Marcus.K.

I changed my mind: after checking on the Isaac Hull model of 1812 - in which the deck components were done in this special green already - the carriages seem still to be in red. A very dark, dull and faint red (maybe due to the age of that color).. but clearly a red. Still .. its all just guessing.. right? I was checking on other forums - the only discussion about red I found here - click me

Hey TBE , great progress! I fully agree to your point of view: nobody will really see them - maybe with the exception of those close to the waist of the ship were one maybe may see something below in the main hatch .. Hard to tell. If I look at my old 1/96 Revell-model one really has to try hard to see the guns below that boats stored there. Of course your scale is a bit wider .. but .. When I do research for Old Ironsides my very first view is into Tyrone Martins "Close up" - and today I finally found some time to do so for this questions: The only mentioning of something with color are mentioned for the very first years like this: 13 Oct. 1799 -- "blackening the guns" .. Ships log, Jun 1802 -- Gun carriage trucks had iron rims ... Receipt to Jon Taley, 13 Jun 1802, Samuel Brown Papers 14 Sep 1803 -- "..scraping the gun trucks/axlestress and Black leading them..." Ships log Jan 1804 -- painting gun carriage ring botls and leading blocks .. ships log and for Oct. 1804 -- "...repainting Quarterdeck Guns, they are now painted in light yellow in order to correspond with the patinwork of the quarterdeck.." ... Naval Documents relating to Barbary Wars Also later there is often mentioned ".. scrap´d the gun carriages and put black lead on them " .. or ".. blacking .. main deck guns" .. or "balking long guns" .. "blacking carronades" .. But - as far as I understand this - this may not refer to the color of the wooden carriages - than to the barrel itself. And the "blackening with black lead" may refer to graphite - and in that case was not used to protect the surface but to make sure axcle and the seat of the trunnions. Black lead may refer to something like graphite .. as black lead - plumpum nigrum - was the name of that: In Samuel Frederick Gray, A Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia (1821) black lead is described as Plumbum Nigrum - which seems to be the former name of graphite - although the text specifies is at iron and charcoal.. So I guess "black" is not the right color - and the only color mentioned in Martin´s list is the light yellow - to match the 1804 quarterdeck. I did not find any other hint for colors of the carriage. But: there are lists of colors delivered to the ship: Aug 1803 -- Paint pigments in ship's stores included 305# black, 3 cwt white lead, 3 cwt yellow, 50# green ("verdigris"), and 28# red ("vermilion"). [Receipt for John Osborn, 1 Aug 1803, Samuel Brown Papers, MHS.] and later: 11 Jan 1804 -- Received 15 kegs of yellow ochre, 2 of red paint, 7 small ones of black paint, and 50 gallons of black varnish. [Ship's log, DNA.] the August 1803 list indicates that the ship got "3 cwt yellow". A cwt is an old unit - C for the latin word "centrum" for 100. "hundredweight" is in the US the equivalent to 100 pounds. If the description would be meant in british units (I am not sure if the young US did already used their specific units - I remember some very interesting articles about this in Wikipedia!) .. well, if it were british, its even more: 1 cwt in Britain would be 112 lbs . For us that means: the ship had at least 300 lbs yellow, and 28 pounds of red ("vermilion" - which was a bright and very expensive red - not to be mixed with the cheap "swedish red" which is also known as "Red Iron Oxide". The Jan 1804 list talks about 15 kegs of yellow ochre and only 2 of red paint. A "keg" seems to be a barrel of about 30 - 40 pound ..15 kegs would then be about 450 - 600 pounds of yellow ochre. While red is again in a very small amount available. 2 kegs = 30 - 80 pound. BUT: in Martins Oct. 1804 quote we learn that from NOW on the carriages match the quarterdeck in being yellow.. So if we look for those colors - and take that 2 days delivery as an indicator of the likely use of paint for carriages, we might notice: 1. vermillion red is not very likely 2. yellow, or ochre yellow is possible - and was used at least in 1804 - but obvously something else was common before Oct. 1804. 3. green ("verdigris") was the chosen color in 1812 for the features on spar deck - as we can see in the Isaac Hull model. 4. black was available in suffcient manner 5. red - not vermillion - but maybe such a spanish brown - which the following paintings also would "allow" ... This painting by Alonzo Chapelle (done in 1862) shows Stephan Decture - most likely on board of USS United States - although the rounded rail in the background seems to hint on USS Constitution - still the shape does not fit. The gun carriage seems to be black ? I looked for others - but the color is always hard to tell: Isaac Hull patinted in 1815 for his 1812 victory .. is that a black capstan? Baindbridge seems to be beside a yellow, ochre or brownish carronade carriage .. And of course: the painters did most likely not really care for the PERFECT color of those details. They may just been "typical" paintings for them in those days. There still was no "standard" - and most likely the captains may have used whatever was available and cheap. My personal favorite today: black, [Edit with a day of reflection:] changed my mind: a red color seems to be likely - as red ochre was a typical choice - and what´s more interesting: even when Old Irionsides had her greenish bulwarks and deck details: her gun carriages seem to have been red [end edit] or.. if you like - this brownish spanish "red" - at least either a very dark faint color - or an ochre or yellow color - which most likely also is a bit obscure and not very bright and clear. Your spanish brown is a perfect match in this regard .. but I fear: right now we just can guess!

Oh, that's interesting. 😲 I did not notice this lines. I need to check my notes !! 🤔 Seems I did Fall over the same step, I so often complain about at others! The bias of interpretation without real checks.. Just because an idea fits to the total picture does not necessarily mean it WAS like that! 🫣 But: it won't affect your casting process and my intended reconstruction as both point on well before 1807 ... puh! 🤪

Excellent work, Haiko. But I have to state: I did find those Savannah guns only due to @Force9´s research. HERE he gave his hints - I just followed his steps 😄 Concerning the short length of those early 24 pounder guns we know from James Fenimore Cooper´s 1853 "History of the United States Navy" about the events of the July 1812 "Great Chase one of the negative effects of those very short barrels: Its clear: the combination of a big rake, high windows and short gun barrels would allow the air pressure at the gun when fired to affect the ceiling of the after cabin. Another effect reported in Tyrone Martins "a most fortunate ship" was that the gun smoke was filling the gun deck with thick haze that it made further operations with guns very tricky.

TBE - that looks awesome!

Today I accidently stepped over the 2nd "original" plan of Old Ironsides .. the "Joshua Fox"-drawing. Of course it´s only a poor copy of the original - but its clearly NOT the other - so called Doughty plan we have in the above post. Gillmer compared the two layouts in his Book "Old Ironsides - raise, decline and resurrection of the USS Constitution" and concluded that the Ship itself has more similarities with Doughty´s plans. You may find it in THIS PDF - on Page 99 - and you may download the book. It contains also a lot of other early ships plans - USS Boston, USS Essex, some of the smaller units .. even Gun Boats.. Enjoy!

Ahoy there, what´s up Doc? US Sloop Providence, US Sloop Providence .. biiiiiig deal!!! When I first saw the video of the "how to build" for this tiny little sloop I instantly fell in love with that kit. The hull is done by a 3D printed plastic hull - but all the visible surfaces are done in wood. Lasercut wood - exactly in the shape the pieces need for being shaped into their position. After my tryouts with lasercut kits the last years (a viking boat - in fact a slavic boat and a small cutter - which was fun both times) I thought this little kit might be fun too. But .. a banned supplier? Modelship Dockyard being on the list of banned suppliers!? I was asking the MSW administrators for their opinion on this kit - and got a positive feedback. Modelship Dockyard being only the distributor of chinese made kits - and this one not being a copy of someone else: agreed to proceed by admirality! Thanks a lot @Chuck ! I intent to not do a historical research for this one - as I intent just to gain experience in real modeling. My US frigate Constitution will stay my main project and all energy for research will be focused on the big frigate. Nevertheless: here is a lot of stuff to read about the little sloop which was one of the very first US Navy ships in 1775 for what was called the War of Independence. Thanks to all involved in this research. I was starting to read - not yet through the hole thread. Although the purchasing did take a bit longer than announced and after a short and pleasant e-mail contact with the supplier I recieved the little parcel after about 4 weeks. The first thing to be seen when you open the box - the drawing of the final ship: _Y Yeah, but where are the instructions to build it? Only this paper?? Next are the two 3D printed hull halfs - and a lot of wood below: In that smaller box we find threads and metal parts - and some more 3D printed components: The content seems well prepared for the long journey from China to Germany. The plastic hulls of each of the single parcels were intact - with minor damages in some. I found one of the wheels of the gun carriages being broken loose - but still where it had to be - no loss as far as I can see that by now! And the instructions are to be downloaded from Modelship Dockyards pages - which I did and attached here for your reference. Pls. feel free to join my little journey on board of this successful little sloop. I hope to be able to show how this "3D-puzzle" can be converted into a nice little model for beginners. USS Providence instructions v2.4.pdf

You may purchase it via the publisher: https://www.geymueller.de/de/978-3-943164-45-9 ... and it´s really a beautiful reference for ships that age! By the way: I am a silent follower of this thread - and since I added here something let my add how much I admire your work here!! Beautiful and amazing !!

Interesting observation, Pat. I believe that since Humphreys specified those "thick strakes" - as he called them - with their interlocking specifically for strengthening the ships longitudinal robustness against hogging - that they were installed precisely "beside" the future hatches - to not "cut" them by adding the hatches in a later step. Since they were generated especially for that, it would be stupid to "damage" them by cutting in the hatches in a later step. On the other hand: we have no idea whether the shipwrights really understood or even "accepted" Humphreys design. We know for example that Fox was in frequent discussion about many design details with Humphreys - leading to that open quarrel between the two in later years. And then: those written specification left a lot of room for interpretation. And also the know how and tradition of each involved shipwright had impact on the real ship. So any today known written specification may or may have not been followed in the real ship from the start. Those are the open questions we will most likely never know .. But .. if we try to reconstruct something it is - at least in my opinion - better to follow a known contemporary source instead of stomach feeling from today´s point of view. Only exception: if your doubt is justified by another source or indication of some later known designs. We very often do trust "common" known and "pleasing to the eyes" layouts more than unusual ones in - for example - sister ships. Just because something seen in so many models and interpretation it seems to be "right" and therefore we often mistrust a - for us strange - "feature", for which someone finds a contemporary source. Argument: "we don´t know if THIS was done in THAT ship too!" .. yeah - but we also don´t know if the "classical" design was done in THAT ship, right? Example: I found in Charles Ware´s 1820 US Frigate United States Deck drawings that it seems the Frigate had a partly closed planked head. "A" is declared as "wash deck pumps". That black tetrahedrons seem to indicate either a rising or - as I believe - a certain well or "tub" for the wash deck pumps (pumping sea water). So the sailors would be able to get sea water to wash their hands, their body and even clothes (laundry was often done in the ships head). And you may notice that strange feature along the outer edge of the head in that area marked with "A". I believe these are a pissoirs on left and right side of this area of the head - for the sailors. The wash deck pump would therefore "feed" a certain sink (the black tetrahedron), the pissoir and the seats of ease .. If you look at the color of the deck in that area: its represented plain - while the front of the head - with those seats of ease - is black and white - most likely a grating, right? Source: Frigate_United_States_Ware_-15_-_NARA_-_3281884.jpg (9931×6725) Now imagine I would represent that design on a Constitution model : for sure there will be voices stating "well, you do not have any proof that THIS design in US Frigate United States in 1820 was also existing in US Frigate Constitution!!" - which is true! But on the other hand: I don´t have any proof for any other design in Old Ironsides early head designs.. Right? Back to our planking issue here: I would assume the shipwrights followed Humphreys specification - and valued the stiffening properties of the thick strakes - and therefore hand them installed before the hatches but according to the hatches dimension - and therefore had the needed planking tapering pattern "predefined" - just as Haiko was doing on his deck. But.. all that´s just "guesstimation" only 😄 Always remember Captn. Hareblower: "Eeeh, I could be wrong, you know?"

I don´t KNOW what was done in those days.. and I guess we will never know that. But I guess I would follow the tapered scheme here too. It just seems more logical to me. How did you manage to do that "tapering"? Did you cut each planks width individually?? And: if distances between hatches or other obstacles can be filled with only one (typical) plank, don´t try to follow the planking schematic beside the strakes. A longer single plank is always preferred - as it is more robust than 2 planks meeting on a deck beam. I am curious how it will look after sanding the surface. I am pretty sure it will look just perfect!! Can´t wait to see the result. You are doing a great job here!

"Don´t shoot until you see the white of their eyes!" But on the other hand: we should be aware that the expression "in the tops" may have been misunderstood by our author´s here too .. because they may have done the same misinterpretation - if it is a misinterpretation! That tread started, because we were thinking about "what is meant by "in the tops"?" And many of us think about the f(s)ighting tops - as this is the most common known expression with "tops", right? But maybe O´Brian did the same thinking? He for sure was very good informed about the age of sail. He may have read about "hammock stations in the tops" - and concluded: that must be in the "fighting tops" .. But maybe sometimes the hammock stanchions on top of the rigid bulwarks in quarterdecks and forecastles were also called "tops"??? And by that a myth may have started .. and by repeating it, it seems more plausible... Pls. don´t get me wrong: I don´t say it IS wrong. I just want to hint on the fact that I never seen any hammock stanchions in a fighting top so far. And I admit: I never looked for them up to last week - but .. I don´t recall any. ... we need more evidence to be sure. It would be good to find visual evidence by old models done in those days. Models showing hammock nettings and stanchions along the bulwarks - AND in their fighting tops. Up to now I do not recall any. Does someone?

Hello Haiko, Humphreys specification was done in 1794 or 1795 as far as I remember. And the 6 shipyards did not follow them 1:1 - as they had to deal with what was available and how they interpreted his specifications. And I guess nobody expected them to follow them 100%. Ship building in those days is not comparable with todays way of work. The specification weren´t that precise and the shipbuilders had a huge amount of freedom in interpretation - especially compared to today, where we have 3D CAD data of the vehicles to be build. And even today: deviations in the scale of several inches or centimeters is not a rare thing in todays bigger ships. They had to deal with wood! And they made it fit to where it had to fit! Individually for each plank and each component. No ship was the same as another - even if it had the same "concept" or "architecure". Even if we consider the fact that the young United States had huge amount of high quality wood (especially compared to the British Royal Navy which by then had exhaused British forests and had to purchase wood from everywhere); and even if we consider that the shipwrights did their very best to provide the highest quality (the most important specification by Humphreys: as his idea was to have rather a smaller fleet of best possible and durable ships than a bigger fleet with poor build vehicles): we need to respect the fact that pracmatical solutions to the acutal situation in the shipyard had to be done. We know the "deviations" vs. the "specifications" and / or "typcial habits" the scientists found in the VASA compared to any shipbuilding tradition involved in her build. The sometimes "improvised" pattern of planking, differences and unsymmetries between left and right bulwarks, etc.. Sometimes it was build as it worked out best. So a deviation of several inches compared to Humphreys design would not at all thrill and bother me. In addition of course to the fact that the model is build in a scale which does rarely allow that accuracy - and any observer would not be able to differentiate "correct" from "wrong" .. Have fun! Marcus

For future reference let me link here a thread in which we discussed the sweep of the main wale vs. the sweep of the gun ports (meaing the sweep of the gun deck). I always wondered what made the Doughty plan so much more elegant then todays ship. And beside the open rail which gives the ship a lower profile in the side view I think its the more curved sweep. As a short summary: I could convince myself (and I hope my comparision was convincing for others too) that the three big frigates were not following the sweep of Doughty´s beautiful drawing. While US Frigate President and United States even seemed to have had that exact same sweep in their planks compared to the gun ports and therefore the gun deck, it seems the Old Ironsides had a bit more elegance - and that it had since the beginning a bit more curvature in her main wale compared the the gun deck. And today´s ship still seem to follow the same lines in this. For more detailed info: click on my and follow this thread

Hey Haiko, I very much like your approach. And the way you prepare that gun deck with these interlocking strikes will be very close to what Tyrone Martin found as her earlier layout. Your deck planking matches his sketch pretty close and the more I look at it, the more I like it. Do you manage to generate the 6 feet white oak from hull inwards (as Humphrey specified)? Or is that outer strake too close?

Why did I miss this? Excellent work. Looking forward to see them on deck!