Jump to content
CharlieZardoz

Brig USS Enterprise 1799 info gathering

Recommended Posts

Charlie

 

Fiddler's Green is a broker, and a very good one IMHO, but be aware that the owner does not have the models in his place thus cannot take  more pictures if he does not already have them on hand. He may be able  to put you in touch with the model builder though and then the model builder hopefully can help you out.  

 

Good luck

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's just fine. I wasn't sure though if it was a one person operation or not since I see a builder on there by the name of Stan Sinowitz and the Viper is featured on the cover of the page so I am going to make an assumption that he built the model himself. If not Im happy to be pointed in the right direction. There is no surviving plans of Viper to my knowledge so I am curious what sources were used in creating a model version.

Edited by CharlieZardoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick update on this post I came to realize that the 1797 unidentified schooner in Chapelle's book has actually been likened to be the Dilligence II class revenue cutter with Eagle a member and most likely was a plan for the class. Also a nice looking reconstruction of Eagle exists. While this doesn't help much with the mystery that is Enterprize, it does help me with the mystery of what ship that draught represents as well as gives a nice image of what a similar and slightly smaller contemporary to Enterprize might have looked like. :)

post-15936-0-18724400-1482991289_thumb.jpg

post-15936-0-81046000-1482991453_thumb.jpg

Edited by CharlieZardoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a late comment on the subject of the Enterprize but I have been trying to relate plans that are in a book by Charles G. Davis, 'The Built up Ship Model', published first in 1933, with those of the Salvini Plan B.  Davis labels the subject of his book as the Lexington of 1776, however we know that his model is not the Lexington; the Lexington looked totally different. However I was struck by the similarity between Davis' model and the Salvini Plan B so having brought the relevant drafts to the same scale I superimposed them and found that the body plan was almost identical, that the profile held true and that the rake of stem and stern post was the same. Also the length to breadth ratio was close with the Salvini Plan B being very slightly longer than the Davis draft. I did not expect them to match perfectly due to the lengthening of the vessel. The strange thing is why did Davis' label his model as Lexington and how did he come to make a draft so similar to Salvini Plan B. Many model makers have been hoaxed into naming this model Lexington, but given the evidence that this stream has brought forward, perhaps they should change the name of their models to Enterprize III. An image of the Davis model is attached as are the superimposed plans.Davis-EB_comparison[11862]

IMG_3845.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting timing bringing this topic back up. Thanks to a power outage last night due to Hurricane Michael, I just finished Intrepid Sailors: The Legacy of Preble's Boys and the Tripoli Campaign by Chipp Reid last night. Enterprise features prominently in the book so the little schooner has been on my mind again. Hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian, I haven't had a chance to scan from Davis's book to try and explain what you are proposing, however you want to read NRG journal 31 page 137 which critiques the Lexington he built which was also used as the basis for the Aeropiccola kit of Lexington from way back when. So bottom line looking at the hull lines both ships do look rather similar don't they? But from what I can tell Davis took a plan profile of a Brtitish brig from 1804/5 probably the HMS Wolf and then augmented the size to like 78.5' long?  Which actually wasn't event the length of Lexington but whatever, I believe you are trying to insinuate that Davis's Lexington could be made to represent and somewhat factual representation of Enterprize? Here's my thoughts, I feel it wont because Davis's model is old and Davis in general was kind of not always the best with facts and back in those days there weren't many people doing this to make a generic early 19th century brig and then slap a name on it wasn't so hard back then there was less information. Millar's book, on Revolutionary war ships by contrast was great in that it really showed what colonial ships had in common back then, the Lexington having a quarterdeck and looking very much like a merchant conversion ship. The Enterprize by contrasted looked very much like a brig from 1800 which in turn consisted of ships like HMS Wolf, Cruizer and then the American Syren, Argus, Vixen etc. When I lined up the plans yeah there were differences but generally the same concept based on builder practices of the time. And in turn if you line up British brigs and then American ones youll see some distinctions between the two again based on builder practices.

 

My point is What Davis did was take a plan of a generic British brig, change the dimensions and then add some American styled flourishes and decided yeah that could be Lexington... but that's not very good history. He didn't really understand what a brig from 1776 would look like so the ship ultimately looks like a british brig from 1804 with some American touches, and shrunk down several feet hence why it looks like a plausible Enterprize. He also didn't scale the masts correctly they are oversized. Near as I can tell the Salvini plans were not discovered when Davis made his model so any chances of their being identical is pure coincidence.

 

So what did Enterprize really look like? Well if you take Salvini plan A and Vixen and line them up they are almost identical, save for some slight differences in tumblhome (which was historically referenced) but that's pretty much it! I am now of the opinion that Enterprize was never lengthened in Venice so she probably kept her 85' size up until the war of 1812 when she was significantly changed. So when I do make a model of Enterprise ill probably use Salvini plan A, line it up with Vixen, do a bit of tweaking and that's it. I would effectually be making a model of Salvini plan A and slapping Enterprize on it like I am the Active revenue cutter. It's making an inference but at least it's building a model from an actual legitimate plan, not a hodge podge of stuff like David's Lexington or Hahn's vaulted Hannah model (which has tons of issues as well). I will say though that the Davis Lexington is pleasing to the eye so I did try to decide if it could represent a ship of any sort but yeah 75' is too small for brigs of that time so I really don't know what else to do with it other that admire it as a noble attempt at -er something lol. :0

Untitled.jpg

e6 001.jpg

Edited by CharlieZardoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his book Tidewater Triumph published by Mystic Seaport in 1998 author Geoffrey Footner includes a drawing found in the archives of the Arsenal of Venice believed to of Enterprize. Footner writes that Enterprize was extensively repaired by the Arsenal in 1804.  The repair involved replacement of her stem post and stern post.

 

It seems that in 1994 there was a move afoot to build a replica of the ship and that generated a request to the archives.  Two drawings of pilot boat type schooners were discovered in the papers of an Italian Naval Constructor named Andrea Salvini who worked at the Arsenal in 1804 when Enterprize was repaired.  In 1994 a Dr. Mario Marzari was writing a biography of Salvini and found the drawings.  Experts at the Arsenal believe that one of the two drawings is of Enterprize.  

 

Footner also includes a drawing of Enterprize by noted artist Antoine Roux.  Footner says that the drawing was made in 1806.  The vessel in the Roux drawing has a plain head.  That shown in the Arsenal had a rather long head with head rails. Footner says that both represent Enterprize following her repair.  Perhaps this is a mistake?  Could Roux have made his drawing before 1804 and the Italians have added what appears to be a somewhat exaggerated head during the 1896 repair?

 

1994 was 24 years ago.  I wonder if Dr Marzari ever published his book and if in doing so he uncovered any additional material.  Maybe our Italian members can shed some light on the matter.

 

Roger

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CharlieZardoz said:

Here it be! And yeah it looks that crummy in the book as well lol. :)

salvini a 001.jpg

Thanks, that's more than enough to work with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice! Curious to see what you have in store. Also just to go back to past posts about the Enteprrize quarterdeck, that Constructo model shows a style from 1776 with the railing and cabin door which looks a lot like Fair American or Halifax. When the little deck was on Enterprise it was very likely similar to the sort of fore and aft decks that the cruiser class had.  Again another example on how older models really had a lot of anachronistic issues. 

USS%20Enterprise%20con80837[1].jpg

post-11003-0-85644600-1397682615[1].jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take the point about the similarity to the cruiser class brigs of the early 1800s. Interestingly enough my first reaction on looking at Davis' plan was that it did look a bit British! However there is a considerable difference in profile. That said the body plan looks similar. I will do some comparisons. The idea of Davis using a British brig as an example is interesting, but I am doubtful that he would go to our National Maritime Museum rather than use a USN authority. I will be having a closer look at Vixen and Salvini Plan A. I did note that there was a considerable difference in LBR between that plan and the Davis draft. I am afraid that Davis' book made me angry in that giving the name of Lexington was utter speculation totally unsupported by research. As a result there are kit manufacturers and a mass of model makers, including Donald McNarry who have been fooled into building a model that is not what it says it is. I think that all that can be said of his model is that it is a USN armed schooner c. 1800 very similar in form and dimensions to the armed schooner Enterprise before she was rebuilt and lengthened. Funnily enough you mentioned HM Sloop Wolf. I am building an earlier incarnation of her launched in 1754. Keep going, I am enjoying this stream!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep yep I would highly recommend your ready the NRG article if you can. That image I posted is from the issue, it's a British brig from 1804 which I believe was a template for HMS Wolf likely others, but the bows are almost identical. The Davis stern looks kinda Americanized but even that stern looks like neither era it's very extreme. There are many erroneous models from those era and plenty still on the shelves! If you want to build a kit try a newer kit they have less auspicious origins... ;) otherwise scratch modelmaking will always lead to the result you wish like my Active! ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That "Salvini" draught has a number of anomalies. The most striking is that the station lines and port sides are parallel to the waterline, (hence by inference the framing), not the keel. This was very unusual at that time period. There are many draughts of small ships with greater keel drag: all have framing set at right angles to the keel, not waterline. Compare this with the brig of war taken from Steel, and the 14 gun schooner, also illustrated above. It makes me a little suspicious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you know what, that's a very obvious weirdness. I mean a plan of that time would always have the keel horizontal having the plan to the waterline is.... wrong. One day ill try and track down where these plans came from and IF they have any merit at all.  I will want to see that plan Chapelle worked on at the mystic seaport library. He apparently did an unofficial conjectural plan (mentioned a few pages back). Id be curious to see what this plan looks like if for only research purposes. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Druxey. I am a bit confused by your remarks about the Salvini plans. Plan B is the one that interests me. The station lines shown vertical and at right angles to the keel on the elevation plan are correct practice and correspond to the sections shown on the body plan. The waterlines are also drawn correctly as parallel to the load waterline. So I can see nothing wrong with Salvini Plan B. Am I teaching Grandmother to suck eggs or have I got it all wrong?! It may be that we have different terminology on this side of the 'Pond'.

 

For Charlie Zardoz. I have had a good look at the lines of our Cruizer class brigs in that lovely book 'Modelling the Irene' and find that here are some considerable differences in hull shape so I guess that Davis, being a naval architect, just drew his own lines adding a bit of British and a bit of American together. Anyhow his model has the sweetest lines.

 

Keep going. Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I finally found the booklet William James commented on in his Naval Occurrences book. Unfortunately, it was up for auction last year.

 

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/lot.76.html/2017/books-manuscripts-americana-n09657

 

(6) Manuscript booklet “Dimensions American Ships,” including the Chesapeake, President, Constitution, New York, Adams, and Enterprise, approx. 55 pages with very detailed description of dimensions of hulls, masts, sails, etc., annotated “found in Chesapeake” in pencil on front cover, paper wrappers (4 x 6 3/8 in.; 102 x 163 mm).

 

One of the preview images in the auction is a page of Constitution's spar dimensions.

Edited by Talos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian: It's the Chapelle draught of the 14 gun unidentified schooner (post #124) that has station lines at right angles to the keel. The Salvini one does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Druxey, I may be wrong but the Salvini plan A also has station lines shown at right angles to the waterline, which is wrong, but the Salvini plan B has them shown correctly at right angles to the keel. Strange!

 

Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie, good morning. I have the two plans in front of me. The differences would appear to be that Davis' model has a more pronounced sheer line than the Cruizer. The waterlines are similar in the run of both but Cruizer has a finer entry below the load waterline. Davis' model has greater deadrise to her midships sections though both have similar drag to their keels. It is a pity that the buttock - bow lines are not shown on the Cruizer plan I have here as they would provide a useful comparison. I could of course plot them from the information already on the plan but do not have the time right now. Also I need to check the length to breadth ratio. I have to say that I find much more similarity between the Davis plan and Salvini Plan B than I do between it and the Cruizer plan. That similarity may of course be pure coincidence.

 

Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan I posted above from naval architechure 1805, isn't of cruiser but of another ship. I mean I would read the nrg journal and see what they say about it, buuuuut it really boils down to when was the Davis model created vs when was the Salvini plan discovered? If the salvini plan was found after the Davis model was made then it couldn't have been a reference for his Lexington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie, as far as we know the Salvini plans were discovered well after Davis published his book so we have to accept that the Salvini Plan B's similarity to Davis' plan is pure coincidence. And there the matter rests unless someone else finds some new facts.

The brig in Steele is certainly very like a Cruizer class Brig. I must investigate and compare.

 

Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model shipcraft.

The Nautical Research Guild puts on ship modeling seminars, yearly conferences, and juried competitions. We publish books on ship modeling techniques as well as our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, whose pages are full of articles by master ship modelers who show you how they build those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you what details to build.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
×