Marcus.K.

Funny! 1st: I am a born "Pfälzer" (the name of the area on the other side of the river Rhein, were our teammate Pfälzer obviously is from too, Palatina - not Palestine) .. maybe comparable mistakes in English lead to that mistake as we would do comparable ones having the exact same mothertongue. 2nd: in fact I live now a bit "behind" Ettlingen, if looked from Karlsruhe. So next time, you are in Germany you are invited to visit me with great pleasure!

I am pretty sure I do not deserve these praises.. as my build is a Revell plastic kit and far, far from being an example for anyone, I fear. Could you pls. add a link to the mentioned "Marcus' Pfälzer build"? But anyhow: my opinion is just that. An opinion. Your build, and your decision! And I am sure either way: it will be a beauty!

Sometimes decisions are hard, but you need to think from the ending point of view (is that correct english?). You would always look onto the model and regret to have not done the hard cut. I believe the painted model is the better choice. And: I agree : those photos show perfect craftsmenship... maybe art! Excellent!

THAT is an interesting book - thanks for sharing! Decorative Figures on ships sterns and quarter galleries Here in pictures, how I right now understand the words in that bill: "one pair trusses for Stern [pair] Bracketts for Quarters" - this is one of the statements I am not sure about. "trusses" (I guess this is framework below the surface, to support structurally) for a pair of stern brackets for quarters. Where would wooden frame-work be needed? I do not see the need of any extra wooden support pieces for any brackets below the stern decoration in Old Ironsides - beside those lower finishings on the galleries. For those the wording "pair" would make sence. AND: a "bracket" in architecture is an often a very decorative element, supporting a wider structure onto a vertical "wall" - like a balcony or something comparable. So maybe this interpreation and naming of the elements makes sense? As stated: there IS a pair of brackets - which are these interesting and a bit strange brackets left and right of the window section (visible in the 1812 Isaac-Hull-Model) .. but why would those more "decorative" and most likely "symbolic" brackets - for which its just not clear what they do support? They are a bit too high for that decorative structual "bridge" of stars and eagle above the stern windows. They may be "intended" to support the upper bow - the one with the two ladies (Justice and Liberty?) and the strange elements in the top center of the stern decoration - just above the eagle. But why would THOSE need any "trusses". If that would be right, then the decorative "drob" below the planking of the galleries (and visible from the stern) may also be named "brackets" - ans this structure seemingly supports the galleries as a total element. Is there anything out there to support that interpretation of the elements of a Gallery?

She´s still a dangerous beast, isn´t she? 🤣 ... and still undefeated !

Having studied the one or other book - I have to notice: details of galleries internal structure is not very well documented in most of the books I have. Hull, Galion, Pumps, etc.. everything is described in details - but the inner structure, the internal pieces of a gallery, .. al that is rarely described in drawings and sketches. Even in Boudriots 74-gun ship book (Vol. 2 plate XVIII) it´s hard to identify details. And having also re-read my yesterdays post I need to apologize .. First of all: I did miss the difference between "Quarters" and "Gallery" .. Quarters being the rear side of the ship - while the Gallery of course refers to that structure beside and outside the hull at the rear end of the ships sides. So let´s restart with that approved bill and the description of what has been done by that Daniel Trains : "Billet Head, with figures" - clear: thats the decoration at the bow of the ship "Quarter Pieces with Bust" - that´s the outmost wood at the edge of the quarters to the galleries - in early days of Old Ironsides maybe decorated with figures (as described and still the blue circled heads in aboves picture of the Isaac-Hull-Models stern may be that busts the auther talks abaout. "upper and lower finishings for Gallery" - well here looking into my AotS books (and others) showed me, that here obviously are roof and the lower planking of the galeries are meant. This bill may describe the change from a previously ornamntal decorated hollow but flat surface to that shingle covered "roof" we see in the Issac-Hull-model and in the Ware Drawing. "one pair trusses for stern [pair] Bracketts for Quarters" - well this is not for the Galleries as I was thinking yesterday - its for the ships stern. Now here I need help: in the beautiful AotS book about HMS Bellona Brian Lavery shows on page 54 and 55 "brackets" as two decorating pieces on the rear side of the Gallery visible only from behind the ship - beside the blind (?) rear window of the gallery. Our Isaac Hull Model also shows "brackets" in that position - at least one per side between the quarters windows and that gallery back sides. Here are two "brackets" which are those purple marked "things" below the blue marked busts on left and right side. But: "Trusses" are usually structual pieces providing stability and strenght.. why would one need a special mechanical support for such a decoration? Is this really what that bills approval is describing? Wikipedia provides as explanation for a "bracket" an interesting alternative: Example Wikipdia provides: Even better: My wild guess: the "bracket" they talk about is that lowest final element below the galleries - also visible from the back ("quarters") - and is part of the structure "holding" the lower finishing in place. Fun fact: in some books this lowest end is called "drop", Boudroit describes this segment on Panel XVIII as "lower finish" .. I have to admit: my books either have no describtion or controversal description of that lower end of the galleries and other elements of the structure of a gallery. What do you think about that guess?? But there are still other elements: "Six pieces Quarter" - well .. what might be described here? Hm.. were do we find 6 elements on the Quarters? If my understanding is correct and "quarter" describes the back side of the ships hull - then there are only those 6 windows .. the posts in between the windows would be seven .. Did Train use the expression "pieces" for a total window-"panel" - maybe including the mullions? "six pieces of garnishing for front of galleries" .. that makes 3 per side - and its clear not the rear side but the front. Where do we find 3 elements per galleries front? If we´d assume that the windows are blind windows (with the expeption of a small opening within the center "window" - and if we do the same assumption as above: a "piece" may be more than one single post or mullion - we might identify that "garnishing" as the total "window"-"panel" with decoration which "simulates" those 3 window panes and the frames per side for them - including the decoration of the pieces in between them (Boudriout calls them "munions forming the framework" .. others describe them as Mullions .. again: my literature at least is not distinctive). That interpretation would allow to fit the numbers with the expressions used and the elements we see in the stern ... Is all that imporant? Naaa !! .. not really. I just like to have a certain understanding and aligning the known desciptions with what we see - it is just fun. And .. I believe some of the myths and mysteries of her previous design and shape can be sorted out by a more precise view into the existing information. Re-thinking the wording (like what´s a "bracket", how to understand the expression "piece") may help here. And: I would love to hear your expertise in this - as such an enterprise is always much better with teamwork and "swarm intelligence" ( o.k. - one may drop that actual global developments in many fields seem to imply: there is no such thing as a "swarm intelligence" - but at least there is a wider chance of finding the needed know-how amongst the audience here) does anyone of you have a better describition of how galleries are really done? the internal Structure of that thing? .. and descriptions fitting with above mentioned ones?

Gentlemen, Ladies, I need your help, please ! there is a description about the rework of decorations in 1808 .. This is from US Constitution Museum Blog and it refers again to M.V. Brewington. Shipcarvers of North America, M.V. Brewington, 126 I think I understand this: Carving a Billet Head, with figures which gives us the hint that the 1804 needed Billet Head (Hercules was lost to the US Frigate President - a collision of the two sister ships destroyed the original figure head - our strong popular hero holding the roll of papers with the Constitution high above the waves.. Also this makes sense to me: quarter pieces with Bust etc Since I think that the "bust" refers to that little heads on top of the quarter pieces visible in the Isaac-Hull-Model see here: ... the two little guys left and right in that blue circles on top of the quarter pieces .. see also here... I also get these two items: upper and lower finishings for Gallery I would think these are the upper and lower horizontal decoration rims of the Galleries windows - or what do you think "finishings" refers to? But what is meant with THIS here? one pair trusses for Stern [pair] Bracketts for Quarters What are trusses in this? And what are stern Bracketts for Quarters. Does anyone understand the structure of the timbers of a wooden ships gallery? The six pieces Quarters, six pieces of Garnishings for front of Gallery I would think are the stonger wooden frames in between the windows - including their decoration. Although I admit that the number 6 would mean that todays representation with 4 per side would either not be valid or the carver did find one per side still functionable enough. Here we see - as I think - 4 quarters in between and in front and behind the 3 windows. If I compare the actual design with whats presented in the Issac Hull model: I would think that the rear wooden quarter piece is quite small - maybe they were not count? But if my understanding would be correct, then in this representation the "six pieces of garnishing" does not fit - since if that would be just the decoration of that beams between the windows, we just see 2 per side - not 3 .. The two stars we discussed above already. Let me know if my interpretation is wrong pls.. And I would appreciate to read yours ..

Well ... reviewing the model kit itself in internet I found this statement: I guess I need to apologize - since the mentioned "1797" on the box most likely is only a reference to the frigates launch - while the kit itself may be a very accurate representation of the Lord-Restoring efforts. If you like the ship in those years ... I am looking forward following your steps - and if you like I can provide some information, myths and rumors I gathered the last years (2 decades by now - although with huge gaps on engagement) - mainly with a lot of advice and hints by so many kind and knowing modelers in this and in other model-ship-forums (a BIG, BIG THANK YOU from here !!) We all know that the ships earlier appearance is a mystery - and that a lot of ideas and interpretations are billowing like fog .. and its hard to see the real shape of things. So what are your sources so far? I would advocate for the choice of "Frigate Constitution" if I am to decide .. and while reading this I notice that my previous "U.S. Frigate Constitution" may have been as wrong as a "USS Constitution" for those years. I just recently saw an old newspaper asking for volunteers to hire onto the ship - headline "Frigate Constitution". .. no U.S. .. no U.S.S. of course..

As I am very much interested in the ships 1803 appearance and did some research on the older design - I would like to hire and come abord for your trip! I am also curious about the quality of "the most accurate kit" - since what I see at the bow on the box´s pictures is for example not a Hercules figure head which should be there for the 1797 apprearance ... So how much do you plan to modify the kit? Most important in any way: have fun !

Thanks for that suggestion! It fits with comparable answers I got in other forums. If that´s the case - would then these extra steps be only on one side? Was the "official" gangway for VIPs only on one side of the ship? In a way it fits to the big frigates - being frequently flagships of a commodor´s squadrone, right? And that would explain, why this feature is so rarely seen in other frigates. We all know that "Admirals Port" on HMS Victory - being too a flagship. So two questions I have for you all: a) did you ever seen anything comparable on other ships? b) would this feature be only on one side? Was there a traditional "right" side of a ship for VIPs? Ahoooy there, what´s up, Doc? .. Evan, thanks for the kind words. Its fun and crazy how much one still can find although having studied this topic that much .. there is still that much information.. Maybe I have another interesting feature for your build: Did you finish your stern yet? I am chasing another detail. Revell offered us a stern which was designed by a Mr. Campbell for the other well known Mr. Chapelle - and this design is visible in that museums model in the Smithonian Museum in Washington D.C. (.. well I don´t know .. is it still visible there?). You can see - all the features we see in the Isaac-Hull Model for the 1812 design. Pls. note the two stars on the sterns back - on the galleries back side. Campbell based his design on the Isaac-Hull-Model - in PEM in Salem. Here too we see the 2 stars.. Interestingly: in the center just above is a marking - and I learned that here in former times there was another big start on that model. In nearly all representation of the 1812 - Guerrier-Battle Old Ironsides is represented with these 2 big stars on each back side of the gallery: Details in one of Felice Corné´s painting Here a detail done by George Ropes, Jr. - beautiful and huge stars! We also know, that the ship got 2 stars on her stern - added by John Rodgers in 1808 (not personally of course 😁) .. We know it due to a still existing bill: M.V. Brewington. Shipcarvers of North America, M.V. Brewington, 126 Now recently I stepped over an article dealing with the US Frigate Chesapeake - and the history of a model made from bones being in a museum in Hamburg, Germany. That article was written by a J. Huntington Lewis - HRNM Docent & Contributing Writer The title is Chesapeake, to the Bone In this artikel, the author mentioned his finding about 2 stars on the stern of USF Chesapeake - in a book from 1866. The American frigate had - as we know - been taken by the British HMS Shannon in one of the most bloody encounters in which the also famous (but unsuccessful) phrase "don´t give up the ship" was stated .. The ship stayed in British waters, until it was scrapped 1820. And some of its decoration found its ways into local buildings. This graphic shows one of the two stars from the frigates stern: Now .. - knowing that the 1813 lost frigate had two stars indicating the origine of the ship from U.S. - United States .. and - noticing that the 1812 US Frigate Constitution also got 2 stars on her stern .. and - seeing that those two stars are visible in almost any graphical reproduction in which the ships stern is visible .. I begin to wonder: why is only this feature of her decoration so prominent in all paintings and etchings? was this, because the two stars were a good indentifier for the public to recognize which is the American frigate? was US Frigate Constitution also marked as a ship belonging to the "U." "S." ? have those two stars being a "signiture" of the US ships in those days? HISMODEL is selling a stern, which can replace the - beautiful but doubtful Revell-represenation on the 1/96 kit. There are features I like about this representation. But there are features, which seem to be odd and wrong. Corné showed in non of his "Guerriere" paintings the ships name on the stern .. while it is visible in the 1804 Tripolis paintings - although the ship was very, very tiny in those battle scenes off North Africa. So I doubt that the ship had its name written in 1812. The two stars - typical 5-pointed-stars - seems to be plausible on first view.. But compared to the paintings .. and that USF Chesapeake stars it seems wrong. I believe that stern is more comparable to todays stern - just more decoration. But that anyhow fits with my thinking that the 5-windows here and todays stern with only 3 windows is in fact closer to each other than one may think. If you imagine the 2 outer windows of that 5-window pattern to be "fake-windows" .. blind windows which have been painted in 1812 and which are not painted and faked as windows later .. the rest of that proportion would fit pretty good, wouldn´t it? So this Hismodel-representation may have its value .. hm.. the price, though .. well.. What will you do Evan? @Force9 For my 1803-04 representation I anyhow have to chose a different approach. I guess I need to find a good way to represent much more decoration - and an open taffrail.

Gentlemen, found an interesting feature - and I am not sure what to make with it. Beside the Gangway of US Frigate President (painted by Antoine Roux "entering Marseille" - I think it was 1803) we see 6 additional horizontal "barrs" or "steps" 3 per side (rear bottom one is in the shadow of a gun). Also in this copy of Antoine Roux´s President riding a gale from 1802 .. And here: for me most important: the Charles Ware Sail Plan from 1817 of Old Ironside - showing the same pattern beside the gangway steps - 6 additional "steps"? - 3 per side. What would this be? Are this Skids for any possible cargo which is brought along the gangway? Is it just side steps to allow the passing of an officer while a sailor is on the opposite direction? Any idea?

Question is raised via e-mail... I´ll let you know whenever I get an answer! I marked the most important statement 😀 - and whenever I will be in New England: this for sure is one of the oh-so-many places I will visit!

Thanks Bob, for that very intersting insights. Any idea about the year that New Bedford Flags Signal Flag "Poster" was done?

You are absolutly right, Roger. And that´s part of the fun for me here. Its a bit like a "murder mistery" .. Cluedo in history. "who´s done it?" .. "who´s done what!?" I am copying your remark to this thread - since I here think about the topic for my actual build. We can only "guesstimate" about detail questions based on availble sources. The Lord drawings done in 1925-1930 are a reference for what they thought is right in that times. The section cut I showed here was prepared to show what his research result is indicating. But of course - it is also a lot of interpretation in that already. And as a matter of fact: he did his restoration based on modfied designs by the way - for which we also have section cuts. I am about to re-think that thick stuff / king plank concept for my build. Until yesterday I intended to represent that step. But .. There may be 2 reasons why Humphreys may not mention that "thick stuff": 1. he did not talk about it, since anyone would have known: this is how it had to be. That´s the tricky part with original sources: they often describe the "not-expected", the "unusal", the things worth to describe. Very often they don´t talk about things which are "common sense" / "common practice" for those in the time the paper was written. So "thick stuff" or "king planks" could have been a feature which every shipyard whould know how to do! Not worth talking about. As for example also the length or width of most of the deck planks. 2. he did not talk about it, since in his design it was not intended to be there. That possiblity leaves us with two new options. 2a. there was no thick stuff in the early frigate 2b. there was thick stuff in the real ship: the shipyard did add in the best practical way - which is in a way the same as option 1. "common sense" / "common practice" - at least for them in Boston. .. Is there evidence for this? At least: I don´t have any. Does anyone of you have evidence for the practice of "thick strakes" in Boston / Charlestown in that time period? What do we have to consider than to find the best assumption here? 1. Humphreys degree of details in his specifications Humphreys mentions the detail of width of his "thick strakes", the "sheer strake" beside the hatches - and also that there should be an additional one "half way" between this "classical" sheer strake and the sides. He specified the type of wood (stronger white oak for areas with high stress and "cheaper" yellow pine everywhere else) he wants to have in different area of the deck. He did NOT mention any "thick stuff" or "king plank" in between the hatches. 2. common practice? It seems to me that the practice of thicker kingplank - or "thick stuff" as Lord is calling this - was not used in ALL ships ALL the time. Yes, it seems to be a practice in ship building before Old Ironsides was launched - and it seems to be practice up to today. But there are ships and models (weaker arguement !!) without them. In Chapmans "Architectural Navals" he shows ships WITH and WITHOUT a that step. If he does show in one drawing - why would he miss it in drawings of other ships? My conclusion: it must have been in some - and wasn´t in others. 3. need to strengthen the ship The argument it would strengthen the ship in longitundinal direction is not fully true - since the hatches interrupt that strengthening "stripe". I would understand if that thick stuff is used in area the decks are under higher load during working on the hatches, storing stuff below the decks, You may have to put there a barrel or a box .. Those area around the hatches may even experience falling stuff.. So yes, in that sense thick planks would strengthen the deck. 4. personal bias I loved that idea of having a deck planking which "differs" from what one ususally sees in forums like here. Of course I would love to show you all something new, never seen before but having good arguments to convince you all. I guess everyone posting information here does it, because it pleases to show to a community something entertaining or educational. It was a thrilling idea having here a detail, which wasn´t well understood before. But.. Thinking about all that without emotion and just rationally I would judge like Pro: thicker king plank was a well known and appearing feature in some ships and models before and after thick stuff would improve the robustness of the "logistical" area around the hatches thick stuff is shown in John Lords "investigation"-section cut. Seems he saw some evidence for it. Contra: Humphreys tried to describe the important features he wanted to have he described the material to be used - and where. he described the thickness and in one occation (for deckplanking) the width of the material he wants to be used. he did no where describe "thick stuff" / king planks There is no evidence for "thick stuff" before the 1926 section cut drawing of John Lord. king plank as a feature is sometimes visible - but wasn´t exisiting in all vessels of that type Summary I guess I will not show white oak nor a step in between the hatches.. and deviate from John Lords 1926 interpretation. Of course there may have been a step and white oak planks in the real ship from the beginning - but .. for today I guess I stick with what I read from Humphreys.

Just found in this great forum another hint for that "thick stuff" planks .. which - as it seems - are also known as King Plank.