Force9

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

Folks - Apologies for the late response... long story... Popeye2sea - thank you very much for the insight... I think based on your response alone I am feeling comfortable with my direction for the belfry. I see you looking smart in your marine attire... I've entered the lottery for the July 4 turnaround cruise for a decade straight and have never gotten lucky. I did once have a chance to ride one of the tugs, but I fell ill at the last minute (ugh!). I think I may need to enlist in the marines myself and invest (what is probably a considerable sum) in a uniform and somehow acquire the skill and knowledge needed to earn my way on board. Now that I consider it, I think I have a better chance with the lottery! Thanks again for your guidance regarding the bell. Lambsbk - I did not cast my own bell. I had a 6mm bell from Model Expo sitting in my stash for a couple of decades... Finally put it to some use. I don't even know if it is still in their catalog. The folks at Bluejacket also have a scale bell in their catalog that will work. I see you worked through your own question regarding the direction of the galley funnel. I think most funnels were set up to allow them to be rotated depending on the prevailing breeze. Many include handles on the side (see HMS Victory). It is probably valid to point the funnel in any direction. Garward - thank you for the confirmation Lord Robster (Your lordship?) Thanks for your kind remarks... Third time's a charm? I'm sure you'd enjoy another round with this great kit - and feel free to utilize any of the approaches you see in my build. I'd be thrilled to think I've had a positive influence on other modelers willing to take some chances to bring something extra to this venerable box of plastic. I'm struggling with the boat chocks... Hope to post something more on the weekend. Thanks all for following along EG

Andy - Your build is terrific and will inspire many who follow. I would agree that the gaff seems a bit low - for what it is worth the general rule is to have the gaff at the same angle as the mizzen topmast stay. I'll say it again - many start this kit, few finish... Bravo! A great build and a great log! EG

Jose I am no where near that point in my build, but I intend to utilize Olof Eriksen's book for much of the rigging. The Olof Eriksen plan shows something similar - the spanker outhaul ties to a "gun tackle" purchase that is tied off to a cleat on the inboard end of the spanker boom. I wonder if we can see some posts of your build? Is the boom positioned at the correct height? The Eriksen plans don't appear to have the boom quite that high from the deck... EG

Lads - Thanks all for the compliments on my little smoke stack! Blue Ensign - you may have a point about the height being too tall. I might bring it down a notch to scale a bit better. I had made it about half again as tall as the kit provided piece without really thinking it thru... Now for another deviation: The Revell kit makes no provision for a ship's bell. This is likely because the historic Hull model does not show a bell - one of many elements that were omitted as the crew scrambled to complete the model in time to present it to Capt Hull before he quit the ship. I would think that a ship's bell would be an integral part of maintaining the shipboard routine in 1812 and needs to be included. The restored ship in Boston has the bell mounted to the forward face of the mainmast amidships via a small tripod bracket - this is the same solution offered by Larry Arnot in the Bluejacket kit instructions.: The restored ship had a belfry on the foredeck at one time. It seems like it was removed within the last decade or so and replaced with this version. There may be something official in the historical record to support this, but I can't find any references. Perhaps the c1820 Charles Ware drawing of the United States spar deck is the source: With the boats positioned in this manner, there is no room for a belfry in the traditional location. Perhaps the mainmast solution made the most sense. (BTW - this would seem to be the reference for the boat layout in the Revell kit). I don't like the main mast solution. I am thinking of adding a belfry and historical proof be d - m'd! This would also require me to reposition the storage of the boats, but that is easily managed. Have a look: Here also is a view down to the gun deck capstan: Thoughts from other modelers?

Here is a bit more progress... I'm not thrilled with the kit provided galley funnel (later called the "Charlie Noble"). It's not bad, but not good either. It is easily dismissed or overlooked on the foredeck. The Hull model shows us a short and stocky version: This is the way to go if I want to be strict with my sources and true to the most historical representation of her August 19, 1812 configuration. But here is where I may exercise some artistic license. If I lay out the boats in the OOB configuration, then this funnel points directly into the butt end of the stored cutter that spans the skids and foredeck. And I've seen several models of ships in this period that display a taller funnel. Even the restored ship today has a much taller Charlie Noble. This, I think, may be an opportunity to utilize something from the AOTS book that adds a bit more interest to this part of the deck. Perhaps not entirely accurate, but what the heck (and maybe I abuse Marquardt too much and should at least acknowledge his version of the ship in this small way). Here are the raw materials; .188 dia. solid rod styrene (Plastruct 90863), .188 dia.tube styrene (Evergreen 196), .188 x .188 styrene (Evergreen 196), some very narrow/thin styrene strip, and the wonderful Jotika .3mm PE brass eyelets. I glued a hunk of the Evergreen 196 to the base of the solid rod and then shaped the corners with a small file to blend the pieces. Then I cut the 45 degree angle in both the solid rod and the tube and glued them together. Finally I wrapped the funnel with some narrow styrene and added some eyelet "tie downs" around the perimeter. The end result: The baffle plate was easily made - I added a common paper hole punch to my tool box and snipped out a few discs from some thin and wide styrene strips. Certainly a more interesting element than the alternative. Later I'll add the baffle plate and some small tackle to hold the funnel stable in a heavy breeze. EG

Hello Jax I'm glad this has rekindled good memories of a great kit... I hope to see your version in the near future. EG