Author Topic: No 3 dress?  (Read 2169 times)

Thursday Next

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
    • View Profile
No 3 dress?
« on: January 30, 2011, 07:27:27 pm »
http://oldweather.s3.amazonaws.com/ADM_53-48302/ADM%2053-48302-018_1.jpg

I'm afraid I'm baffled again.  At 8.00 am, it looks like:

landing party clean in No 3 dress

I don't think I've misread the writing!  Any ideas what this means?

Thanks
Su

ElisabethB

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
    • View Profile
Re: No 3 dress?
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2011, 07:38:27 pm »
Hi Su,
Here is what Wiki has to say about it.
And here is some more info from the Royal Navy.

Randi

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12544
    • View Profile
Re: No 3 dress?
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2011, 07:46:56 pm »
Love this comment from Wiki (even if it is a different time period)

Uniform for ratings was first established by the Admiralty in 1857. Prior to this, most seamen wore "slops", or ready-made clothing sold to the ship's crew by a contractor; many captains established general standards of appearance for the seamen on their vessel, but there was little or no uniformity between ships. On one occasion in 1853, the commanding officer of HMS Harlequin paid for his boat crews to dress as harlequins, an incident which may have contributed to the Admiralty's decision to adopt a standard uniform.

ElisabethB

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
    • View Profile
Re: No 3 dress?
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2011, 07:48:51 pm »
 ;D

Thursday Next

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
    • View Profile
Re: No 3 dress?
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2011, 08:32:05 pm »
So, not a little black off-the-shoulder number, after all!

Thanks for the links, Elizabeth.  Since No 3 dress appears to be the standard get-up, it seems a bit strange that they bothered to mention it!

Su

mutabilitie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
    • View Profile
Re: No 3 dress?
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2011, 11:37:57 pm »
Well, clearly 'clean' was an unusual enough state to be commented on as well...