Force9

Lads... My garage workshop suffered a setback a few weeks ago - I had piled so much junk into the garage attic space that a joist cracked and the whole ceiling threatened to crash down. Catastrophe was narrowly averted with some quick bracing... The company that originally added the attic in my garage years ago has come forward and has been making repairs on their dime - no cost to me. They really have stood by their work and put forth the effort to rebuild it properly. All that being the case, I'm offline for a bit longer in terms of model building. Hasn't stopped me from delving further into research... I'm currently mucking about with the channels on my kit - trying to clean them up and otherwise enhance them. The question of lower stun's'l booms fitted to the channels has got me thinking (uh oh). The Revell kit includes lower stun's'l booms for both the fore and main channels (The mizzen, of course, would never have stun's'l sails deployed below the Crojack yard. Some argue, in fact, that no stun's'l sails were deployed on the mizzen. More later...) The Hull model, however, only shows booms fitted on the fore channels: Of course, this could be one of several omissions made by the crew in their haste to complete the model. But why bother with any lower booms at all if they were trying to save time with shortcuts? Marquardt in his AOTS agrees that there should only be one set of booms fitted, but he argues that they should only be on the main channels and not on the fore channels. He reasons that the storage of the anchors on the fore channel precludes the possibility of having swinging lower stun's'l booms attached. Hmmm. Olof Eriksen notes these same discrepancies in his CONSTITUTION - All sails up and flying. He compared the Hull model to the Brady The Naval Apprentice's Kedge Anchor (1841) and the rigging journal kept by Midshipmen Anderson during the 1834-35 refit and found that all three agree with the stun's'l booms only fitted to the fore channels - none on the main. Howard Chappelle in his History of the American Sailing Navy includes an interesting appendix with a copy of the builder notes for an 1826 sloop of war. Included is a reference for "swinging stun'sail boom irons" to be fitted only on the fore channels. More interesting is the inclusion of "channel cranes" for "supporting the spare spars and yards... one on the main and one on the mizzen..." This approach would seem to agree with the Charles Ware drawing of the frigate United States: The legend for this drawing labels L as Stunsail BOOMS and M as Spare Main Topsail YARDS. This would seem to refute Marquardt's assertion regarding the anchor storage blocking the stun's'l boom on the fore channel. Finally, we have this tidbit from Constitution's log following her engagement with Guerriere: Whew... Based on this exploration... When all the dust settles I will only have lower stun's'l booms rigged to the fore channels on my model, but will also include spare topsail yards resting in "channel cranes" extended from the main and mizzen channels both port and starboard. All part of the fun! Thanks for following along. Evan

Hello vacotton... Thanks for joining the dialog! I haven't had much luck with heating and bending styrene... I find the path of laminating strips together to form curves to be much more reliable and controllable. Besides, I'm sure hot styrene would not smell good! Evan

Hello Dan... The color scheme is controversial - it all depends on perspective and source... I will eschew the limited written records and instead use the Corne paintings for guidance. They clearly show a yellow stripe with the rest of the hull trim in white - suggesting that the crew did the minimum needed to assume a British guise while leaving the rest of the white livery intact: Nobody can gainsay you either way... I would strongly urge you to avoid gold/gilt trim - that was not done in the War of 1812 navy (and probably not ever done!). Your ship is looking terrific. EG

A bit of work on the bow... It will come as no surprise to folks that I don't like the kit representation of the bow details. The molding for the head timbers and railings is pretty lousy: There is no consistent guidance across all of the various sources to know exactly how these should look - or even how many head timbers there were in 1812. Here are some representations: Modern version: Corne Paintings: Hull Model: In the end I just elected to replace what was on the kit with something a bit more crisp. I wanted, however, to have the head timbers bow outwards in a graceful curve instead of the inward version as molded. I went ahead and laminated together two strips of .060 x .125" styrene (Evergreen 156) using a convenient paint spray can to get the appropriate radius. I taped the strips to the can and came back next day: I replaced the head timbers one at a time - starting with the most forward (and smallest) one. I left the middle rail intact for support and guidance for the new elements(!): Some careful filing and test fitting iterations are needed to get everything aligned to the final shape. I'll still have some tuning to do before final glueing. Finally I came along with some .030 x .030" strips to add some detail: I'll likely come along later and give some attention to the weather cloth and upper rails. Thanks for looking EG

I think you owe Henry a Cannoli from Mike's as well...! Glad to know you made it aboard and had a great tour! Looking forward to your pictures.. (Oh... and I hope your anniversary went well too!) I doubt you can fit it in, but a visit to the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem will reward you with the incredible Hull model AND the beautiful series of paintings by Corne of the Guerriere battle. I'm sure the town was a bit glum after the Bruins debacle. Make sure to grab a bowl of chowdah while your in town. Evan

Hello Jasseji This is the best I've got to show how I ended the bow section: Hope that helps Evan

And be sure to bring a picture ID to board the ship!

Get a Canoli at Mikes Pastry in the north end. Sign up for the constitution experience tour on Tuesday morning. Tour Fenway Park - or get tickets for a game. Rent a canoe at South bridge and paddle under the old north bridge in Concord. Enjoy!

Wonderful work! I like the blackened effect on the Camboose very much! I suspect some well placed eyelets could be substituted for the lousy nobs that Revell molded into the bulwarks for the breeching lines. Good stuff! EG

Folks Here is another quick exercise I undertook... The Stern Bumpkins. Many representations of the great ship show the presence of Stern Bumpkins (or Main Brace Spreaders, or Main Brace Bumpkins, etc.). We see an example on the "Loring" model that is currently undergoing restoration at the USS Constitution Museum: Marquardt includes them in his reconstruction and Olof Eriksen shows them as well in his 1815 version. I went ahead and dabbled a bit with a quick mockup just to get a sense of what might be involved if I go down the same path: It may be that my version is slightly undersized - hard to tell. I used some spare .080 x .080" strip and some scraps of PE brass. If I do include these I might try .100 x .100" and drill through the bulwark to extend into the hull for more rigidity. However, I am hesitant to go this route. I think it is very likely that these were present through most of the War of 1812, but I can't see any evidence that they were fitted during her battle with Guerriere. The Hull model clearly does not show these and neither do the Michele Felice Cornè, Thomas Birch, or George Ropes Jr. paintings. For now, I think I'll hold off. EG

Thank you Matti! I just had a look at your Vasa - wonderful! Evan

Thanks all for the compliments Dan - I do think the kit rudder can be tarted up with relative ease - sand off the details and add the plates and other elements. I used .010 x .060 strips for the pintle strapping. A small slice of .80 x .80 styrene served as the butt end of the tiller arm. I think the key is to try to match the existing bolt pattern as closely as possible to make the rudder plates seem like they belong. The transition from each rudder timber to the next was called a "hance" (I think). My understanding is that these were purely decorative. My "hornlike" version was copied over from the USS President drawings that I used for a template (Chappelle). I may have over-dramatized the shape and I might tone it down slightly before final fitting. The rudder pendant chains were usually affixed to the spectacle plate which extends aft just below the hance. Marcus - I am glad I did my homework first! I should mention that the newer rudder type is also commonly called a "Snodgrass Rudder" - presumably after the inventor. Karl Heinz Marquardt in his AOTS book insists that the Constitution still had the old "Rule Joint" version during the war years. He doesn't offer much reasoning beyond the fact that the newer type took years to become standard. The European navies apparently didn't authorize use of the newer version until decades after the merchant services had employed them... Howard Chappelle was elbow deep in original ship plans and builder's notes in his role at the Smithsonian and would be in a great position to assert the early adoption by the American navy. I've gone with his perspective and not Marquardt's. Jasseji - that is a shame about the extreme overseas shipping rate. I would think that a reasonable version of a galley stove could be whipped together using styrene components.... Small brass microtubing combined with the small Jotika PE eyelets could also be used for the hammock cranes. Gratings are probably available from other sources in various scale sizes. I am relieved that all of Poland is not so heavily armed. We have a good family friend from your lovely land and she insists that the natives are very friendly. Thanks again for the kind comments Evan

The Rudder... The kit provided version was noticeably lacking any copper plating so, just for yucks, I thought I'd build my own version of the rudder... It has always struck me as odd that the Revell Constitution has a cylindrical rudder head instead of a squared one similar to other period ships. My first thought was to replace that... But then I did some research. It turns out that the good folks at Revell probably got that right! We do see the cylindrical rudder head on the Hull model: When Constitution was first launched she had a typical "rule joint" type rudder with the square rudder head. This rudder type required a larger opening in the lower transom to allow for the arc of the rudder head as it swung back and forth during turns. Howard Chappelle notes in his American Sailing Navy book that the US Navy had replaced all of their rudders with the newer "plug" type by 1801 or thereabouts. This new innovation utilized the cylindrical shape and moved the rudder head forward so that the center aligned along the same axis as the pintles. This eliminated the arc pattern of the rudder head - instead it spun exactly in line with the pivot point of the pintles. This allowed for a much smaller opening under the transom - and perhaps a tighter feel for the helm. Learn something every day. Here was my approach: I glued together four strips of .100 x .156" styrene (Evergreen 177) and did the basic shaping on a small vice using a heavy file. Next I carved a groove into some appropriate rod styrene (same as what I used on the Galley Stove pipe) and affixed that to the top - centered, of course, over the leading edge. Once done, I came back along and notched in the locations for the rudder pintles: Now I needed to copper plate the thing. I used .010 x .125" (Evergreen 106) for the plates. I whipped up a quick jig (using some available scraps) to help align the "copper" strips while I rolled in the rivet pattern on one edge. I used the smallest roller in my collection to approximate the pattern existing on the kit plating. The rest of the bolt heads I did by hand using my trusty scribe tool. Took me about an hour to plate each side: Lastly I came along and added the various straps, spectacle plate, etc. Here is the result: BTW - It turns out, the kit provided rudder is actually pretty good. As noted it properly represents the "plug" type version. This is not surprising since it is based on the Campbell plan and he consulted extensively with Chappelle. The rudder edges also taper nicely from forward edge to after edge, and from top to bottom. Ultimately, a very nice upgrade could probably be had by simply adding the copper plates. Thanks again folks for wading thru my entries! EG

Hello Jasseji... I hope not everyone is walking around Poland with a musket! Thanks for your kind interest and I will see if I can dig up a scan of the BJ parts listing for you - look for a PM. EG

The Marquardt AOTS book has a bunch of great detail drawings for stuff like the routing of the anchor cables, etc. His interpretation of the 1812 look of the ship, however, is very questionable. It seems more like a melding of the 1927 restoration with a mid-1800s version. Many of the features included by KHM (skylights, etc.) have since been discredited by deeper research done by Tyrone Martin and others. Ole Karl might have been better off just utilizing the Hull model (which he apparently didn't know existed!). EG

Ahoy all... Dan - good to see you back at your build. I've experimented a bit with the window glazing with scrap pieces. I'd agree that the white glue is giving uneven results (at least so far). I've also tried some of the Krystal Klear type stuff and it is marginally better. We'll see... Marcus - thanks again for chiming in! The distortion became apparent when I started to test fit the two decks to check on the alignment of the capstans, stove, etc. The gap seemed huge - something close to 1/2 inch. No need to use templates or consult the sheer plans. After shortening the length of the new strips and laminating the pieces, the remaining distortion is only 1/4" or less. Easily solved when I install the decks. Lambsbk - I like your clamp solution very much - I'll need to consider something similar. (and did you see my earlier note regarding the anchor cables?) Mark - Hello again! Thanks for checking in... I hope my efforts to show the frames will be successful. A lot will depend on the paint job to make it convincing! Tex - I'm glad you've discovered my build log. I did catch the very end of your effort. I still say it is a rare thing to see someone actually complete the beast - well done! Thanks again to everyone for your interest and kudos! I am fiddling with the rudder and hope to have an update soon. Cheers EG

On to the quarter galleries... I used some very thin strips to approximate the dimensions of the PE brass on the transom windows. I first cut away the existing gallery window frames and then laid down some horizontal "tracks" of .010 x .030" (Evergreen no. 101) strips along the inner surface. I then used a slightly thinner .010 x .020" (Evergreen no. 100) strip for the vertical frames - resting them on the even tracks as I glued them in place. I didn't want too much dimension by using the thicker strips everywhere: I think this will suffice nicely - gives a more scaled look to the windows while also matching the stern transom window frames. Thanks again for looking in. Evan

I've dabbled a bit with woodworking over the years and I once had a neighbor who was terrific with wood. He said that every good woodworker needs to first learn how to recover from his/her mistakes (or learn to hide them) before they can progress to the next level. I suppose that must also hold true for model ship builders... I've had to backtrack a bit to correct a big oops. My original solution for "exposing" the frames of the ship involved glueing strips of .080 x .156" styrene to the inside curvature of the hull. It seems that over time the inherent tension has caused these to distort the shape of the hull and create a potential headache down the line. It might be solvable when I install the decks, but I didn't like the idea of all that tension in place over the years. I decided to do what I should've done to begin with - use thinner .040 x .156" (Evergreen no. 147) built up in two laminated layers. This is similar to what I had done on my Heller Victory with reasonable success. There will be much less tension/stress on the shape of the hull when this is done. After first prying off the original strips (they zinged and zanged all across the workshop as I popped them off individually), I took a few evenings to redo everything: Much better now. The remaining distortion will be easily corrected when I install the gun deck. Whew.

Hello Lambsbk... The typical method is for the anchor cables to drop down through small openings in the near corners of the central hatch on the gun deck. The Marquardt AOTS book has a good diagram of this... (I think Popeye will see a more "modern" solution put in place in the '27 refit - they had to install an anchor solution that would work for her national cruise following her rebuild. Hence the allowance for chain with non-historical bitts and hawse holes, etc.)

Thank you Chris for indulging us on our thoughts... I do apologize for stirring up the conversation and getting us off track from what is really important - the unique opportunity to look in on your process as you develop this fine prototype. My original intent was really only meant to highlight the thought that a few of these paintings are not so easily dismissed - they have more behind them than meets the eye. I heartily agree that folks in charge of maintaining these historic ships (and building kits for wide production) need to adhere to a tighter set of criteria than those of us who can freelance our way through our own interpretations. It is obvious from even these small exchanges that there is much passion around the Victory from the modelling world. I doubt you see much feedback when doing Bellona, or Revenge, or almost any other ship... It is interesting to see so many changes coming forth in recent years for the great ship - all this talk of stern davits and nameplates and Prince William feathers... Certainly the entry ports have been a hot subject on the forums and the bulwarks have percolated up in the conversations just over the past few years. It does stand out that the folks at Jotika felt compelled to offer alternatives in their kit to accomodate different emerging viewpoints. I think you are right to follow your own instincts to create something that can stand firmly on known fact without adapting to pure speculation. I can easily leave off the entry ports if that is still my inclination... And most modellers who would tackle this kit should have the requisite skill to add their own bulwarks if that was their preference. By my own count I am now 0-10 in convincing others to come to the dark side. I expect to be 0-20 by the time I am done. Thank you again for humoring our perspectives and a huge thank you for continuing to push the limits on what can be done with these incredible kits. I will enjoy seeing your hard work come to fruition! EG

Chris - I can't resist (sorry!): Here are some more pictures of the 1803 model you referenced earlier for the stern: Hmmm... I'm just sayin'...!

Chris - Thanks for your response... I suppose any good discussion of the great ship will inevitably find its way to the entry port discussion. I'm in the camp of those who think it wasn't there at Trafalgar. Course, I'm also in the camp of those who think the bulwarks were built up and the gun stripes were carried up around the cutwater. Makes me the fringe element. I've made a pitch for the accuracy of the Stanfield painting across several forums now and I have yet to make a convert to my point of view...(!) I know those veterans may have been frail and feeble by the time they provided input for the painting, but I still have to think that collectively they must have gotten the big details right. I've always thought it interesting that the restored ship had black painted iron mast hoops up until the 1970s. Somewhere in that period they painted them out - likely because of the entry in the Victory signal log on the eve of the battle that noted Nelson yelling at two of his captains to paint over their @#$$%^&* mast hoops to conform to the rest of the fleet. If not for that entry, the hoops would probably still be black to align with the historical yard records and admiralty directives. Yet here are the JMW Turner and Clarkson Stanfield paintings attesting across all these years to the painted out hoops. And so I figure that the painted stripes are something similar. Nelson had that done as an additional IFF step, but there is no written record to confirm this... If we jump to the assumption that Stanfield's painting is 99% accurate, then the later British practice of extending the stripes around the bow would trace to Nelson and the battle of Trafalgar - similar to the "Nelson's Chequers" scheme. That sits well with me. I'll admit to having little credibility in this space. I'm not a scholar or even a researcher... I'm just a hack ship modeler trying to learn the craft as I go along. And to compound things I am only a plastic ship modeler at this point - generally considered a lesser citizen in the ship modeling world. I do hope to grow up one day and advance enough to take on something as magnificent as your Victory. BTW - I've always thought that the restored ship should make allowances for both entry port viewpoints. Those who believe they were there at Trafalgar can start their tour by meandering up the ramp and thru the ornate entry. Those of us who think otherwise can walk around to the other side and stand in a long queue waiting our turn to get hoisted aboard in a bosun's chair. Thanks again for your fine effort and I hope it is a great success. EG

Hello Chris I'd have to say that I am hesitant to dismiss all of the paintings of Trafalgar. The famous Turner work and the Clarkson Stanfield scene are in some sense "eyewitness artifacts" - albeit decades downstream. Turner absorbed much criticism in his day - particularly from veterans of the battle. So much so, in fact, that he had to retreat to his atelier for 11 days to make corrections demanded by his naval critics - mostly related to the rigging details. Presumably, they would've demanded he modify the fo'c's'le bulwarks if that was warranted. The Clarkson Stanfield painting was commissioned by the surviving officers of Trafalgar - including Sir Thomas M Hardy himself... Stanfield utilized their input every step of the way and had all galley proofs approved by the supervising committee. And unlike Turner, Stanfield was no landlubber artist. He had served as a midshipman in HM navy during the Napoleonic era and would know a mouse from a lizard. The painting clearly includes the built up bulwarks. Hard to fathom that the collective memory of all those veterans would result in such an obvious error. Regardless, your wonderful prototype inspires lustful/impure thoughts - surely this'll align nicely to the target modelers that you folks had in mind... Perhaps some of us will only build the hull (and maybe expose some beams/structure) to save some space. I will be saving my pennies...and nickels...and take out a second mortgage... Thank you for your terrific efforts - we modelers are greatly appreciative of your talent! (Any thoughts towards a 1/64 US Frigate Constitution more aligned to her 1812/1815 appearance?) Evan Gale

Hallo Marcus! I do have you to thank for putting me over the edge for buying the Olof Eriksen book. I'm very much enjoying his insights on the rigging. I'm glad you are enjoying my build log and are inching closer to attempting your own Connie... Thanks for popping in to check on my progress. Evan

Hello Popeye/Henry I'm not sure the wife would take the ten bucks to compensate for my lost income, but I'd probably join up just for the 3 meals per day and the new uniform. Unfortunately, I live on the wrong coast - altho we visit family in Boston at least once a year. Cheers Evan