

page 10
Even poor women wore at least two petticotes for warmth and
modesty but many could be worn over each other to shape the
skirts of the gown worn over them. Petticotes were quilted for
warmth and also to add shaping to the upper levels. Gown skirts
could be pinned back and arranged attractively but petticotes were
never worn hitched up as is seen at Ren Faires.
Petticotes did not touch the ground. What would be the point of
wearing lovely shoes with silk bows if they did not show? There
was also no modesty over the appearance of ankles at this time.
They weren't Victorians after all! While the trains of gowns
dragged behind the wearer, petticotes showed the shoes. The
petticotes of working women could be as short as mid-calf.

The Stays
Stays are not corsets intended to push
up the bosom and narrow the waist.
The late 17th century silhouette was not
an hourglass. It was tall and statuesque.
Stays were used to form the female
figure into a V-shape with the bust wide
and the waist narrower, but not curvy.
Stiff busks running down the front of
stays kept the belly in and the posture
erect. Stays were boned with baleen
which is mistakenly called "whalebone".
Baleen is not osseous at all. It is the
keratinous feeders of the baleen whale,
a material similar in construction to human fingernails. As such the
"boning" in stays was flexible and light, unlike late 19th century
corsets that were boned with steel. Stays could also be boned
with reed. A common misconception is that women could not sit in
their stays. They could. Even the most fashionable stays allowed
a woman to sit, albeit in an erect posture and not slouching.
Wealthy and fashionable women were not the only people to wear
stays. Quite common women wore them. They did not have to be
fully-boned and elaborate. Half-boned stays were quite common.
Even more bones could be discarded if the wearer had a youthful
and trim figure.
page 11
Stays were for more than just fashion. Working women wore stays
to support their backs when doing manual labour. Your author has
mowed grass with a scythe while wearing fully-boned stays.
NOTE: There were women who didn't wear stays. They were
considered "loose" (i.e. not wearing stays) and represent a very
low sort of person. Even prostitutes of the time period are shown
wearing stays.
Don't cross-lace your stays (like a sneaker). This is a Victorian
corset thing. Stays should be spiral laced. See "Spiral Lacing" below.

The Stomacher
A way that fashionable women could change their look without
wearing a different set of stays was the stomacher. The stomacher
was a decorated triangular piece of fabric, sometimes stiffened,
that was pinned to the front of the stays and intended to show in
the front opening of the gown.

Stomachers were often embroidered and otherwise embellished

with lacing and silk to draw attention. Gold and silver pailletes and
even jewels could be attached to stomachers. They covered only
as much of the stays as showed between the front edge of the
gown, so they were small and could be encrusted with decoration.
Even a very plain outfit could be made more interesting with a
highly-decorated stomacher.

page 12
The Mantua
By the 1680s, the stiff-
bodied gowns of the
previous decades were
relegated to court wear and
a new style was taking
over. In France, early
versions of this gown were
known by the term robe de
chambre. In England (and
later in France) they were
called manteau or mantua.
As evidenced by the
original French name robe
de chambre, the mantua
was originally an informal
lounging robe. In the 17th
century one’s bedchamber
was as much a sitting room, suitable
for receiving guests and taking meals,
as it was a place to sleep. So the
mantua must not be mistaken for a
sleeping garment or dressing gown.
Much like a man’s banyan, the
mantua was an informal overgarment
appropriate for wear when entertaining
casual company in one’s home. In its
early years, it was not to be worn at
the dining table. But in the afternoon in
the parlour, it was fine.
Like the banyan, the mantua began as
an import from the East. When
Charles II married the Portuguese
princess Catherine of Braganza in
1662, part of her dowry was the cities
of Bombay, India and Tangier,
Morocco. In addition to the
page 13
introduction of tea, this new relationship between with the
Portuguese (then the world’s foremost trading power) brought
many new and exotic items into the hands of the English. Banyans
and mantuas were among them. These essential items of late
17th and 18th century English dress were first brought home by
travelers and merchants from the Middle and Far East. An
examination of even a later English-made banyan will reveal its
Eastern construction. Indeed they are not unlike kimono or aba in
their simplicity. Both the man’s and woman’s versions were cut in
two pieces – front and back — with sleeves in one piece with the
garment. Later varieties had separate sleeves and added styling.
In the 1660s and 70s, mantuas were worn as simple throw-over
garments, worn around the house over petticotes, shifts, and stays.
But it did not take long for the mantua to trickle down to all levels
of society. As early as 1687, Marcellus Laroon’s The Cryes of the
City of London shows women from the tattered poor and common
street vendors to well-dressed milkmaids, respectable Quakers,
and fashionable courtesans all wearing versions of the mantua.

Courtesan from Marcellus

Laroon’s The Cryes of the City of Poor woman wearing a
London, 1687, wearing a mantua mantua from The Cryes, 1687
page 14
By virtue of the fact that she is drawn in profile,
the mop seller in Laroon’s Cryes (shown at
right) shows us how short the skirts of her mantua
(and petticotes) are. They are looped up a bit
to control them. Indeed, if one were carrying
mops on one’s head, it would be necessary to
keep the skirts well out of one’s way.
So you will not think that the mantua was
particular only to Laroon’s Cryes or to the year
1687, we have another illustration to show you.
The illustration at lower left is from a 1730s
painting of a woman selling curds and whey on
the city street. She is dressed cleanly, but her
customers do not look in the best condition.
Her yellow striped
mantua is indeed
the brightest thing
in the picture. It Mop Seller from the
appears to have Cryes, 1687
been lined with a
blue fabric for blue can be seen at all
the edges. She wears a fabric belt
around her waist and the skirts of the
gown are pulled back and tucked under
her so we cannot see how long they
are. A blue apron protects a blue
petticote and a blue stomacher (or her
stays) fill in the V-opening in front.
Unusual at this late date, she wears a
B. Nebot, “The Curds and
white scarf on her head, not unlike the
Whey Seller”, c1730 hoods seen in the Cryes 50 years earlier.

page 15
The Shoes
Shoes are quite prominent in depictions of common women of the
17th century because their skirts are fairly short. We definitely see
a different style in the pictorial record than
common women's shoes of the end of the
16th century: a leather mule with a shaped
wooden heel and no back.
This is not the only style worn by women in
this time period. A shoe more similar to
men's early 17th century footwear was also
being worn by women. Commonly called a latchet shoe —
because of the latchets that close
it over the instep — this style of
shoe was tied with simple cords or
leather thongs. By the 18th
century, this style of shoe will
begin to be fastened by small and
then larger buckles. But in the
1680s, they were still tied.
A third shoe style can be seen in many
illustrations of women in the Golden Age of
Piracy. But this is less a different style as a
different way of wearing a latchet shoe.
Simple laces were replaced with wide silk
ribbons tied in large bows on the fronts of
the shoes. Ribbons were colourful and
showy but even depictions of Quaker
women show them wearing ribbons.
In period illustrations, women's shoes appear black, dark brown,
light brown, or tawny. Bright colours are not seen on the shoes of
common people. Fashionable women had shoes made from
colourful silk brocades with lots of decoration.

page 16
The Stockings
Hose is the 17th century English word for stockings or socks. In
the 17th century, the best hose were knitted but even Queen
Elizabeth had hose cut from woven fabric, usually wool. This
standard persisted until the 18th century when the knitting frame
made knitted hose affordable for everyone.
Wool, when cut on a 45 degree angle (or "the bias"),
is incredibly flexible and stretchy enough to adhere
to the leg and wear quite comfortably. Women in
17th century illustrations wear their hose fitted so
tightly that they appear painted on. This tightness is
only achievable with wool. And indeed all of the
surviving hose from the period are wool.
Knitted hose, of course, were also worn, especially
by wealthy women. Knitted hose were usually very
fine wool, but they could also be silk. Although they
did not require the insertion of a triangular gusset at
the ankle as did cloth hose, knitted hose were made with a
triangular decoration at the ankle to imitate this feature of cut hose.
This area was often decorated with embroidery called "clocks".
Clocks could be knitted into the stocking or added later. The
prominence and popularity of clocks reinforces the fact that women
did not hide their ankles in the Golden Age of Piracy. Clocks were
meant to be seen.
Hose are kept from falling down by use a garters at the knee.
Garters could be strips of fabric, leather straps with buckles, woven
straps with buckles, even purpose-woven and highly-decorated
bands. They tied just below the knee so the garter would settle in
the hollow and therefore not slip down the calf. Wrapping twice
around the knee gives a more secure fit (unless you have buckled
garters). The tops of the hose then bunched down or were folded
or rolled over the garters as seen in period art.

page 17
The Apron
A common woman's apron was just a rectangle of linen (white,
coloured, checked or plaid) on a string worn over your uppermost
petticote. Even the very sophisticated vendors in Laroon's Cryes
are wearing aprons. Aprons were not just a utilitarian item of dress
for working women. Fancy aprons were commonly worn by
wealthy women.  These aprons were often elaborately embroidered
or made from brocaded silk. These aprons had vertical slit pockets
on the front.
The Pockets
Pockets were not sewn into
women's clothing. Seventeenth
century pockets are a holdover
from the medieval practice of
keeping your possessions in a
bag tied to a belt hidden underneath
your clothing. Pockets could be
very simple and purely functional
— just a fabric bag sewn to a
string tied around your waist.
Pockets were also an item of
intimacy and would often be
embroidered with sweet sayings
or a lover's name. Women in this
time period did not carry purses.
A woman's needful things went in
her pockets hidden under her
gown skirts.
Pockets and apron were sometimes made into one garment as seen
in the elaborate hybrid above. An embroidered silk apron worn over
the petticotes but under the gown skirts contains shows prominent
pocket slits. Although the woman shown is still dressing her hair
and therefore not ready for company, she is fully dressed clothing-
wise. Because pockets were considered an intimate item, showing
your pockets was considered slightly riské, the province of lovers.
This fancy apron with pockets may have been an advertisement of
the wearer's unmarried status and more than a little forward.
page 18
The Headwear
Common women in the 17th century showed
more of their hair than women in previous
centuries. But women did not go bareheaded.
White linen caps like that shown at right were
the preferred headwear.
Towards mid-century,
common women began wearing a length of
white linen tied under the chin as shown at left.
This unstructured headcovering appears to be
akin to the rain bonnets worn by women in the
1960s to protect their
hairstyles, but in the 17th
century, they were worn
indoors as well as out.
More sophisticated and wealthy women began
to wear a version of this "rain bonnet" as well. It
was called a chaperone (like the medieval hood)
and it was simply a more
structured version of the mid-
century white linen hood.
Gathered at the back and tied
under the chin, chaperones
could be either black or white
and the wealthy wore them in
silk. Women from beggars to
wealthy Quakers, respectable
merchants to courtesans wore chaperones over
their white linen caps or over their styled hair.
The Hats
Working women often wore felt or straw
hats with large brims when they were
outside. Many of Laroon's street vendors
in the Cryes are wearing hats over their
white linen caps. Some even wear them
over chaperones. Hats are not worn alone
over the hair.
page 19
Women didn't commonly wear cocked hats. They wore them when
out riding and that's about it, generally speaking. So unless you're
dressed for the hunt, leave the "boy hats" at home and wear a
linen cap and chaperone.

The Hair
When not wearing a cap, women had their hair done (in an "up
style"). Women seen in paintings with their hair hanging down in
public are meant to depict mental patients or women in great
distress. Even prostitutes wore their hair up. The exception to this
rule is "bedroom shots" in minatures or portraits. It was common
for wealthy men to have their wives or mistresses painted in
provocative clothing and accoutrements including wearing their hair
hanging down, but these portraits should not be mistaken for how
a woman would wear her hair in public.
The vertical silhouette of women’s
clothing in the Golden Age of Piracy
started with the head and continued
down. A high framed headdress
known as the fontage created the
topmost item of dress. This was
supported and bolstered by a tower
of curls called a tour (French for
“tower”) and a wire and fabric frame
called the commode.
Fontages
existed in a
number of
shapes, fabrics and sizes, but there are two
basic styles popular in the period under study:
the box fontage and the bag fontage. It is not
known whether one style was more popular at
one time and was supplanted by the other, or
if one was a less formal version. Both styles
achieve a similar effect — a ruffle of stiffened
lace or linen (or both) increasing the visual
height of the wearer. Combinations of box bag fontage shown from
rear to show commode
and bag fontage elements existed as well and
page 20
the fontage often reached very high indeed. Each pictorial source
shows a different variation.

variations of the box fontage

The Neckwear
A kerchief is just a square of linen folded in half diagonally or cut
along the diagonal. Wear it with the 90° angle pointing down your
back. cross the ends over your breast and tuck in or pin in place. It
can also be tied in a knot at center front. If portraying a harlot,
tuck in the ends to show cleavage, but do not leave off this
essential piece of clothing.

The Makeup
The end of the turn of the 18th century was the era of painted
faces complete with elaborate beauty spots called mouches ("flies"
in French). What began as fake moles intended to cover smallpox
scars and other facial imperfections, mouches became a fashion
unto themselves. Made out of silk, velvet, and even leather, they
could be shaped into amusing forms or carved with a lover's name
in minature. Too much is never enough in the world of mouches
so the more sophisticated a woman you are portraying, the crazier
you can be.
In addition to beauty marks, lead white was used to lighten the skin
tone and red was applied to lips. A less deadly effect can be
achieved with goth makeup.
page 21
When portraying a common woman, it is best to avoid modern
makeup. If you believe you must wear makeup, confine it to a
touch of lipstick that imitates a natural lip colour and rouge that
looks like freshly pinched cheeks. Fake eyelashes, eyeshadow,
and glaringly red lips just look modern, garish and wrong.
The Jewelry
In portraiture of noble people of the early 17th century, garments
are nearly encrusted with jewels and precious metals. But this
holdover from the previous period did not last long. By the middle
of the century, even very wealthy women wear only a simple strand
of pearls or a single ring in their portraits. Of course common
people in the 17th century did not enjoy such luxuries. Rings,
earrings, bracelets, and necklaces are not seen in depictions of
common people. Indeed even metal servingware was so rare that it
was put on display in a place of honour in households. This being
said, jewelry other than a simple gold wedding band should
probably be avoided for common women. Wealthy women often
wore pearl chokers and drop earrings.

The Other Accessories

Belts and girdles were not often seen since they were worn under
the topmost petticote or kirtle, but they are an essential accessory
worn in the 17th century. Belts were made from leather with bronze
buckles and strap ends. Girdles could be nothing more than a strip
of woven fabric tied around the hips under the kirtle skirts. The
belt or girdle took the place of modern woman's handbag. A
woman suspended her purse, eating knife, household keys, and
even sewing equipment from her belt or girdle. Cloth pockets were
often hung from a belt or girdle under a woman's kirtle or petticote,
accessed through a pocket slit in the garment's side seams.
What About Panties?
Please don't tell me Early Modern Women went "commando"!
Heh. Well, it is rather likely that they did "go commando", at least in
some places. English writers in the 17th century remarked upon
the fact that Italian women wore "silk or linen breeches under their
gowns". Were these panties? Or a garment to keep the legs
warm? In any case, underpants were so unknown in England as
page 22
late as 1617 that Fynes Moryson remarked at length in his book
An Itinerary: Containing His Ten Years Travel Through the Twelve
Dominions of Germany, Bohemia, Switzerland, Netherland,
Denmark, Poland, Italy, Turkey, France, England, Scotland and
Ireland upon Venetian women wearing them. Contemporary
sources in England claim that they were only worn "by Italian
whores" indicating an English prejudice against their use.

A Word on Closure Methods

Spiral Lacing
Lacing was accomplished through thread eyelet holes sewn into
the front or back edges of the stays or through rings under the
front edges of the dress. Lacing in this time period was
accomplished with a single lace threaded back and forth in a spiral
fashion, not criss-crossed like a shoelace. Criss-cross lacing in the
manner of lacing a shoe or 19th century corset was not done.
To spiral lace, tie the end of your lace to either one of the top or
bottom eyelets. You can simply make an overhand knot big enough
that it won't pull through the eyelet. String the lace across to the
parallel eyelet on the opposite side and thread it through, front to
back. Now string it across your abdomen to the next eyelet down
(or up if you started at the bottom) on the side where you started
and lace it through, back to front. Continue this pattern, spiraling
down (or up) until you come to the last eyelet (which should be the
opposite of the first ring: i.e. if you started at top left, you should
end at bottom right). Pull the lace until the front edges of the gown
meet. Tie the lace securely to the last eyelet. A double half-hitch
knot works well here.
To make eyelets, do not cut a hole, but rather pierce the fabric with
an awl or small phillips head screwdriver. Whipstitch, blanket stitch,
or buttonhole stitch around this hole.
Buttons
Lacing was not the only closure method. Buttons made from horn,
wood, and metal are in evidence. However, it must be noted that
buttons are more typically found on men's garments. They are
found on women's garments, but only on those which ape male
styles, like riding costume.
page 23
Hooks and Eyes
Another closure method found on extant garments of this period is
hooks and eyes. Hooks and eyes were rather large and made
from bent brass or iron. The size of modern coat hooks, these
were typically used to close jackets that did not need to be drawn
closed.

Pins
A very common closure method for women of this time period was
pins. As we have seen, mantuas were fastened by being pinned
together at center front or pinned to the stays. Stomachers were
pinned to the stays. Kerchief and caps were pinned on. Pins did a
great deal of work in this time period and their use as a closure
method cannot be overlooked.

Hem Finishing
The surviving examples of wool garments of these period show
great attention to finishing the edges. The raw edges of necklines,
sleeve openings, and front closures are at the very least turned
over and stitched down, sometimes decoratively. Often times
braids or woven bands are attached to the edges to provide a
practical barrier against unravelling as well as a pretty finish.
However it does not appear that garments were hemmed. Among
the extant objects, even the garments that were finely and
exquisitely sewn otherwise have nothing but a curved cut edge at
the bottom of the dress. Clearly hems were not seen as necessary.
Because of the nature of modern wools, you may want to hem your
replica garments, but know that it was not a typical finish in the
17th century.

The Materials
This listing is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all the fabric
types used in the late 17th and early 18th century. Instead it is
meant to be a list of modernly-available fabrics that accurately
replicate the look and feel of period fabrics.

page 24
Wool
Wool was the fabric most widely used by all Northern European
people. Even those who could afford the finest silks had most of
their clothing made from wool. Wool varied in type from the very
coarse to the extremely fine. Some wools, such as worsteds,
satins, and a mock velvet called “mockado”, were as sought after
as silk.
Many of the period wool weaves are no longer widely available.
However modern wool flannel accurately replicates period 2/1
twills. Wool flannel is an incredibly versatile fabric, useful for
everything from kirtles to petticotes to gowns and cut hose
(stockings). Red wool flannel is the perfect material for petticotes
and is often mentioned in 17th century inventories. More loosely-
woven flannel can be used for interlinings and padding. Wool
gabardines offer a lightweight alternative with all the sheen of
period worsteds.
Modern wool broadcloth differs from 17th century broadcloths in
that period broadcloths were plain (tabby) weave and modern
broadcloths are typically simple twills. However, modern wool
broadcloth is still a good choice for gowns and petticotes.
Heavy wools like kersey can be replicated by modern wool melton.
Melton is densely woven and heavily fulled like period wools such
as kersey, cloth and broadcloth and can be cut and left unhemmed.
Modern plain weaves are typically not as densely woven as period
plains, but there is no reason not to use them if they look
appropriate. Washing wools in hot water and rinsing with cold will
cause them to become thicker and denser and closer to historical
wool examples. Be aware that you will lose yardage if you employ
this method, so buy extra.
Linen
Fine, white linen was used for shifts, partlets, collars, cuffs, caps,
veils, kerchiefs and aprons. The finer the linen, the wealthier the
wearer. The parts that showed were sometimes made of finer
linen than the parts that didn’t. The linen for the ruffle part of a ruff
would be the finest linen the wearer could afford while the
neckband might be of a significantly lesser quality.
page 25
Heavier linen in the form of canvas, sackcloth, and buckram, was
used as stiffening. We do not have any reports of linen being used
for the outer materials of women’s gowns and petticotes.
There are far fewer types of linen available today than there were
in the 17th century. Modern linen is not nearly as fine and high
quality linen is difficult to find.
Most linen available today is plain weave. This is the same as
most of the linen in the 17th century. Linen weights of 3.5 ounces
or less is excellent for body linens. Five ounce linen can be used
for shift bodies, neck- and wristbands, aprons, kerchiefs, and linings.
Heavier linens can be used as interlinings and stiffeners. Hemp canvas
is an excellent stiffener and makes a comfortable outer material for
the lower classes.

Silk
Silk taffeta is still available in plain and shot varieties. Silk taffeta
in a 110 gram weight has a good deal of body.
Real silk velvet is difficult to find except when woven by historical
fabric replicators.  When it is available commercially, it is often too
soft and drapey for historical replicas.  This is one place where a
substitution of cotton velvet or velveteen would be a more
appropriate substitute.
It must be mentioned that there is very little support for a common
person to have a silk garment. Sumptuary laws prohibited its use
by people not of the nobility.
Blends
Fustian is a linen/cotton blend (linen warp, cotton weft). Today’s
linen/cotton blends are woven with thread in which the linen and
cotton fibres are mixed, making this inappropriate as a fustian
substitute. A better substitute is medium weight linen.
Lindsey-woolsey can be found through reenactment suppliers.
Cotton fabric was rare in England in this time period.  It should be
avoided in replica clothing. Cotton batting, however, was used as
stuffing in pillows and mattresses.

page 26
A Note on Fabric Substitution
None of us are 18th century noblewomen and few of us can afford
to have silk brocades custom woven for our weekend dress-up
hobby. However, making a gown from whatever quilting cotton was
on sale for a dollar a yard at Walmart is just wrong. It looks flimsy
and careless. Furthermore, it cheapens the culture we are trying to
honour with our portrayal. It makes them, effectively, into silly
characters to dress up like for a costume party, not real people
whose history we are attempting to bring to life.
It is a far better thing to portray a common woman accurately in a
plain wool mantua than foolishly camp a Queen in cheap cotton
and upholstery fabric. Don't be one of those people.
When portraying people of the past, we have a duty to represent
them as accurately as possible. Please choose your fabrics and
accessories with this obligation in mind.
"But If They Had It, They Would Have Used It"
There are too many logical problems with this argument to mention
in the scope of this small guide. But the answer to this is simple:
Are you attempting to portray people of the past? If you are, then
do so by using what we know through research and scholarly
enquiry that they used and do not use that for which we have no
evidence. If you would like to play in a fantasy world of your own
invention, that is simple: Do anything you like. This book will not
help you. I suggest you throw it away.

Period Colours
You may have heard that early modern people wore only drab
colours because they did not have modern dyes. While it is true
that bright and long-lasting analine dyes were not invented until the
1850s, Golden Age of Piracy dyestuffs were not dull. Blues from
indigo and woad, reds from madder and kermes, and yellows from
weld produced brilliant colours and could be combined to create
any shade in our modern palette. Indeed the myriad colours of the
Unicorn Tapestries in the Metropolitan Museum in New York were
created with just these three dyestuffs.

page 27
Natural dyes do, however, fade more quickly than modern dyes.
So lighter colours were probably rather prevalent as dyes wore off.
Some colours become more drab as they age. Others change hue.
Reds are notoriously fugitive (prone to fading). When portraying
common people, however, there are certain colours that should be
avoided or at least worn sparingly.
The first of these is black. In the 17th century black was an
incredibly expensive colour, beyond the budget of most people,
even gentry. Despite its popularity in the previous decades and its
ubiquity in Dutch portraits of gentry, one cannot simply make the
excuse "my mistress gave me her hand-me-downs". One of the
reasons black was so expensive was that it was extremely fugitive
so cloth dyed black would not stay black for very long. The true
deep blacks of this time period were made with tannins and iron
filings. Black dyes tend to become not-black fairly quickly. Black
dye was also very destructive. Iron is very hard on fabrics. Linens
embroidered with black thread rot around the thread. If a whole
garment were dyed black, there is no reason to believe it would
last long enough to hand on to a servant or sell in the secondary
clothing market. If portraying a common person, do not wear
whole garments that are black. If you must wear black, confine it
to small items. It would be more accurate if these black items
were instead dark brown. Caps are a strange but justifiable
exception to this rule. In reality, common women's black caps
were likely brownish.
Red is another problem. Red was another incredibly expensive
dye since some of the best red dyes had to be imported at great
cost. Wars were even fought over red dyes. Cochineal, kermis,
and lac produced brilliant reds, but they were out of the reach of
regular people. The flowers of the safflower plant produce both a
salmon pink and a true red dye. However fabric dyed with
safflower is so light sensitive that the colours fade to beige in a
very short time. Madder root, however, is a fairly inexpensive dye
to which English common people had access. It produces a
hearty red and therefore justifies common people wearing red.
However, madder produces an orangey or rusty red, not a fire-
engine or Porsche red like the more expensive dyes. So if you are

page 28
going to wear red, seek the more tomato-coloured end of the
spectrum. It is perfectly acceptable to wear some red in your
outfit. Matter of fact, red sleeves on common women is quite
prevalent in the pictorial record as are red petticotes. In the
pictorial record, these items appear to be "true red" and not the
orangey-red that madder produces. This has more to do with the
difference between paints and dyes. For your common woman
portrayal, err on the side of orangey reds.
Moving down the list of primary colours, we have yellow. While it is
true that yellow can be produced with the still-expensive-even-today
spice, saffron, there are other strong yellow dyes from plants
grown in England that produce pure, clear, bright yellows. Weld is
a terrific dye plant and easy to use. Unlike other dyes that take
special preparation, dyeing with weld is as easy as cutting some
stems, putting them in a pot of boiling water, and throwing in some
fabric. Dyer's greenweed, dyer's chamomile, dyer's coreopsis,
goldenrod, and even rhubarb root produce lightfast yellows. So
really there is no yellow too bright for a common person in Early
Modern Europe. However as a working woman, yellow does dirty
easily so it should not be the dominant colour in an ensemble.
In period(oid) films, we often see common people attired in varying
shades of brown. While this is a Hollywood convention to portray
the unwashed masses, there is a colour that would dominate any
crowd of regular people in Early Modern Europe. That colour is blue.
Blue comes from imported indigo or native woad. Both plants
produce exactly the same dye chemical, indigotin (although indigo
produces more per plant on average). Unlike the easy-to-dye-with
weld, plants must undergo a fermenting process to extract the
indigotin. This smells utterly revolting and produces a goo you
would not want to share a zip code with much less put your fine
cloth into. But when you dip it into the dye bath, the fabric
immediately turns a shocking neon green. Before you can yell to
your friend, "Hey! Look at how bright this green is!" the green
changes to blue before your eyes (contact with oxygen causes this
shift). Unlike most other dyes whose hue can be deepened by the
addition of more dyestuff or a longer time in the dyebath, the only
way to make indigo darker is to dip it multiple times. It is the
page 29
exposure to air that activates the dye. So you can produce an
almost black blue if you submerge your fabric enough times.
As modern people, we are probably more familiar with indigo or
woad blue than any other natural dye colour. It is the colour of
blue jeans! Modernly many jeans are dyed with synthetic indigo,
but it still produces the same colour: a slightly greyish blue ranging
from sky to midnight depending upon the amount of trips to the
dyebath it has had.
A word on blue shades: turquoises, royals, and other bright blues
were not achievable in this time period. They are a result of
modern dyes. And before you say, "If they had the paint, they
would have had the dye," consider this: Blue paint during this
period was produced by grinding up the semi-precious stone lapis
lazuli to produce the pigment Ultramarine. This stone had to be
imported from Afghanistan. It was imported through Venice on the
same boats as fine silks. Its price was such that only the most
princely could afford it. By contrast, blue dye was as common as
muck. As an artist painting a crowd of common people, would you
waste your precious ultramarine (if indeed you could afford any at
all)? No. You would paint them with cheap paint like, strangely,
black (made from soot or ash, not iron and tannins).
If you remember grade school art class, you will note that now that
we have the primary colours of red, yellow, and blue, we can make
everything else in the visible spectrum. And that is roughly true.
But there are a few caveats that should be mentioned.
Green is a combination of blue and yellow. Since blue and yellow
were both such inexpensive and prevalent dyes, green too should
have been. But certain shades of green prevail over others. As
strange as it may sound, the easiest green to produce is a bright,
almost neon lime green. This is achieved by dyeing fibres with
weld (or one of the other yellow dyes) and then dipping them into
the indigo pot once. Subsequent dips produce more blue,
shifting the green to the teal side of the spectrum as it deepens.
Once the fibres have been dyed yellow (before they go into the
indigo pot), they retain that level of dye. So addition of more
yellow dye will not make a more balanced (in the modern pallette)
green. We tend to think of evergreen as being a very natural
page 30
colour but in practice, it is very difficult to produce. Kelly green
also would require a very finicky dyeing process. "Medium green"
in the modern sense was difficult to obtain because of the differing
properties of indigo and weld.
On the other side of the colour wheel, orange was pretty easy.
Madder already tends to the orange end of the spectrum, so only
a small addition of weld is needed. Similarly, the combination of
red and blue will produce purple. But again, because of the
properties of indigo, it will be shifted to the blue end of the
spectrum.
Logwood and brazilwood (sappanwood) were other dyestuffs in
use at this time. Both are the heartwood of redwood trees
discovered by the Spanish and Portuguese in Asia and the New
World. Brazilwood (the country is named after the tree and not
vice versa) produces bright magentas to deep reds and even dark
eggplant colours on wool and silk, depending on the pH of the
dyebath. Logwood — a chemically-similar dye — produces
purples, dark blues, and even blacks. Although both dyes were
known and imported in the early modern period, they were far too
expensive for the use of common people. Additionally, logwood
became so popular in Europe that it threatened the English dyeing
industry, so an Act of Parliament banned its use as a dye in 1581.
If you want to go to the fabric store with a comparison chart with
which to match the available wools to known medieval dyes, I
recommend buying a set of the Elizabethan Range wool skeins
from Renaissance Dyeing (link in Internet Resources at the end of
this book). These lovely people hand dye 100% lambswool yarn
with natural dyestuff in twenty-seven shades that were available in
the 16th century. These also hold for the 17th century. They are
very handy to have when you go fabric shopping to be sure you
are buying a period-appropriate shade of fabric. But remember to
keep the skeins in a dark place, like a box inside a deep drawer,
because the colours will fade if exposed to light too often. Of
course you can also buy two sets of skeins and keep one in a box
and expose the other to light to see how the colours change.
Or do your own dye experiments! Dharma Trading sells natural
dyestuffs with which you can dye your own fibre or fabric.
page 31
What Pirates Never Wore
Many of you reading this guide probably portray pirates or women
of the underworld in Renaissance Faires and Pirate Festivals. So
I am going to be straight with you. There are a whole bunch of
things that "pirate reenactors" do to show that they are pirates that
real pirates never did.
Many of our perceptions of pirates come from 19th century
drawings by Howard Pyle. He is also famous for illustrating Robin
Hood and King Arthur stories. He was not a historian and he had
no knowledge of sailing or maritime professions. He was a
commercial illustrator and he drew pictures that people would most
want to buy. In the later half of the ninteenth century, there was a
great popularity for romantic, fantastical figures like pirates,
highwaymen, and other swashbucklers. So that's what he drew.
One thing we must remember if we wish to accurate portray
people of the past: pirates were criminals and the punishment for
their crimes was death by hanging and to have your remains
gibbeted (hung from a gibbet near the water) as a warning to
future offenders. So pirates didn't do anything or dress in any way
that would mark them as pirates to the authorities.
Here are a few things you should avoid:
Don't wear men's clothing
We get this mistake from the story of Anne Bonny and Mary Read.
Bonny and Read were indeed female pirates who dressed as men,
but long before they were pirates — when they were young
children — their parents dressed them as boys to hide their
identity. Later in life, Bonny and Read continued to dress as men
and worked on ships as men. It cannot be stated too forcefully:
they were in disguise. They passed as men. No one knew they
were women but each other and Captain Jack Rackham.
Contemporary depictions of Bonny and Read with their hair flowing
loose and their breasts exposed are fantastical. These are the
tabloid papers of the day enticing their readers with salacious
stories. Bonny and Read lived their lives as men and were
mistaken for men, even by each other in the beginning of their
acquaintance.
page 32
So if you are portraying Anne Bonny or Mary Read, by all means
dress like a male sailor. But do not wear your hair down and put
on a corset and perpetuate this bit of titillation. Dress as a man or
dress as a woman, but do not mix the two.
Don't wear boots
This mistake comes straight out of Pyle's illustrations. High-
topped boots were a fashionable accessory among landmen in the
middle of the 17th century. But by the Golden Age of Piracy, they
had become passé. Moreover, they were never worn on a ship.
Wearing leather boots on a ship is one certain way to fall
overboard.
They also didn't go barefoot. Ask anyone who has ever climbed a
rigging. Pirates wore shoes.
Don't say "aarrrgh" all the time
This is a misunderstanding of colloquial English accents brought
about by English actor Robert Newton who portrayed Long John
Silver in the 1950 movie Treasure Island and Blackbeard in 1952.
Newton was from Dorset in the west country and portrayed Silver
with a west country accent. In this accent, the English term "aye"
meaning "yes" was pronounced "arr" or "yaar".
If you are portraying a character from the West Country, there is
nothing wrong with saying "arrgh" for yes. But there is something
strange about saying it when you don't mean "yes" or when the
rest of your accent is Cockney or American.

page 33
page 34
 Getting Dressed Step-by-Step
The Underclothing
Not Yet Dressed

Put on your shift.

Put on your hose. Tie or buckle your garters at your knee. Make
sure you can bend your knees and stand on your toes without
pain. If it hurts, loosen your garters. They should be only tight
enough to keep your hose up. They should not cut off your circulation.

Are you at the bagnios or stewes (public bathhouse)?

Are you in your bedchamber (if you have one) or actually in bed?
Are you a peasant actively working in a field somewhere in
Italy? (Even Italian field workers throw on another garment
when they finish working. And English field workers never
work in only their shifts.)

No?

Then you're naked.

Don't go out like this.
Ever.

I mean it.

page 35
page 36
 Getting Dressed Step-by-Step
The First Layer
Under Dressed

If you will be wearing additional petticotes for warmth, you can put
them on over your shift. You can also put multiple petticotes on
over your stays, but if you will be wearing your mantua open,
make sure the center front tabs come out over all the petticotes.
Put on your belt or girdle. This can be under your petticotes,
between multiple petticotes, or above the top petticote. Hang your
pockets, eating knife, and keys from your belt or girdle.
Put on your shoes.
Do you have your shoes on?
Now put on your stays. Lace them closed. Adjust them so they sit
comfortably on your shoulders and hips.
Make sure you do this in this order.
You do not want to put on your stays and then tie your shoes.
Trust me.
It can be done, but it sucks.

STOP!
Don't go out like this.
You are not dressed!
Even prostitutes wear more clothes than this.

page 37
page 38
 Getting Dressed Step-by-Step
Dressing Your Head
Make a part across the top of your head from ear to ear as shown
in the illustration at right. Curl the hair on the front of your head
into rolls lying vertically across your head. These can be secured
with hairpins. Height matters so stack those curls one on top of
the other. See period art for the proper silhouette.
Pull the rest of your hair back and make a bun if you are wearing a
cap, hood, or fontage. It can also be curled into one or two long
banana curls to hang over your shoulder if you are wealthy and
dressed very fashionably.
Put on your cap. Caps were often anchored by being pinned through
a knot of hair like a bun or braid. If your hair is not long, you can
make a small cornrow at the top of your head and pin into it.
If wearing a fontage, attach it securely to your bun. Place your
commode behind the frill of your fontage to hold it up.
A chaperone or hood can be worn over your cap or over your
styled hair. It's your choice. The wealthier you are, the less likely
you are to wear a cap under your chaperone.
DO NOT stick your cap on your head over your modern hairstyle.
Also do not let your hair hang down from under your cap in back.
This is not sexy. Mental patients in Early Modern Europe are
depicted as insane by having their hair hang out of their caps.
Don't do this or you may end up in Bedlam.

STOP!
Don't go out like this.
And don't give me that "pirates didn't play by the rules" crap. You know
what else pirates didn't do? Draw attention to themselves so they could
be recognized as pirates and hanged!

Listen to me. I won't lie to you.

I'll tell you when you're ready to go out

page 39
page 40
 Getting Dressed Step-by-Step
The Mantua
Casually Dressed

Dress as above, putting on your shift, belt or girdle, petticotes,

stays, hose, garters, and shoes, and do your hair. Put on your cap
and fasten it to your hair with a pin.
Put on your mantua. Pin it to your stays or pin the fronts closed.
Tuck the skirts of your mantua back by pulling the loops
underneath the skirts of your mantua out from under and looping
them over the buttons attached to the back of the garment.
Arrange the resulting folds attractively over your hips and bum.
If your mantua is long in back and you want to shorten it, tuck the
center back point into the back of your belt and arrange it attractively.
Put your neck linens on your shoulders and pin it. Adjust your
neck linens until they lay nicely without wrinkles and are
comfortable to wear. You will be wearing them all day after all.
Put on your chaprone and tie it under your chin. Put on your hat if
you will be wearing one.
Working women in this time period almost always wore aprons. In
the pictorial record, they are white, yellow, light green, black,
blue... Some are knife pleated onto a waistband. Some are
simple rectangles of fabric pinned behind the back to fit smoothly
over the clothes. Fasten your apron over your mantua. You may
want to tuck up your apron so it won't get too dirty.

Congratulations! You are fully dressed.

You may leave the house.

page 41
page 42
 Getting Dressed Step-by-Step
The Mantua
Formally Dressed

Dress as above, putting on your shift, belt or girdle, petticotes,

stays, hose, garters, and shoes, and do your hair. Put on your cap
and fasten it to your hair with a pin.
Put on your mantua. Pin it to your stays showing of your stays or
stomacher.
Tuck the skirts of your mantua back by pulling the loops
underneath the skirts of your mantua out from under and looping
them over the buttons attached to the back of the garment. Arrane
the resulting folds attractively over your hips and bum.
If you mantua is long in back and you want to shorten it, tuck the
center back point into the back of your belt and arrange it attractively.
If you are wearing neck linen, pin it on now. But you don't have to
wear neck linen.
If you will be wearing a chaperone over your hair, put it on and tie
it under your chin. Arrange your curls so they peek out from under
your chaperone becomingly.
You may also wear your hair dressed but not covered.
If you have a fancy apron, you can wear it under the front of your
mantua so it shows.

Congratulations! You are fully dressed.

page 43
page 44
 Getting Dressed Step-by-Step
Hunting Costume
Formally Dressed

Hunting costume is a little different from the rest of female dress

since it apes male fashions. The foundations are the same, but
the upper clothing diverges wildly. A better understanding of
hunting costume can be obtained by reading any of our work on
male dress of the period.
Get dressed as above in your shift, stays, petticotes, stockings.
If you have a habit shirt or dickey with a ruffled front, put it on over
your stays. You may also wear a neck stock, cravat, or Steinkirk.
Put on your long, trained, uppermost petticote.
Put on your waistcoat. Button it from top to bottom.
Put on your coat. Button it as much as you care to. Only the
waist buttons need be closed.
Stick the end of your Steinkirk through one of your coat
buttonholes.
Have your servant wrap your sash around you and tie it in a big
bow in back.
Put on your gloves.
Put on your riding boots.
This is the ONLY time wearing boots is justified.
Put on your peruke or other wig.
Put on your cocked hat.
Pick up your riding crop and fusil de chasse and go get your horse.

Congratulations! You are fully dressed.

page 45
page 46
The Patterns
If you don’t have GAoP clothing and you want to make some,
Reconstructing History has the patterns you need to do it. Get
them here: https://reconstructinghistory.com/product-category/
historic-patterns/pirate/ These are available as paper patterns or
as downloadable files you can print yourself.
Patterns mentioned in this guide are:
Shirts and Shifts: https://reconstructinghistory.com/product/rh104-
1600s-shirts-shifts/
Mantua: https://reconstructinghistory.com/product/rh708-1690s-
1710s-mantua/
Stays: https://reconstructinghistory.com/product/rh711-1670s-
1720s-stays/
Bodiced Gown: https://reconstructinghistory.com/product/rh707-
1670s-1690s-bodiced-gown/
Hunting Costume: https://reconstructinghistory.com/product/rh709-
ladys-riding-outfit/
GAoP Accessories: https://reconstructinghistory.com/product/
rh713-1680s-1725-accessories/

The Sources
Andersen, Ellen. Moden i 1700-arene. 1977: Nationalmuseet,
Copenhagen.
Arnold, Janet. “Elizabethan and Jacobean Smocks and Shirts” in
Waffen-und Kostumkunde, Pt. 2 (1977), pgs 89-110
Arnold, Janet. Patterns of Fashion 1: Englishwomen's dresses
and their construction c1660-1860. 1977: Macmillan, London.
Arnold, Janet. Patterns of Fashion 4: The cut and construction of
linen shirts, smocks, neckwear, headwear and accessories for
men and women c1540-1660. 2008: Macmillan, London.
Boucher, François. 20,000 Years of Fashion. 1987: Harry N.
Abrams, Inc., New York.
page 47
Cunnington, C. Willett and Phillis. Handbook of English Costume
in the Seventeenth Century. 1972: Plays, Boston.
Hart, Avril and Susan North. Fashion in Detail. 1998: Rizzoli
International Publications, New York.
Leloir, Maurice. Histoire du Costume. On: http://www.costumes.
org
Payne, Blanche. History of Costume. 1965: Harper Collins, New
York.
Ribeiro, Aileen. Dress in Eighteenth-Century Europe 1715-1789.
2002: Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Shesgreen, Sean. The Criers and Hawkers of London. 1990:
Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Waugh, Norah. Cut of Women’s Clothes 1600-1930. 1964:
Routledge, New York.
The author’s private notes from The Gallery of Costume,
Manchester, and the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
Internet Resources
Reconstructing History Patterns: https://reconstructinghistory.com
Dharma Trading for natural dyestuffs and silk and linen fabric:
http://www.dharmatrading.com/
Renaissance Dyeing for lambswool dyed with 16thc dyes:
http://www.renaissancedyeing.com/en/products/elizabethan-range/
The Web Gallery of Art: http://www.wga.hu

page 48
About the Author
Kass McGann has been studying historical clothing ever since the
Textile Curator at the National Museum of Ireland told her she
asked too many questions and why didn’t she just come over and
have a look for herself. So she did! That was over 20 years ago.
Since then, her interests
have expanded to include
all time periods medieval
through modern and span
the globe from Near West to
Far East. She has presented
costume lectures in Ireland,
the UK, Australia, and Japan
as well as all over the US.
In 1996, she began
ReconstructingHistory.com
to share what she’d learned
with the internet public. In
2003, RH Patterns was born,
giving her a new way to
share information on historical
clothing with the world.
These days she runs RH
Patterns in the Netherlands
with her husband, retired
racing greyhound Flash, and
rescue pitbull Lakshmi. Her
lap is not her own.
Kass is a regular speaker and presenter on historical clothing and
garment construction techniques. She can be reached at
info@reconstructinghistory.com or on http://kassmcgann.com

page 49
 Visit

reconstructinghistory.com
to get all our patterns and information
on Golden Age of Piracy clothing
(and other time periods as well!)

Stay in touch with what we’re up to. Join our email list.
We will never sell your address or send you spam.

page 50