I've Changed my Mind about Beards....well, not really.

     It seems like every time I feel like the debate couldn't be any more case closed about beards in the 18th century, new questions and debates crop up all over the place. I haven't changed my mind. Beards were not common place in the 18th century. If they were, you'd see paintings of prominent upper class people wearing them, and they were not. They simply were not in fashion and that to me isn't really debatable. What is debatable is the extent to which beards existed amongst working class people in the 18th century at any given time. 

    There is plenty out there to support beards for the person wanting to justify a beard, or is there? Well, yes, and no and maybe. 

Here's a weird one : 

THE VIRGINIA GAZETTE 

April 4, 1777

DESERTED from Elk Ridge landing, Maryland , the 5th of February last, four soldiers belonging to capt. Charles Fleming's company of the 7th Virginia regiment..... JOEL JOHNSON , a low well set thin man, about 5 feet 5 or 6 inches high, wears his own hair and very large whiskers, full faced; had on a hunting shirt dyed black, fringed round the capes, ruffles, tail, and down the breast, belted with the skin of a rattle snake , and had with him a bundle in a blanket.

 And there's a lot of these. Thanks to Chris Couch I've been made aware of this breakdown through searching the Virginian Gazette and other newspapers: 

large beard----127

long beard----198

thin beard------21

red beard------88

sandy beard----48

black beard---116

    That's a lot of beard references. Here's another one : 

August 23, 1753 The Pennsylvania Gazette 

RUN away from the subscriber, living in Robeson township, Berks county, near Reading, an Irish servant man, named William Moore, about 30 years of age, five fet six inches high, thick and well set, of a dark complexion, pock mark, his hair cut off but commonly keeps his beard pretty long; has a very slow gait, and is not muc given to discourse: Had on when he went away, an old felt hat, but no cap, good ozenbrigs shirt, two trowsers, old blue stockings, and half worn shoes, with brass buckles, an old blue jacket, and a brown coat, about half worn; also took with him a pair of black buckskin breeches, almost new, with brass buttons, and an old shirt. Whoever takes up and secures said servant, so that his master may have him again, shall have Forty Shillings reward, and reasonable charges, paid by JOSEPH MONEY

 Strange, I know. And then there are images. We have several, yes. But most illustrations are of poor people. And even then, the vast majority of images of poor people show clean shaven people. Paul Sandby's collection features all manner of lowly persons and not a one of them, or close to it, is bearded. 

    So where does this leave us. I really don't know. In my personal opinion, until we can get people to care about cut and fit of their clothes and stop buying from the Walmart stores or get the Walmart stores to carry better products, then shaving is really a moot point. Shaving won't fix a bad impression. But clothes will surely redeem a little facial hair. 

Farby me. The beard being shaved would not redeem this poorly executed kit. Yikes.

Progressive me. Shaving doesn't really detract from the fact that this kit is good. Shaving would make it much more kosher considering the fashion of the time, but it's still, based on many accounts, plausible.

So what on earth do we do? Shave. That's the safest and most likely bet. But, I'd suggest getting that kit squared away first and then worry about shaving for that progressive campaigner event you've wanted to attend that said "ABSOLUTELY NO BEARDS". Heck, I might have even wrote those words in bold letters on that very impression guideline you read. Well, I stand by it...mostly.