Marcus.K.

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.

Next question to think about: Humphreys did specify the thickness of the deck planks .. I am right now on the gun deck: also the thick strakes are described like that: John Lord did collect all that in one of his section cuts. I did ask you already what you think about that step between the deck and the decks mid section - in between the hatches - in which the drawing indicates a thickness of 6". That step would be On Berth Deck this drawing shows also another dimension: it says " White Stuff 6" x 10" ". From optical point of view I would guess that this dimensions would also fit to the thick stuff on Gun Deck level. That is interesting because: if you take the width of the hutches in the Waldo Deck Plan of 1819 and divide it by 7 planks as Lord seems to indicate here - then each planks width is 10.28". Bingo! That would lead me to believe that those planks in between the hatches - and in between the two inner "thick strakes" (also of at least 10" width) had the same width - while the yellow pine planks - and maybe also the outer white oak planks below the guns (for a widht of 6 feet from the hull inwards) may have had a slightly smaller width. The length now.. ? Modern restorations seem to work with 40 feet long planks - as this paper indicates: Materials on USS Constitution in 1992 - 1995 Restoration But even older Material found on the USS Constitution Museums blog helps us: This paper from Peter Guillet’s Timber Merchant’s Guide. [USS Constitution Museum Collection, 1742.1] allows planks between 35 and up to 60 feet. Thats between 10 and 18 m! Since the end of the planks would need to be exactly on the center of a decks beam the span of 10 m would cover - depending on the position - about 6 to 7 deck beams. And with a bit more length even more beams can be covered with one plank - providing more stability. Here a picture of how the Waldo Deck beams would be postitioned in our Revell hull: 6 beams per plank - thats reminds me on this picture: Coming from HERE (thanks Gentlemen). Of course that pattern will be possible only beside the hatches - since in the center of the deck there is always interuptions - like the hatches or the masts etc. But in general I think I can work with about 10 - 15 m (in my case then 10 - 15 cm) long planks - and trying to match the deck beams by that pattern.

Today I have a question for you: in the Humphreys Papers JH specified many of Old Ironsides items. I am interested in this one today: My interpretation d = 22" l = 22" D = 16" h = 20" which makes H = D + h + 2" - 2" ("scored down?") = 34" a = 14" Do you think that is a correct interpretation? How much would the crosspiece ends and the bitts "head" be wider than the distance of the beams / stand above the crosspiece?? Edit: I did change that height of the standard knew due to the statement says "scored DOWN" and since it would make sense that the knees "arm" is a bit lower than the upper edge of the crosspiece to provide a bit room for the cable wrapped around that bitts. But I admit: I do not really understand that last statement Am I right?

Ladies, Sirs, mates and pals, I need your advice. I just found something strange in John Lords Section Cut drawing 35208 where he is showing his research results from Humphrey-Papers concering Old Ironsides original layout. I guess it is to be viewed with a certain .. "sceptsism" since Lord did not have Internet or fellow forum colleauges to get advice from. And: it may be a drawing of a set of drawings- in which here missing information may be shown. What I for example noticed as missing information here: Lord refered to the demand of white oak planks 6 feet from the side for the Gun Deck - but did not advice the 5 feed white oak on upper deck - which Humphrey clearly did. But my question for you experts: do you know any evindence for a raised mid section of the decks - in between the hatches - as Lord is showing here? This "white oak" which seem to run in between the hatches - and having a visible step vs. the white oak planks (interlocked?) "beside the hatches" ). It seems to be 6" while that "third straks" along the hatch seems to be described as 5 1/2" - but lowered into the beams.. and the yellow pine planks have a thickness of about 3 1/2" .. making that step 2 1/2" thick. That´s more than 6 cm ! I would think that stronger planks along the mid of a ships deck would help to increase stiffness in general - if there weren´t those hatches, which do "cut" the strengthening feature along the ships lengthwise axis. We know that Humphreys designed "interlocked thick strakes" .. and Lord shows them - one on Gun Deck and at least one in Berthdeck. There are white oak strakes along the hatches - which could be interlocked strakes too - but that is not shown explicitly in the drawing. Source of this section cut: Alexander Mahoun´s "USS Constitution and other historic ships" - but also being part of John Lords 1926-31 restauration plans. But again my main question: are there any other sources or evidence for a step on decks in that mid section - in the area of hatches? Isn´t that an obstacle for the crew - if you have to move a gun from one to the other side - if you have to run across the decks? Or is this just was Lord was thinking it should be? What do you think? And .. since you are looking: what does he show here in the center of the ship in Berth deck level: that "thick stuff" 6" ?? 10"? .. is this a 6" x 10"? What would that be? There is a dotted line - but what would that be??

Hmmmmm ... 🤔😉 Looking forward to your next one ... 🫡

Well yes, it does! And not really only for a first try! Concerning the length of that breaching lines. They do look very long. But of course compared with what? Compared with our expectation coming from 100 and 1000 of pictures, fotos and illustrations in books, blogs, and more. Very rarely from real ships and never from a ship in real action. So is our expectation then realistic? I would do the following: do a try on the model: look how far the gun would be able to run back without risking a collision with other deck features. Look for the most critical gun ... or do it for each pair, either to find a standard for the specific ship or assuming that each breaching was done individually for each gun (pair) to use the maximum space. We know that there are cases in which the gunners had to reach out of the hull, to work on the muzzles. But of course the more they managed to bring the muzzle inside, the more safe and - more important - the quicker they would reload the gun. So it is valid to expect, that the length was optimized to a maximum while still avoiding collision and damage. Keep room for the gun crew not to be squeezed in between two guns in the center of the deck 😉. In any way: it looks phantastic!!

"Computers are made to help us in problems we would not have without them!" I hate to be forced to change my way of working (which was really on very professionell level with the "non-cloud" office) every time MS is reworking their product. What they call "intuitive" is a nightmare for me, since my "intuition" forces me to follow the way I had learned before... Why can't they offer an option like "all functions and menues as in previously used configuration". Well, they don't do that... even if they could... Good luck with the new cloud based version...

I was again looking into this. The "thing" in the left field may be a "Celtic Harp" instead of a shield as the harp was used in heraldic systems for example in british and in celtic symbols. Behind it, left side, there may be visible the bow of a crossbow? On the right field there seem to be the end piece of a brass instrument behind that shield, right? In the center field I think it is either a shield (backside and not upright but 90° rotated to the left) behind that helmet? The top side of the shield (now left side) seems clear to me, but the bottom side (here right of that helmet) seem to be rounded, not with a tip. We look into the backside of the shield, therefore the plain yellow and just shadows indicating the hollow shape of that shield. That grey "bow" left of the helmets sholderpiece may be one of the shields handles. There seem to be more weapons or floral twigs or sprigs behind and around the arrangement. And yes: a lance behind and crossing diagonal.. . Right field: maybe that huge tip in the round shield is'nt meant to be that big. I think it's outer end color matches with the more greenish weapons behind the yellowish shield. Maybe what looks like the outmost tip is in fact one end of a club or other weapon or instrument and they are just accidently that close? Or: since that brass instruments bell matches that color of what we believieved to see as a round shield.. it is in fact a french horn or a tuba.. and something Stick through its center.. or is the mouth piece?? But this thing is really hard to interpret!! Anyway: fun! And interesting if you start digging in those symbolic elements... I learned about helmets, heraldic, harps...

I would guess that all three fields show a certain shield and behind different weapons. The left one being a shield as knights would have used. Classical heraldic shape, not symetrical and with that cutout for the knights left leg on his horse (strange - he must be lefthanded??) . The right one being a round somehow ottoman shield (?) with a sharp tip in its center.. The center one is strange in its shape.. but would be reasonable if my interpretation of the surrounding weapons is right. But it is guessing... No!! .. the center one is a knights "tilting helmet" with bushes on top in front of a huge shield or a coat in front of weapons!! I will check for good pictures for what I believe to see... Here a picture for a tilting helmet ... http://bridges.rem33.com/books/vonValborth_A2a_files/image020.jpg Its the left side middle one I think I can see in the center one of Alerts paintings.. Found it here: http://bridges.rem33.com/books/vonValborth_A2a.htm

Beautiful and fun! Maybe that Video is interesting for you?

Gentlemen, no matter WHEN that "welcome matt" may have been added: I believe, you see it litterally from the wrong side 😁. Imagine the Admiral wants to leave and that spot in front of that opening is wet due to the opening.. wet and slippery! Imagine he would slip and falls down? "Man over Board!" 's the call!! So better to have the chance for wind and air to dry this spot where he places his foot onto (that grating) while water may be on the deck in front of the waterway... He would not slip on that ... his shoes would step on something more dry with more grib.. Its not an entry port grate, it is an EXIT port grate.🤣

Hello Stuart, your stove is perfect! I just recently found drawings of those brodie stoves - and you did a really good job. And your windows in the stern are the very best adaption I ever saw on that Revel-model. Was thinking about doing a comparable approach - but I wanted first to do some "replicas" with a silicon mold (first attempts were not really successful) since I would like to rework the decoratoin too ... I do not dare to do that with the only part I have right now. I was thinking about widening to upper or the lower end of the windows - but your result (doing on both sides) generates a very pleasing appearance! It fits perfect that way! I think the Revel stern is an excellent representation of the 1812 appearance - as many others I just doubt that 4-patterend windows in the Hull-Model. But since they seem to be done in a comparable poor quality - and even in a strange way "added" into that stern, I tend to believe they have not been done by the same person doing so many things with so much care. Compare to the gallery windows .. So I guess that 4-pane-windows have been a "compromise" - as Olof Eriksen is interpreting: maybe done in a hurry before Hull left the ship and crew.. By the way: the Hull model stern windows are not squared as the Smithonian- and the Revell-model ones .. What you did here with those windows is an excellent adaption of the Corné paintings and as I think - the most likely appearance of 1812. VERY COOL - Looking forward to see it colored. Hope you are doing fine and looking forward seeing more inspirational results from your beautiful build.

I agree: its a Revell kit. Nice to see that again. I did even forget I once did build it.. oh how long ago! Where has it gone by now? Thanks for the reminder!

Hello Wefalck, this tiny work is fascinating! I can not imagine how you can do things like that! A proposal for the foots plates of those stanchions which you wished to be not that prominent: I noticed on the real ship´s photo: for me it seems, the foot itself was painted in the colour of the deck - dark gray. If you´d do the same, you would take away the "optical weight" of those foots. But maybe you do a test on a sample first - because it looks already so excellent.. and I would not dare to try to optimize and then mess it up! Wonderful work!!