Dutch West India Company Marine (c1690) picture.

[Fox]

I'm sorry about the quality of the picture, it was just a quick snap in a room with bad lighting and a sharp flash. I'll get a better one in daylight soon.



Any thoughts, please.

[Dave B]

Nice outfit, shame about the ugly bloke!

[Phil the Grips]

Nice- very "business like" and much less of a gert mincing jessie than the last outfit

[Andy R]

Where's your bayonet go?

You've got to have a bayonet.


Very nice BTW

[Dave B]

Not really my period and I'm prepared to be wrong, but I believe that if we are in Circe 1690 then the plug bayonet has been in service in some forces for about 20 years, but you wouldn't see any fittings on the gun for a plug one, and wern't fitted until AFTER the gun had been fired for obvious reasons. And they didn't universally catch on at all. the socket bayonet was probably only just about invented in 1690

[Andy R]

Not really my period and I'm prepared to be wrong, but I believe that if we are in Circe 1690 then the plug bayonet has been in service in some forces for about 20 years, but you wouldn't see any fittings on the gun for a plug one, and wern't fitted until AFTER the gun had been fired for obvious reasons. And they didn't universally catch on at all. the socket bayonet was probably only just about invented in 1690

I meant by way of frog.....!
(waist belt, shoulder frog)

Yes you are correct, the plug bayonet was used till arround 1700 when the ring bayonet took over for a while, and then they went in for the socket bayonet


EDIT
Just looked at the gun - is that one of the late c17th doglocks you have there?

[Fox]

I meant by way of frog.....!
(waist belt, shoulder frog)

Yes you are correct, the plug bayonet was used till arround 1700 when the ring bayonet took over for a while, and then they went in for the socket bayonet

Yes. As with everything else, bayonets seem to be in flux at this period. I'm still trying to understand what that means, and I'm not sure I'm better educated by what you've just said.

The outfit still needs to have a hanger, which I will hang from a belt across the other shoulder.
I think a waist belt would look more flattering, as well as being useful, but I'm still looking at illustrations to understand what, if anything, is appropriate.

Is that what you're saying?

EDIT
Just looked at the gun - is that one of the late c17th doglocks you have there?

Yes. Yes, it is. Pretty isn't it? Makes a lovely bang too.

[Fox]

BTB, I'd be interested what people think of the hat.

I made it myself from a simple broad-brimmed hat with a round crown [the sort I suppose are early 17thC].

I've based it on illustrations of the sort of proto-tricon that seem to be right for the date.

[Andy R]

Yes. As with everything else, bayonets seem to be in flux at this period. I'm still trying to understand what that means, and I'm not sure I'm better educated by what you've just said.

The outfit still needs to have a hanger, which I will hang from a belt across the other shoulder.
I think a waist belt would look more flattering, as well as being useful, but I'm still looking at illustrations to understand what, if anything, is appropriate.

Is that what you're saying?

EDIT
Just looked at the gun - is that one of the late c17th doglocks you have there?

Yes. Yes, it is. Pretty isn't it? Makes a lovely bang too.

Yes. To take British (which was generally in line with Europe) waistbel with single frog for hanger, and with the bayonet coming off another frog on the front of the belt. Poor description, but here's one of Ralph's paintings which kind of shows it better...


I have one of those too. Fantastic pieces.

More importantly, it was far louder than Tods

[steve stanley]

For 1690 a waistbelt for the hanger would be more likely....plug bayonet sits in a frog vertically to wearer's left of buckle.
Steve

[Andy R]

BTB, I'd be interested what people think of the hat.

I made it myself from a simple broad-brimmed hat with a round crown [the sort I suppose are early 17thC].

I've based it on illustrations of the sort of proto-tricon that seem to be right for the date.

It has a round crown?

Okay, I'll blame the photograph then

Looks nice

[Fox]

BTB, I'd be interested what people think of the hat.

I made it myself from a simple broad-brimmed hat with a round crown [the sort I suppose are early 17thC].

I've based it on illustrations of the sort of proto-tricon that seem to be right for the date.

It has a round crown?

Okay, I'll blame the photograph then

Looks nice

Not anymore it doesn't.
It was one of the tall domes that seem ealier in style.
I saw some illustations with the crown flattened, so that's what I did.

If that seems really wrong I can just push it out again.

[Andy R]

For 1700 the hats had low round crowns - one of the marked differences to the earlier period.

If that has any relation to the Dutch though, I'm damned if I know

[Fox]

For 1700 the hats had low round crowns - one of the marked differences to the earlier period.

Yep, and this is supposed be 1690, which does seem to be a time of change from one to the other.

[Nigel]

Looks nice jsut a query shouln't the skirts of the coat be longer ?

[Andy R]

Yep, and this is supposed be 1690, which does seem to be a time of change from one to the other.

Yeah, I know what you mean

Too much bloody change - from turned up hats to informal tricorns to tricorns, bandoliers to cartouches, match-stick guns (look I can fire with a bit of flaming string) to firelocks, and it all happens faster than you can say "am I out of date yet?"

On the continental side of things, the Oudenarde 300th is on this year

[Fox]

Looks nice jsut a query shouln't the skirts of the coat be longer ?

I don't know, should they?

It's copied from an illustration, but that might be stylised.

[Fox]

Yep, and this is supposed be 1690, which does seem to be a time of change from one to the other.

Yeah, I know what you mean

This is an example of the sort of flattened top I was looking at.
You can see that it's been conveniently annotated as 1693.

[Andy R]

Looks nice jsut a query shouln't the skirts of the coat be longer ?

I don't know, should they?

It's copied from an illustration, but that might be stylised.

Another one of those transition things.

They got longer through the late c17th and stabalised at the top of the knee.

[steve stanley]

I've just finished my 1670's one & they're just above the knee....
Steve

[steve stanley]

Andy,will you just STOP beating me to the draw................
Steve

[Andy R]

I've just finished my 1670's one & they're just above the knee....
Steve

Here's a 1675 coat of that length


Took a lot of looking as most finished just above the knee

Here's King Billy's soldiers (although he apparenlty did have more than 4)

[Andy R]

Andy,will you just STOP beating me to the draw................
Steve

Moi?

[Fox]

Unfortunately that's going to be quite difficult to alter, isn't it?

[steve stanley]

Vous!
Steve

[Nigel]

Unfortunately that's going to be quite difficult to alter, isn't it?

er yes But iam sure Jackie wont mind or recruit a smaller person than you er Like Dave ?

[Fox]

...or recruit a smaller person than you er Like Dave ?

I was certainly thinking about that possibility in the medium to long term....

[Dave B]

It's hard to say what the length should be without other sources. A marine coat might be influences by sailors fashion, and certainly english sailors were wearing coats far shorter than the fashion elsewhere.

I think that the 1706 slop contract is talking about coats a yard long, which makes them more like a sleeved waistcoat?

As I admitted it isn't my period but running through illustrations it seems that sailors coats were often very short. What I'm not clear on is how much nautical stuff marines of this period did.

[Fox]

What I'm not clear on is how much nautical stuff marines of this period did.

You'd like to think the clue was in the question, but I don't suppose it's that simple is it.

[Andy R]

What I'm not clear on is how much nautical stuff marines of this period did.

You'd like to think the clue was in the question, but I don't suppose it's that simple is it.

Now you are getting the flavour of the period

There were elements of the French Marines (The colonial marines in particular) who never went near a ship - ever...!

They just happened to be on the naval establishment.