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!

hm.. Broke says: "I am going aloft" in the beginning … so here he still is on deck. When he raises his voice and calls for Mr. Wallis he asks him to "come down". Then the next sentence I don´t understand: "between them Broke and Wallis heave his sixteen stone into the sighting top" .. "and Broke carried on to the masthead" .. that 2nd statement seems to indicate that they did climb into the fighting top - while Broke carried on. What is a "sixteen stone"? I don´t understand that first part of that statement. "between them B and W heave his sixteen stone ..."?? But in general it seems to be the fighting top - as they observe the Chesapeake and another lad even climbs to the mast head where he had a better view on the scene. I would not be surprised if they called it sometimes also sighting top - as a lookout would be placed there. I have been wondering if term "sighting top" could also refer to this thing here: in the background a watchman is standing on a board - a "sighting top" ??? - and would have a perfect view on "hammocks wedged in the nettings between the stanchions" .. right? But all that is "guessing" - and not "knowing" - and .. as mentioned: O´Brians text seem to hint on a top in the mast more likely.

Hy Joachim, are you sure O´Brian describes a "fighting top"? .. because the text describes "hammocks wedged into the netting between the stanchions" - that may point on those smaller hammock nettings on top of a ridgid bulwark too, right? .. well, o.k. "two one-pound swivel-guns a side" may hint on a fighting top.. but could also be the bulwarks of a ship as we know that for example Cook´s Endevour - as so many ships - had swivel guns on her caprails too ... hm.... The statement as such does not make sure we talk about a fighting top, right? Does the text say earlier or later that Mr. W?? and Jack are in the fighting top in that scene?

Thanks gentlemen for this discussion! Everyone showed gentlemen attitude and nobody tried to duck and hide ! My personal summary: the wording of those (written) statements may be misleading - more evidence is needed to judge the word "top" may refer to several things - among them the fighting tops, the "top" of the bulwarks or a lot of other things being "on top" of something else. protection for the marines in the fighting top not unlikely ! hammocks were also used to protect the ships deadeyes and lanyards that was a new information for me and those paintings are very interesting! Maybe that was done more to protect the "thinner" ropes of the lanyards - because if they would be hit by even a smaller shot by a handgun and destroyed, the stability of the thicker, stronger shroud and therefore the mast was in danger. The hammocks would protect those more "sensitive" weaker lanyards from lucky shots. hammocks - if used in the fighting tops - would not be stored in any "cranes" or "hammock stanchions" as on the ships bulwarks (not needed weight in the mast during normal life!!!) - as there were non. But sailors knew how fix them and maybe they were only used to hide from view - maybe not to catch the shots. I guess it depended on the habits of each ships crew how they did this. I will too look for any other hint and provide info´s if I am lucky

Hello tmj, I recently stepped over a drawing, which seemed to be older than the "traced" PDF the Navy Heritage departmend spreads as "Doughty´s plan". In fact that PDF says in its header (and that bottom line) that its just a copy of a dawing from "C&R Plan N° 38-4-2-a" if I read that line in the bottom correct: It is unclear who did this tracing - and when! When I was learning "technical drawing" (I am a dinosaur: I learned to do it with pencil and ink on one of those huge drawing boards I still own - before I learned to use CAD!) the information in a header with name of responsible, date and drawing-number was the very first thing which was checked by our teachers. A drawing with a gap in this information was not accepted. I found out there in world wide web ONE drawing, which seem to be older - and may be this C&R plan.. but unfortuntly its not really readable! .. and unfortunatly without any hint for it´s origine. Why do I think this is an older version? Because the lines and texts written in the hull seem to match perfectly with the PDF´s .. but the text in the PDF´s header on the right side misses - and instead it has it´s seemingly older header on left side. More importang: the rim of the paper seems to be much more timeworn and frayed than the PDF´s rim. But would Doughty have specified his plan as "Constitution"? Do we know if Doughty did specific drawings for each of the three big 44 frigates? I am frequently reading that there are "Doughty Plans" and "Fox Plans" .. but I never saw any plan refered to Fox? In the PDF Doughty is at least mentioned - but as we see: the PDF is not "his" plan - but a copy. Also the whereabouts of the original(s) is pretty obscure. No one seems to know? .. and more thrilling: no one seems to care?? I was asking the USS Constitution Museum and the Naval Heritage Command - but just got this PDF you have too. The precision in answering was pretty poor. But I have to admit: that was some years ago - maybe I should try again. Anyone any idea?

Thanks Henry, that looks like perfect knots for connecting to the stronger top and bottom rope - and for the "crossing" of the thinner zig-zag ropes. Great input! Much appreciated!!! I struggle a bit to understand, how the thin ropes would be treated at the eyes of the hammock stanchions.. A knot like the one shown here would not seem very simple. I was thinking that the thin ropes would be streched from thick bottom to thick top rope. Although thinking about it I realize that the "crossings" should be fixed with each other to avoid that the net would get in disorder - and "opens" too much somewhere.. So I guess your proposal are pretty good for the "pane" of each field between stanchions. If anyone has an idea for the eyes of the cranes ..?

Mates, lets assume I am a landlubber getting the task to create the net for hammock netting - and we on our proud ship, we want to do it "beautiful". My task is to use the hammock cranes with 4 eyes in each vertical post .. and of course there is a rope on top and on bottom of each side of the hammock crane in those outermost eyes. This is a Hammock Crane as used in the American Navy until about 1812-13. Four eyses in each post .. Our Captain ordered to have a zig-zag-shaped net - like this: The thick verstical lines with eyes are the hammock cranes the two horizontal lines are the limiting lines along the ship on top and bottom. Yellow are the zig-zag-lines generating the net. Green indicate knots to fix the zig-zag-"ing" lines .. It is easy to find those green "spot" as they are just the mid in between two posts - and then again their mid. A position easy to define as we just have to fold a rope 2 times to specifie that quarters. The knots itself may be done by the horizontal line - or by the yellow net - or by an extra short line? Ignorant Landlubber as I am: I wonder: which kind of knot with which rope would the boatswain accept? Master of the Ropes, Keeper of the Knots, may I seek your wisdom?

Ah - you mean those things? These are just rails for the fighting top - here "closed" with canvas. Although possible I do not think that those show evidence for having hammocks up there.. This one is done by @dafi - without the netting or canvas - but clearly a simple rail. The rails usualy war just simple rails - no hammock stachions. Or does anyone see any other evidence for hammocks in fighting tops? Or ... any other explanation for the word "tops" combined with storing hammocks in Old Ironsides?

Well, I think that has a reason: while the decks usually never were painted and the discrepancy between wooden planks and caulking dark brown, nearly black was easy to recognize, it would - on the other hand - be hard to see that different color on black painted ships hulls. And even where there was an ockre paint: that paint would most likely been painted over those caulking gaps. Although I admit, that one may doubt the paint would stick there a long time ... But again to the decks: there you would have this frequently "washing" with "holystones" - a process which frequently would make caulking more prominent to the eye - while the hull was only washed by seawater...

This especial discussion came from HERE. I measured the room between the cable bits in the 1817 Waldo Plans .. and .. there is less than 5 foot room in between those knees! Maybe a bit more - if the knees would be a bit smaller than the posts in the deck. See the sketch of a modified Waldo Gun-Deckplan - including (marked orange) Cable Bitts - and indicated 4,8x10ft platform for the stove. I used the plans scale as reference. Pls. not that the cable bits were moved one position to the stern - having them beside the "fore hatchway" - exactly the Ware Deck Plan for US frigate United States indicates this. In today´s ship the cable bits are moved on position forward - the one beside the for hatchway is now beside the foremast. In the USS Constitution Museum´s Blog : A stoved Boat the author Matthew Brenckle indicates that the stove installed in 1803 might have the height of only 27 inches high - as this is a dimension shown in a delivery note. He states that this oven must have been far to small (also comparing the mentioned price of only 100$ with a price for another later 1827 delivered oven for about 2300 $ ... and I kind of agree. ... And therefore I doubt that this 100$ stove was the main canboose of the ship. I think its more likely a 2nd stove - maybe for the captains pantry or so? ... or maybe for additioal meals. Boudroit shows in his beautiful "74-gun ship" books, that they had several ovens in those ships - even a baking oven for bread. I doubt that our frigate - although being designed to compete with a 74-gun-ship if the weather allows - had a baking oven. Such a big thing would have been mentioned, I guess. But Boudroit shows also several smaller ovens and holding furnace - which would maybe not have been mentiond in the official bills (or may not have been filed) - as they were comparably more cheap (see: 100 $ vs. about 2000 $ !!). This 1827 stove Brenckle points to - showing a drawing for "a frigate" has a width of 6 feet and 3 inches - and that may just fit between cable bitts - if they were moved by 1827 and were also widened a bit. Or: they were for another frigate ? I thinks I need for my 1803-04 version to go for a more slim design for my model - as I will make use the Waldo Deck design. That leads to a ca. 4.8 feet times ca. 10 feet flagstone podest for the oven .. done most likely in granite as it was available in Boston area that time and as this is a very robust and persitant support, being able to widthstand heat, salt water, mechanical stress What do you think about it?

Thanks to your support here and in other forums I learned something by now. We all know that scene: a high-ranking officer, a captain, a commodore, an admiral or maybe even the president, enters the ship's deck. The Boatswain's pipe whistles its typical tone, signaling some sailors in their bright, clean, white uniforms to line up left and right and to salute the “VIP.” Ukrainian Chief of General Staff Gen. Viktor Muzhenko piped aboard USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20) by Capt. Richard Aguilar (July 16, 2018) – 8 sailors prepared for the salute The sailors performing that ceremony are called “sideboys” (although by now female sailors are nothing unusual in our navys). The process seems comparable to an honor guard when a foreign president or another high-ranking official visits your government’s representative, and diplomatic protocol calls for a “reception with military honors.” But there are differences: • The sideboys are never more than 8 – sometimes 6, in some cases even only 4 or 2 of them – depending on the rank of the visitor. • They do not present their arms – they are not armed at all. • They are positioned not in one but in two lines, forming a guard of honor. • Depending on the rank of the newcomer Navy Marines may line up as honor guard too. The details are strictly regulated in the United States Navy Regulations. Depending on the rank of the visitor she/he can expect a certain number of gun salutes, of musicians performing “Ruffles and flourishes”, which is honors music by fanfare, maybe a Navy Marines honor guard but always the mentioned sideboys. Cmd. Crystal L. Schaefer (77th commanding officer of USS Constitution) saluting her sideboys honor guard while taking command 21th of June 2024 In the diplomatic counterpart, the military formation is: • Very often presented only on one side of a red carpet for the host and the guest. • Presenting their (unloaded) arms and being examined and saluted by the diplomatic guest and their host. • Their number is that of a total company or even battalion. • Often more than one individual military unit is presented. then Vice-President Joe Biden visiting Beijing in Aug. 18, 2011 inspecting the honor guard consisting of army and navy units Why is that? Because the origin of both traditional ceremonies is different. And their original tasks were and are today different. The sole common objective is to pay tribute to the VIP. The “diplomatic reception with military service” – as specified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations – is done to • express the host nation’s readiness to protect the country’s sovereignty and • emphasize that the VIP is now protected by a strong guard while being a guest. That is why the guest is allowed and expected to inspect the guard and their arms in detail to acknowledge their competence for this safeguard. On a Navy ship – depending on the rank of the visitors - the ship's marines corps too perform a guard of honor – as a comparable symbolic gesture. But at first the sideboy salute ceremony will be executed – and it has a completely different origin: When navies consisted of wooden ships, the bigger vessels rarely docked along a rigid pier. This was due to: • Risk of damaging the wooden hulls by being pushed into the pier by changing wind or waves. • The fact that many harbors were not deep enough to allow bigger ships to enter closer to the shoreline or piers. • Preventing sailors from desertion. Usually, a bigger ship was moored more outside the harbor and accessed or exited by using boats (like a Captain's Gig, an Admiral's Barge, etc.). The boat was placed alongside the big ship, and there – somewhere close to the ship’s waist – was usually a rigid wooden “ladder”: the “boarding ladder” or “gangway”. These were wooden steps permanently fixed to the ship’s hull, allowing climbing from about the waterline onto the ship’s bulwarks or upper deck. In some cases – like in some British ships of the line with more than 2 decks, e.g. HMS Victory – there may have been entry openings in the hull on the second gun deck level, which is about the same height as the upper deck on our frigate. HMS Victory´s Boarding ladder and its entry port (the modern gangway on left front side would not being used in its active time) Since high-ranking officers and officials were often quite aged men - marked by battle scars, dismemberments or sicknesses, and not that strong and agile anymore – they sometimes needed assistance. Also, sea and weather conditions might sometimes make that climb a challenging one. That’s where our “sideboys” come into play. Chosen sailors had the honor to place themselves beside the gangway steps – left and right – to assist and secure the guest while climbing upwards. Were the guest too immobile or the sea conditions too critical to risk that way along the ship's side, he (or she) was hoisted with the help of yardarms and sitting in a “boatswain’s chair” – just like a load – onto the ship's deck. That hoisting was also done by the chosen sideboys, who then had – just as at the gangway – a huge responsibility for the comfort and safety of the high-ranking guest. Today, in the age of steel ships, even big vessels are docked along rigid piers, and the gangway is now a wide and long plank with rails on both sides, like a pedestrian bridge, making access to a ship not that dangerous anymore. In modern times sideboys have to be present at the bulwark entrance when our guest is putting his or her foot onto the ship’s decks – as the ship’s crew guard of honor, to welcome and salute the new guest and to symbolically guarantee comfort and protection from all maritime adversities. This is where today's sideboy tradition has its origin. In about 1800, when ships were still wooden, the three big frigates (US Frigates United States, President and Constitution) were used as squadron flagships. Those big frigates would have been seen in the young independent colonies as we see a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier today. They were – at least in length and sail power – on par with the world’s biggest and most powerful ships of that time. Shure, they did not have the fire- and manpower of a ship of the line – but their batterie was meant to compete with even 2nd rated ships (two-decker battleships) in case of bad weather (when the battleship was not able to make use of its biggest guns in the lowest gun deck). And their sailing performance was meant to outsail them in good weather (when a battleship was capable to outgun the frigates impressive 24 pounder battery with its even bigger guns). So, they might not have been seen as the absolute top predator on the seas – but due to their different design, battle tactics and strategic task they were among the cutting-edge technology of the time. They were the biggest ships in American harbors. Of course, sometimes British or other nations' ships of the line were visiting. But remember: Old Ironsides' total length is nearly the same as the British three-decker and Lord Nelson's Trafalgar-flagship: HMS Victory! These American Super Frigates were big! And they were the pride of the young navy – used as ship of the state, to impress and sometimes to even intimidate. And they were frequently visited by high ranked officers, diplomatic personnel and important “VIPs.” Besides the frigate's captain, there usually was a commodore – a squadron leader – on board. Both men – and all other VIPs - regularly had to be honored with their “safety guard” on the ship's side gangway while taking command, while entering, or leaving the ship. The sideboys needed to be placed on both sides of the regular steps, and therefore there were either elongated steps or additional steps to allow the sideboys to be positioned. For me that at least provides certain evidence that the big frigates – as being flagships of the young US Navy in those days – had wooden boarding Ladders and additional 3 steps per side for their sideboys and their high-ranked guests safety. I guess I will try to represent those 6 additional steps and I think I may try to even represent that ceremony in its original tradition. If I represent the ship as being moored I may add a commodore arriving in a boat while his sideboys are waiting at the boarding ladder and 2 of them on deck at the bulwark. Not sure if he had the right to get 8 of them (6 on the ladder and 2 on the bulwark) - but I guess a commodore would be treated at least as today a vice admiral? Those additional 6 steps are a tiny detail – and not visible anymore since Nicholas Cammillieri’s 1824 portrait of the ship. [USS Constitution Museum Collection, 1729.1] in any painting or photo later on. But: they seem to have been in place between in the ship’s early years – at least until about the end of the War of 1812-15 – when the US Navy received their battleships – which then took over the function of being flagship. From that time span on only the single boarding ladder is being in place – until today. USS Constitutions boarding ladder c.1931-1934 Let me know your thoughts about it.