Force9

Hello all... I have the basic painting and most of the details done on the spar deck - just a bit of touch ups and fine tuning remain. Here are some sample views: The spar deck was given a base coat of aged white (no tinting like the gun deck) and individual planks were picked out with Vallejo Wood mixed with Vallejo aged white, Vallejo Aged White mixed with Microlux Reefer White, and straight up Vallejo gray wash. After 24 hours everything then got a quick smear with Vallejo Sepia wash that was immediately wiped down with a soft clean cloth leaving a nice wood tone and coloring the seams between the planks. Nothing is glued down and the brass is yet to be blackened, but I can now move on to painting the half hulls. Hope folks are still following along - I'm sure the World Cup is more interesting! Evan

Tim - Thank you indeed for the very generous remarks - I'm thrilled that there are folks that have enough interest in this build to be on the lookout for updates! Regarding Cmdr Martin and his version of the battle... I appreciate that much of what we have available today was not in the mix when Martin first floated his new version. But I do think his revisionist theory was fishy from the get go... It really does not pass the smell test to think that Isaac Hull would manipulate the facts in such a way to distort the reality of a battle he won so convincingly. It would also require an unlikely conspiracy across all of the other officers (and crew) to pass muster. And while the key documents concerning the double round shot used in the battle had yet to be discovered, it would still have been well within the realm of 1980s scholarship to have considered the double shotted guns to be a much more plausible explanation for the ammunition expenditure. As you point out, there are other examples of this practice documented in logs and accounts of other 1812 battles. (Incidentally, it was our own fellow forum friend USS Frolick who discovered these crucial documents within dusty shelves of microfilm while researching his excellent biography of Johnston Blakeley). I will fall back, however, on my fundamental appreciation of Tyrone Martin and the tremendous contribution he has made over the years to our understanding of the USS Constitution. I have said before and I will say again that he has been an incredible champion of the great ship. It can also be said that he has proven to be a great friend of serious ship modelers across the years - helping to promote research and publications by William Bass and Olof Eriksen among others. And of course he worked very closely with Larry Arnot on the Bluejacket kit depicting her War of 1812 appearance. I do hope his overall reputation is never seriously tainted and his contributions are fully appreciated by future generations. Markus - thank you also for your appreciation of my very wordy brain dump. Sometimes a person just has to dump all these thoughts out in order move on...! I'm deep in the midst of air brush, sable brush, Vallejo paints and washes. Hope to have the preliminary work completed on the spar deck by next week. Thanks all for your LIKES and comments. Evan

I've read many many many books about this period of US Navy history. This is my favorite. My understanding is that the author is a reclusive genius who is very smart, very handsome, and only comes out at night. He has been known, apparently, to venture into online forums and pose as an interested modeler to test the waters to see if there is actually any intelligent life out there... My information is from Frolick, who may not be as reliable as we could hope... EG

Hello Pete... Thanks for chiming in... That is a very interesting link. The website looks to be a goldmine of terrific insight into the Napoleonic era in general and the War of 1812 in particular. I've bookmarked it for future reference. The ammunition breakdown is a critical component in our understanding of the Constitution vs Guerriere battle. Commander Martin has a very forceful perspective on how that fight played out based on his research done decades ago. As recently as the bicentennial of the battle, he has presented his personal theory of the event in a lecture entitled "What really happened...?" His ideas run rampant thru the article in your link - including his supposition that the battle lasted much longer than what Captain Hull stated in his official report based on his interpretation of the ammunition expenditure. We've explored this on other discussions within MSW, but in the interest of completeness I'll copy my perspective into this log: I'll subject you all to my brain dump regarding Cmdr Martin's version of the Guerriere battle. Be forewarned - those of you who proceed will lose 15 or so minutes of your life that you will never get back... I'll admit that my current Connie build originated from some dialog on another forum a few years back where someone was saying that the Corne paintings were "debunked" by Cmdr Martin as being a blatant effort by Isaac Hull to cover up the true facts of the battle to trump up his victory while masking his mistakes. Martin essentially maintained that Hull won the battle in spite of himself. Considering that the Guerriere was soundly defeated and Hull was showered with glory and accolades before these paintings were completed or made public, it seemed an odd accusation. Why on earth would Isaac Hull go to such lengths to distort the facts of a battle that he won so convincingly??? I decided to dig around and form my own opinion... Here are some samples of Martin's commentary from his website - The Captain's Clerk: I should acknowledge a few things at the outset. It can be fairly said that Commander Tyrone G. Martin is one of the best friends Old Ironsides ever had. He is a former captain of USS Constitution and instituted many of the traditions still continued today including sailors in period dress and the morning and sunset guns. He has written numerous articles and books about the rich history of the USS Constitution and his A Most Fortunate Ship is widely considered to be the definitive biography of the ship. His Captain’s Clerk online repository is a gold mine of terrific information and a genuine contribution to our public knowledge. He has collected more awards and other accolades than I'd have time to list. My credentials, on the other hand are…er…well…um…okay - I have no credentials. I am not an academic and I otherwise lay no claim to being a scholar or researcher. I'm a hack ship modeler who has read more naval history than ought to be considered healthy. But please hear me out… On August 19, 1812 Captain Isaac Hull in command of the US Frigate Constitution met HBM Frigate Guerriere under command of Captain James Dacres in battle somewhere around 600 miles east of Boston. He was tipped off by the privateer Decatur the day before that there was an enemy frigate in the area. According to official reports, the two ships maneuvered for 45 minutes or so trading long-range shots without inflicting any crippling damage, before Guerriere backed a topsail and Constitution added a topgallant to close the distance and settle the issue. Despite absorbing some damage, Hull held his crew back from responding until he was directly alongside Guerriere. At that point he leaped into the air and split his breeches as he yelled “fire!” (or something to that effect). After a 15 minute exchange of initial broadsides at half-pistol shot distance, Guerriere lost her mizzen and stopped answering her helm when the broken spar jammed up under her counter. Constitution, firing from her starboard broadside, then fore reached ahead and parked on Guerriere's larboard bow and delivered at least two devastating partial rakes that likely ensured Guerriere's fate. After losing forward momentum to milk her advantageous position, Constitution failed to cleanly cross the bows of her enemy and became entangled with Guerriere's bowsprit. Many of her braces had been shot away and she couldn’t react in time to avoid the contact. The sea caused the bow of Guerriere to plunge up and down, preventing a boarding action. The plunging action snapped off Guerriere’s jibbom – but only after Constitution’s gaff and crojack yard had been broken. After a sharp exchange of musketry (which inflicted most of Constitution's casualties) the ships pulled apart with enough force to pull down the weakened masts of Guerriere and the battle was effectively over. Captain Hull claimed the decisive close action lasted about 30 minutes. Hull achieved an insignificant strategic victory, but the morale boast for the United States and the political ramifications were widely felt on both sides of the Atlantic. To capitalize on his instant fame, Hull commissioned the noted artist Michel Felice Corne to create a series of paintings depicting the key moments of the battle and asked his purser Thomas Chew to supervise the details while he was assigned to another station. He apparently wanted these paintings translated into lithographs for wider publication. We can see these paintings today in the collection of the Peabody Essex museum (apparently Corne made an extra copy of the series - I think the Naval Academy also has a set) and they include many of the details outlined in the ship's log and Captain Hull’s lengthy after battle report to the Secretary of the Navy. Being very humble by nature, Hull also included a much more abbreviated version of his battle report with no flourishes that he asked the Secretary to submit for public consumption. This was generally the accepted view of the event for the better part of two hundred years - then Tyrone Martin came along. Commander Martin was bugged by a couple of things that just didn't add up: - How many times did the ships collide during the close action? (Surgeon Amos Evans’ journal states that the Guerriere’s bow came into contact twice during the fighting - this implies TWO collisions) - Was Constitution on the Starboard or Larboard side of Guerriere when broadsides were initially exchanged - (some British reports say the starboard, almost all American reports say larboard/port)? - How could the decisive part of the battle last only 30 minutes, as Hull claimed, given the tremendous amount of ammunition that Constitution expended? - Did Hull fudge the facts to hide the fact that he lost the wind gauge? After sifting through the various clues, Commander Martin reconstructed the battle in a completely different form than what was previously understood. Instead of Constitution closing in on Guerriere's larboard side and firing her starboard broadside as Hull and other American accounts stated (and is shown in the Corne paintings), Martin switched Constitution to the other side. This helps him argue that Constitution crossed the bow of Guerriere twice in the course of the battle. To explain the two collisions he inserts an entirely new sequence into the battle that has Constitution scrape her adversary as she crosses from the starboard side to the larboard bow (all parties agree that Constitution was off Guerriere's larboard bow at some point) then wear around in a wider loop to eventually collide again after several more exchanges of broadsides where the final entanglement and dismasting takes place. Because of the prodigious amount of ammunition fired, he surmised that the battle lasted much longer and uses the expanded timeline to insert these new maneuvers. Commander Martin further bolsters his version by assigning a motive to Hull for altering what really happened. He portrays him as an uncertain rookie who is downright hesitant as the crash of battle rages around him. He asserts that Isaac Hull's tactics were simplistic/graceless and he flubbed up the timing of his maneuvers after embarrassingly giving up the wind gauge at the outset. Therefore, he maintains, Hull distorted the log and after battle reports (and the Corne paintings) to cover up his blunders and protect/enhance his reputation and honor. Martin claims Isaac Hull's short version of the battle report was a blatant attempt to obfuscate the details and glorify the victory. He also generally asserts that the other American accounts followed suit to preserve the reputation of their beloved commander and benefit from the reflected glory. Commander Martin put forth his essential justification in the Winter 1987 edition of the American Neptune - the now defunct quarterly journal of the old Peabody museum. Let's review some of his arguments: Martin states in his article that "neither of Hull's reports specify which side of Guerriere he closed in on. The second of the Corne paintings shows him to have had it portray him to larboard, a point about which he and his purser differed…" He further says "with the fall of Guerriere's mizzen…her forward motion slowed and the dragging mast caused her head to fall off toward Constitution as the latter drew ahead more quickly than before. Hull, seeing he was moving ahead, sought to come to port to rake Guerriere, but sundered braces prevented his crew from handling the sails smartly enough." Here is what Hull said about this same juncture in his report: "his Mizen Mast went by the board, and his Main Yard in the Slings, and the Hull, and Sails very much injured, which made it very difficult for them to manage her. At this time the Constitution had received but little damage, and having more sail set than the Enemy she shot ahead, on seeing this I determined to put the Helm to Port, and oblige him to do the same, or suffer himself to be raked, by our getting across his Bows, on our Helm being put to Port the Ship came too, and gave us an opportunity of pouring in upon his Larboard Bow several Broadsides, which made great havock amongst his men on the forecastle and did great injury to his forerigging, and sails, The Enemy put his helm to Port, at the time we did, but his Mizen Mast being over the quarter, prevented her coming too, which brought us across his Bows, with his Bowsprit over our Stern." I don't think Martin acknowledges all that is contained in Hull's report. Hull does, in fact, say which side he closed in on – at least implicitly. "I determined to put the helm to port…On our helm being put to port the ship came to and gave us the opportunity of pouring upon his larboard bow several broadsides..." It may be that Martin interprets this as having Hull turn Constitution to port, which would mean he was on the starboard side of Guerriere, and cross over to end up on her larboard bow - momentarily snagging her bowsprit as he passed. We modern folk have to remember that this is 1812. Back in that day a ship's helm was rigged to behave like a tiller - in simple terms: spin the wheel to the left, the bow will swing to the right. (In fact this was still generally true 100 years later when Titanic had her bad day - google "Hard a Starboard" and you'll get an education). What Hull is actually saying is that he was to port of Guerriere and ordered the helm turned to port in order to swing the ship to starboard where he ended up positioned across Guerriere's port bow for a partial rake. Because Guerriere was entangled with her mizzen wreckage, she could not match Hull's maneuver and instead hung in place, enabling Constitution to get into her advantageous position. Isaac Hull also says something very pertinent that further undermines Martin's stance - "the ship came to…" which means she swung her bow towards the wind. In other words, being on the port side he had given up the wind gauge. Martin implies in the Neptune article that Hull lied in his reports and had Corne alter his painting to show he did not give up the wind gauge. In fact, Captain Hull admits to it in his report and if you look at the directions of the flags and smoke in Corne's paintings (which Martin apparently did not) you'll see the stories match. Hull wasn't trying to hide the fact that he gave up that advantage - he implies it in his report and had Corne show it in the second scene. The wind was apparently blowing from astern with a slight bias in favor of Guerriere when the close engagement began. Hull was asked years later in an interview with a Yale professor why he choose to engage on the port side – he replied that it didn’t much matter which side since the wind was dead astern of both ships. Maybe he chose the larboard position to maximize the sea state - his crew would be firing on the down roll of the swells. Commander Martin also argues in the American Neptune that the amount of ammunition expended makes it obvious the battle went much longer than the 30 minutes Hull claimed in his longer report. Here is what Martin puts forth on this point: "As for Hull's statements that the close action lasted 30 minutes, one must consider them in relation not only to the sequence of events but to the reported ammunition expenditure by Constitution. This appears in Moses Smith's recollection and is said to have been taken from the ship's log. According to this source, she fired 953 rounds of all kinds. If we delete the ten 18-pounder shot…by the bow chasers, and if we assume that the 260 stands of grape all were used in double-shotted loads, we are still left with 683 rounds to be fired by twenty-seven guns in a half hour. This equates to each of those guns firing once every minute and eleven seconds, an incredible sustained rate of fire for gun crews in their first battle. Even if we assume that the 100 rounds of canister likewise were expended in double shots, the rate of fire remains a surprising minute and twenty-three seconds between rounds." This argument ultimately provides the foundation for all of Martin's other arguments… By suggesting that the guns took much longer to load and fire all that ammunition, it lengthens the battle considerably and allows him to justify inserting a whole section of maneuvering that no eyewitness account corroborates (Martin actually states in his book "the record goes blank" here and proceeds to fill it in with his speculation presented as fact - yikes!). The numbers quoted by Smith are broken out in more detail in Tyrone Martin's published work Undefeated - Old Ironsides in the War of 1812: - 300 24-pdr round shot (Long guns) - 236 32-pdr round shot (Carronades) - 10 18-pdr round shot (Bow chaser) - 140 stands of 32-pdr grape - 120 stands of 24-pdr grape - 40 24-pdr canister - 60 32-pdr canister - 47 24-pdr double-headed shot The prodigious amounts outlined would rightly raise eyebrows. I actually think they're about right. Commander Martin seems to have overlooked the simplest and most obvious explanation for this remarkable output of iron and lead. The truth is that the Constitution fired every broadside - every discharge –with two round shot. Every. One. Look at these interesting snippets plucked from Commander Martin's own website - The Captains Clerk: [Journal Entry of Midshipman Frederick Baury] From Captain Thomas Tingey, Washington Navy Yard, 28 Aug 1813 [To the Secretary of the Navy]: [From the Secretary of the Navy] To Captain Charles G. Ridgely, Baltimore, MD, 31 Aug 1813: Tyrone Martin seems to have never considered this explanation to the dilemma of the ammunition expenditure. If we isolate and examine the 32 pounder carronade round shot - which would only be used during the close engagement - the math works out quite nicely (even for those of us without advanced math degrees). I agree with Martin that the grape and canister would've been thrown in on top of the round shot for good measure and can be omitted from our calculation: 236 32 pdr round shot expended in 35 minutes. (Let's round up to 240 for us math-challenged types) Double-shotted , so divide by two and get 120 discharges in 35 minutes. 12 carronades on a broadside... 120/12 gives 10 discharges for each gun. 35 minutes/10 discharges gives us one discharge every 3.5 minutes. (BTW - the math works out exactly the same for the 300 24-pdr shot) According to Mark Adkin in his excellent Trafalgar Companion, a well drilled British gun crew would be expected to fire three rounds in five minutes. Does anyone think a new American crew drilled constantly for six weeks by professional American naval officers can fire one double-shotted round every 3.5 minutes? Me too. I've used 35 minutes because Martin mentions that length of time in the same context as the ammunition breakdown. Using Hull’s estimate of 30 minutes we have a discharge on average every 3.0 minutes - I'm good with that too. It seems likely that the American gun crews loaded full charges with two round shot with the remainder of the tube loaded with whatever grape/canister would fit and then let ‘er rip. It certainly explains the gruesome damage inflicted on the Guerriere - all the accounts of washtubs of blood flowing down hatches and bits of brain and skull scattered across the smoldering decks when the prize crew got on board. Not to mention the water filling her hold that eventually sealed her doom. According to Alfred T Mahan, James Dacres testified in his hearing that “on the larboard side of the Guerriere there were about thirty shot which had taken effect about five sheets of copper down.” This is a very telling statement. The implication that these shot holes were generally in line with the fifth row of copper strongly suggests that this damage was inflicted by one well-coordinated broadside fired on the down roll and not by some random shots across the course of the battle. Probably not coincidental that Constitution mounted 15 long guns on her broadside and when we account for the double round shot loads… Hmmm…15x2 = 30. It would be logical to assume this would’ve been the first devastating broadside delivered when Hull leaped in the air to shout “Fire!” and split his breeches. Accounts also noted that two gun ports on the larboard side of Guerriere had been blown into a single gaping hole by the Constitution's guns. All this damage on the larboard side doesn't bode well for Martin's idea that much of the close engagement was initially fought on the starboard side of Guerriere. And what about Martin’s condescending innuendo that Isaac Hull was an overwhelmed neophyte in above his head? Let’s be clear – Captain Isaac Hull was not a tentative amateur as Martin portrays to help justify his reconstruction. He was, in fact, a very experienced and professional naval officer whose performance under fire reflected the highest standards of the U.S. Navy. He was clearly not flustered when he held his crew back from returning fire until he was directly alongside his opponent and certain to achieve the maximum effect he desired. Martin may be correct when he characterizes Hull's tactics as inelegant and graceless. He forgot to also mention that his tactics were brutally effective. The Constitution didn’t eke out a victory over her opponent – she annihilated the Guerriere. That ship was completely shattered and defeated in every way possible. The results are highly credible to Isaac Hull. Getting his inexperienced crew in close enough to not miss, training them to fire double-shotted rounds at a reasonable rate of fire, and letting his advantage in sheer weight of iron decide the contest, are all signs of a very smart naval commander. Despite his rotund and humble outward self, the facts suggest Hull was a calculating, and ferocious fighter when caught up in the heat of battle. It may be part of why he seemed so remorseful afterwards (and rarely ever wrote about the battle after his official reports). It may not be that great a sin for Tyrone Martin to have put forth his version of the battle for others to contemplate. It provokes thought and stimulates more conversation about the famous ship and her glorious deeds. The great sin is that Martin proceeded to represent his pet theory in his books (and on his website) as whole truth woven from whole cloth. It is not - never was. It is actually highly speculative and weak on its foundation and easily refuted. The facts work against him and the written accounts are almost universally in line with Captain Hull's version. More recent scholars including Ian Toll (Six Frigates) and Stephen Budiansky (Perilous Fight) have tended to eschew Tyrone Martin's version. Margherita Desy, the official historian of the ship, very deliberately avoided Martin's version when she was recently asked to write an article on the battle for Naval History magazine. In fact, they all practically go out of their way to snub it. At best it may be that Tyrone Martin got excited to introduce a new perspective and just got a bit too far out over the tips of his skis… At worst he was extremely unscholarly in his approach and did not have his best moment as an historian. To make his theory fit, he added weight to certain facts and sources that didn’t deserve it, and diminished other facts that should have been emphasized. His characterization of Isaac Hull is pure imagination. Get yourself a copy of the American Neptune - Winter 1987 (I got my copy on ebay). And by all means buy yourself a copy of Tyrone Martin's A Most Fortunate Ship... But read them with a critical eye and be prepared to come away scratching your head at how such a theory could've survived relatively unchallenged for so many years.

All... A bit of miscellaneous progress. I've added the channels and I think I've got them on very firmly. I took the liberty of reinforcing them with a small strip of .040 x .040 Evergreen underneath to increase the surface area when glueing to the hull. I've also reinforced the pin rails by drilling thru the bulwark and inserting small steel pins. They were snipped to size, covered with some blobs of filler, and sanded smooth. I did some spot primer in key locations to help determine areas in need of improvement then gave the two half hulls a complete coat. Still a bit of touch ups and tuning needed, but I'm getting closer to the painting phase. Additionally, I decided to change course on the berth deck ventilation scuttles and gun deck scuppers. Originally I did not like the large openings for the scuppers and elected to cover them up and treat them as the ventilation scuttles. It gnawed at me enough that it wasn't a correct representation that I finally went ahead and popped off the previous work to expose the scupper holes and built new ventilation doors lower down in a more proper location. I even depicted one of the doors swung open to add some dimension: A note to add regarding the ship's boats... I got pinged on another forum by a terrific modeler who is also building the Revell Connie using some of the Bluejacket parts. He was wondering if I was using the BJ resin whaleboats. I did purchase a couple of the whaleboats along with the resin pinnace. I was a little disappointed that they came with pre-molded floor boards - I would've preferred to add my own interior details: Mine came in good condition - I know sometimes resin parts can be full of air pockets and blemishes, but these can be easily improved. My original pinnace came very warped and I wasn't able to correct the shape under warm water. The folks at Bluejacket cheerfully sent me a replacement. Unfortunately, it looks as though I can't use these on my build. Apparently the whaleboats did not appear on Constitution until AFTER the Guerriere fight. Receipts and invoices indicate that Commodore Bainbridge first purchased whaleboats from local New England sources to replace some of the boats lost or damaged in the Guerriere battle. They've been associated with the ship ever since. The USS Constitution museum Log Lines blog had a nice article about this: http://usscm.blogspot.com/2012/09/whaleboats-for-constitution.html I think that catches me up on my current progress. Thanks for looking in... Evan

Patrick - The other articles - include one related to the gun stripe - are to be found on the Constitution virtual tour Navy History website: http://www.history.navy.mil/USSCTour/frManuals.html The gun stripe article is not as thorough as the gun lids article just posted by Tim. There is no mention of the Corne Guerriere battle paintings, for example, which is a significant miss. There is also an article on the figureheads to be found here. Thx Evan

Dave and Markus - Thank you for your continued interest and the kind compliments. Tim - your insight is invaluable and the article you've provided is incredibly illuminating. I wish Ms. Desy would post this along with the other public articles in the online Naval Heritage Command Constitution tour site. (It should be pointed out that Margherita Desy is the official historian of the USS Constitution attached to the Naval History &Heritage command.) This passage is very informative: HALF-PORT..., shifting shutters fixed in the stops of those ports, which have no hanging lids. Those to the quarter-deck and forecastle ports are in general in one, and made of two thicknesses of slit deals, and to the ports for the long guns have holes in them for the gun to run out; and those to the upper deck, In two parts called buckler half-ports; for long guns, the lower part is to the center of the gun, when run out and levelled, as they have a hole in them that fits close round the guns ; and to carronades, to the under side of the gun, if not too low, that they may be fixed over them. The lower piece of these half-ports is of fir, and in one piece, to fill up the stops; with a rabbet taken out of its upper edge, to receive the upper part, and with two strengthening bolts driven up and down through it. This piece is in general hung with hinges at the lower part, and kept in its place by sliding bolts. The upper part is made commonly of whole and slit deal, the whole deal up and down, and the slit deal, to cross it, fore and aft.” 2 This indicates that the permanent full lids seen in so many contemporary models up forward and along the quarterdeck is likely accurate. The rest of the ports would have the half-lid "stoppers" - at least as commonly practiced by American captains. Ms. Desy seems to confirm that the ports as represented by the Hull model are accurate. There does not seem to be any indication of hinged lower half lids in place during the Guerriere fight. The receipts suggest that those were installed afterwards. It may well be, however, that Captain Hull followed what appears to be the common American practice of having removable half lid stoppers on board. They would've (obviously) been removed for the battle. The research around the canvas covers along the captain cabin ports is extremely interesting. I wonder if this is a uniquely Yankee innovation? Tim, you've indicated in your earlier post that the Royal navy may not have followed the practice of gun port lids - at least not thru the War of 1812? I see one or two models in the NMM collection that show hinged half lids on British frigates, but not until the post-war period. I think we're all a bit smarter as we walk through these sources and I'm feeling very comfortable with following the Hull model in this area. The Abell engraving shown in the essay has a full lid over the BRIDLE port - not a gun port. It may be that Ms. Desy would need to reconcile the fact that the Hull model does not have the extra bridle port in front as the modern ship does... Technically the front THREE ports on both sides (the Bridle port and two gun ports) would need lids on the restored ship if the Hull model example is strictly followed. I wonder if the Hull model builders put hinged lids on all the ports positioned along the forward curve of the bow in their representation. I think the gun ports extend a little too far forward on the Hull model - there wouldn't be room to add the Bridle port. I may consider only including a hinged lid over the very foremost ports (not the TWO foremost) on each side of my model to allow for the fact that the Revell kit will only have one port positioned along the forward curve of the bow now that I've eliminated the Bridle port. The next port is under the fore channel and a full lid would be blocked from opening fully. I'll have to experiment to see what looks right... Thanks again Tim for the historical consultation and please keep an eye on my build. Off to the workshop to revisit the scuppers and berth deck ventilation scuttles... I think I'll redo these based on some other considerations. Stay tuned Evan

Paul - I owe you a reply! Thanks much for your perspective - I appreciate your very nice compliments regarding my efforts. I also have a chunk of Old Ironsides purchased at the museum. I haven't yet decided how it can be incorporated - probably I'll make it into a small stand and display one of the ship's boats alongside the main model. I very much like the work of Tom Freeman - he's done some beautiful paintings of Constitution. And it should be noted that he does extensive research on his subjects and you can go count the number of gunport lids on his War of 1812 representations... Tim - Thank you as well for your insight. I make no claims at being an historian, scholar, or researcher - so it is gratifying to have a professional chime in and echo some of my thoughts regarding the historical configuration of Constitution. I would also echo your underlying message - we don't know how the ship actually looked in her early wartime years. We can probably make a better guess at her 1815 appearance than her 1812 appearance... Many records were lost when Washington was burned and I think the records were better kept and organized later in the war. All we can do is suggest likely configurations based on snippets of fact and similarities to other resources. I would, however, hesitate to buy into the idea that these ships carried removable lids as standard practice. I'm not sure that I've seen many references to such outside of Preble having his carpenters make custom removable split lids. The arguments put forth for such an arrangement would apply equally, if not more, to the larger classes of ships that fight yardarm to yardarm in fleet actions, and we don't see that in play. Jud - I think you've brought us full circle to where we started - one camp firmly in mind that it is insane to think of ships with no lids, and those of us who are crazy to think that the lids were not standard because so many contemporary sources show it to be the case. Coincidentally enough I've just today received my copy of The Sailing Frigate - A history in ship models by Robert Gardiner. Page 59 includes a study of the beautiful and highly detailed model of the frigate Lowestoffe of 1760: Gardiner notes: "With around 7ft of freeboard, gunport lids are unnecessary except where the ports open into cabins or other enclosed spaces..." It seems to be the case that Frigates had generally higher freeboard than larger rates AND did not use the "gun deck" as living space. Frigates had the advantage of dedicated berth decks below for the crew. I put gun deck in quotes because until the early 19th century, the deck with armament was referred to as the "upper deck" in the Royal navy - which acknowledges the exposure to the elements - and the berth deck still retained the old "gun deck" label dating back to the days when these rates had lower deck gun ports. I personally believe that this goes to the heart of why the gun port lids were usually not there (with the understanding that there were some exceptions) - in the late 18th century and into the 19th the 5th and 6th rates generally had higher freeboard than other classes and had dry berth decks for the crew. The lids didn't commonly appear until the standard frigates evolved to the bigger spar decked type with enclosed gun decks sometime after the War of 1812 and into the early 1820s. Regardless, I'm convinced that the lack of gun port lids posed no real danger to this class of ship - at least not enough danger to warrant their widespread use. The comfort of the crew was not significantly compromised since they lived on the deck below. I'm certain that I've convinced nobody to switch their views. Most modelers, I'm sure, will continue to include the lids so that their models don't seem naked... Kinda like that guy who shaves off his mustache and some people can't quite explain it, but something's not right. I really do appreciate the feedback and I'm glad to spew forth my brain dumps to anyone who will burn through minutes of their lives reading this stuff. Thanks again to all who follow along Evan

Hello Popeye - Regarding the modern ship... I generally shy away from using her as a reference for my 1812 build. If you talk with the folks at the USS Constitution museum, they'll tell you that the restored ship was based on plans dating into the 1840s. Apparently this was the most complete set that Lt. Lord was able to get his hands on when restoring the ship in the 1920s. I would certainly agree that gun port lids would be standard in that period. Fortunately, the current plans are to migrate the ship towards the War of 1812 configuration as opportunities arise during scheduled refits. The open waist has already been restored and the bow and stern will be reconfigured across the next couple of refits. I think Henry has indicated that the stern is next up. I do expect, however, that gun port lids will always be in place - it is a practical need to help preserve the interior comfort for a public "museum" ship. BTW - your wooden decks are looking great! I'm very impressed that you accounted for the underlying beam structure and aligned your plank ends with the edges of the hatches. Well done. Evan

I think you'll also need to consider the chesstree... Having that in place probably compels you to lead the line into the gun deck. I've elected to eliminate the chesstree and lead all sheets and tacks thru sheaves in the spar deck bulwarks that I still need to add. This corresponds to the approach mapped out by Olof Eriksen in his research for the 1815 rig. The Bluejacket plans by Larry Arnot show the sheets and tacks led thru the gun deck. The Hull model also shows the large cleat on the spar deck: Hope I haven't just added to the confusion. Evan

I thought Columbus had landed in Honduras and/or Nicaragua on one of his voyages??

I think it is important to highlight the philosophy behind the design and construction of the American 44s... The role of the frigate in European navies required much versatility. These were the "eyes of the fleet", commerce raiders, convoy escorts, and flagships in far distant stations. Not so the American frigates. We can see from the exchange of notes between Joshua Humphries and the Secretary of War that these frigates were designed with a single purpose - to kick the *** of the common class of european frigates - specifically the British 38s. Anything bigger, they'd have speed enough to escape. As Frolick notes, they were not particularly fast in relation to their opponents - Java, Guerriere, and probably Macedonian could all have run circles around the heavier Americans (heck - Java practically did!). It has become fashionable in recent years to re-analize the American victories in the War of 1812 and demystify the idea that the American navy was better than the Royal navy. Many times the implication is that British crews were better, but they lost because the American ships were so big in comparison. This sidesteps the reality that British ships had oftentimes defeated much more powerful ones in the past and had expected to do the same with the American frigates. British officers also regarded the 24 pounder long guns as too unwieldy for frigate actions and expected to outshoot the American crews. In reality, they probably did, but with much less effect and they suffered greatly from the accurate and heavy return fire of the bigger ships. I think it can be conceded that the British ships were generally fought with skill and fortitude against much more powerful opponents, but the truth is those frigates lost their fights long before the shooting started... They lost their fights when Joshua Humphries put pen to paper and convinced Henry Knox to sign off on a class of frigate that other powers thought were too expensive to build and maintain and too slow to ever be effective in single ship actions. Man were they wrong. Evan

Folks - I'll make one last pitch for the absence of the gun lids... Here are some credible sources all piled up: Michel Felice Corné 1803 - commissioned by Commodore Preble: Thomas Birch 1813 Constitution vs Guerriere - Based on interviews with participants: "Hull" model 1812 - built by the crew and presented to Isaac Hull: Michel Felice Corné 1812 Constitution vs Guerriere - commissioned by captain Hull and supervised by his purser Thomas Chew: Nicholas Pocock Constitution vs Java - based on sketches by Lt Buchanan of HMS Java Thomas Birch United States vs Macedonian - based on interviews with participants: Now we can probably dig through each of these representations and find various flaws and discrepancies, but we can't dispute that ALL of these have something in common - no gun port lids. Constitution, United States, Guerriere, Java, Macedonian... All shown without lids by different artists after consultation with crew and battle veterans. We have log entries and journal accounts of water pouring in through the gun ports in heavy weather... But how can we modern folk reconcile the idea that these ships would sail without gun port lids and be so endangered on a voyage? I think the absence of gun port lids is a vestige of the era when this class of ship had open gun decks - at least very open space along the waist - which were generally treated as "weather" decks. It was common to not have lids on ports along the open waist and many of these ships would only have them mounted on the most forward ports to minimize wetness from a plunging bow. Sometimes the sternmost would also have protection against following seas, but all others would be without lids. It was no big deal for the water to slosh in one side, across the deck, and out the other side and/or out the scuppers. There are certainly examples of frigates being fitted with lids, but likely at the discretion of the captain. We know from log entries that Preble had carpenters add lids during his tenure (which implies, of course, that none were there before). The American spar deck frigates represented a transition away from the open waist and the utilization of the top deck for more guns and ship handling space. The great success they had in the War of 1812 spurred the other naval powers to evolve their frigates away from the smaller open waisted types and into the big frigate era. As the gun decks became more commonly enclosed, the gun port lids became more standard. I certainly understand that most of my fellow modelers will not follow me down this path, but I would think that most would at least appreciate my reasoning and respect the fact that I'm basing my own representation on credible contemporary sources - specifically the Michel Felice Corné paintings and the Hull model - however illogical that may seem! I'm glad that my build has inspired some deeper explorations of some elements of the great ship that defy conventional thinking... Stay tuned for the yellow stripe! Thanks to all for the engaging discussion. Evan

Jerry - Actually there are log entries that suggest the absence of the port lids - We see an entry in January 1814,, for example, that suggests the ports weren't rigged even in rough seas: "The ship rolling deep but easy and taking in a good deal of water at her gun deck ports..." -- Lat. 10-39N, Long. 40-50W There are others. Moses Smith noted in his memoir that the ship ran into a gale after leaving the Chesapeake at the start of the war and took in a great deal of water through the gun ports. There are references by various captains that Constitution was a "wet ship". It does seem to defy our common understanding to think that ports weren't in place. We know from log entries that Commodore Preble had carpenters adding split port lids in 1803 - this implies that the ship was not fitted with lids as standard practice. All of the credible contemporary representations do not show them. Here is another loose contribution to my thinking that the lids weren't there on August 19, 1812... Many years ago I read something somewhere to the effect that the British admiralty issued a directive to eliminate lids on frigates - and ONLY on frigates - as a wood conservation measure during the Napoleonic period. I can't remember where I read this - I've got no corroboration. I've searched and searched since then and came up empty - I've got nothing. But... Once this is stuck in your head, it is interesting to take notice as you browse thru contemporary artifacts on museum websites, etc. at how this generally plays out. There are exceptions to be sure (a very nice prisoner model of the Chesapeake showed up on a recent post) , but the vast majority of frigates represented by prisoner-of-war bone models, admiralty models, paintings... generally align with such a directive. The other classes of ships usually have the lids - Ships of the line, sloops, brigs - just not the frigates. After the Napoleonic period we see the lids return. It ain't anything conclusive, but it adds to my perception that the Hull model and Corne Paintings, etc. are accurate representations regarding the lack of lids. Presumably other navies would emulate British practices... I don't think it is likely that I'll convince you otherwise, but I'm comfortable in proceeding with my intention to rely on the Hull model and the Corne paintings. I'll only show lids on the forward-most ports and leave off the rest. All part of the fun of ship models! Thx Evan

Thanks to all who've clicked the LIKE button on my build! Patrick - Glad you like the storage of the spare topsail yard. I've revised the update to include my earlier research regarding this approach... I do not know if this was typical of the period, but it does seem likely that something similar to this was in place on August 19, 1812. James - thank you for your continued interest!' Markus! I appreciate the compliment on my amateur photography... I noticed a pool of sunlight hitting my table and thought it might help to highlight the details of the little boat. Popeye/Sailor - Have no fear - everything is dry-fitted at this point. I'm a long way from glueing the hull together... Many modifications yet and I'll likely paint much of the half hulls inside and out before joining them forever. Evan

Thank you PopEye, Patrick, and Daniel for the kind attention... Christian - Thanks for popping by... Feel free to incorporate anything of my build in your future efforts - I'm sure you'd create a fabulous Constitution should you ever make the attempt. I'm trying to close out the details of the half-hulls so that I can get to painting... 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: 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. I've begun to mount the channels.... Here is a test of the fit of the spare topsail yard stored on the main and mizzen channels: I rather like the effect. I needed to break up the tedium of the pin rails, so I started in on some of the boats. Here is the smallest boat (punt) outfitted with the keelson (.040 x .040 Evergreen) and ribs (.030 x .030). I had some small half-round .040" Evergreen that I stretched around the outer gunwale for the rub rail: The transom was built up with .040 x .100 Evergreen and shaped with a few strokes of the file. Thanks again for keeping track of my build Evan

Some not very glamorous progress... The pin rails have been added to the spar deck bulwarks. I do not have a drill press with enough precision for micro pin holes, so I needed to do these by hand. First, a simple jig was cobbled together to encourage consistent results... I made starter holes with a simple push pin, then came back with the micro-drill. I had to remember to place the holes on the outboard edge of the strip and attempt to drill straight with a steady hand (not always successful, but darn close). I laid in some small support ledges underneath to increase the surface area in hopes of a solid connection to the bulwarks. I also drilled small holes so that I could insert thin steel pins for additional strength: It was not easy to determine the proper layout for all of the pin rails - no two sources agree. It does seem obvious, however, that there does need to be more rails than provided by Revell. My solution is a combination of the Bluejacket guidance and Olof Eriksen's version with some allowances made for the reality of the kit bulwarks. I elected to not include rails over the knighthead above the bowsprit... I probably have a few more pins than needed, but better too many than too few. Some additional progress on the channels: I should be ready to mount these after a bit more cleanup and filler in some of the small seams. Evan

Great progress Popeye... I used the kit deck and scribed my own plank pattern after sanding the deck smooth. Fun. FYI - You can get a veneer deck for this kit thru John at scaledecks.com Evan

Apparently the crew referred to these as "Spice Boxes" (presumably because they resembled a common household item) and they were commonly included on the larger frigates for the convenience and privacy of the ships officers. It is tough to determine how permanent these were... You'd think they were flimsy screens that were easily removed when clearing for action. It seems that they might've been more solid fixtures... Captain Stewart ordered them removed prior to the battle with Cyane and Levant to give better clearance for the forward gun crews. They were not reassembled after the battle - probably because they were removed with an axe. On the cruise home the British officers began to grumble and get very surly about the lack of private facilities for the gentleman. (Apparently the were used to having these on Guerriere) They felt that it was very undignified to have to relieve themselves using the leeward channels like common sailors. One of the American Lieutenants finally got fed up and remarked loudly to one of them something to the effect that the prisoners were well positioned to attest that American officers cared more about their gunnery than about their round houses... Presumably that ended the trouble. Here is my representation: A fun detail that will get buried once my spar deck is in place. Evan

A very crisp build sir! I'm enjoying following along on this voyage. The gun tackle is terrific and your port lids are wonderful Evan

HistoryGuy... Tyrone Martin in his "A Most Fortunate Ship" states that during her 1811 refit the Trysail mast and "... What many today consider her 'trademark' - the 'split' dolphin striker - was installed." (Pg 141) Olaf Eriksen in his terrific "Constitution - All Sails Up and Flying" (pg 214) itemizes the unique features of the Constitution: "...let me reiterate some distinctive characteristics that will show and prove conclusively that Constitution was not rigged like an ordinary frigate, and in fact made part of her rigging unique. First, Captain Hull added the double dolphin striker and the trysail mast. Second, Commander Bainbridge changed the configuration of the bow. Third, though the fore fiferail is typical of her type, the U-shaped pinrail and monkey rail aft of the main mast, and the spider rail on the mizzen mast are all unusual, and the Constitution is the ONLY ship having these type of belaying rails. ...The above innovations set Constitution apart from all other ships from this era, and every one of these is an indisputable historical fact." I'm not familiar with the ships of the period to address how unique a split dolphin striker would be... I have not seen any references suggesting that Essex had this, but I could not gainsay either way. I do know that Chuck included a double dolphin striker on his excellent Syren kit, so he may have authoritative references that suggest this was common enough by the War of 1812. It does seem, however, that both Tyrone Martin and Olaf Eriksen (who, admittedly, used Martin as his central source) are convinced that the Constitution's arrangement was unique to her. It may be that you've already settled your own conundrum - to make the United States different, you should mount a single dolphin striker regardless of the "impossible to confirm" reality. Just curious - are you working with the Revell United States kit, or are you modifying the Constitution kit (my path if I were to attempt a United States)? Anxious to see you post some progress! Thx Evan Gale

Patrick - thank for your generous remarks! Marcus - I'm flattered to think my influence has extended into Germany! I think your modeler friend has made a great build of his own with his own interpretation of the great ship. His approach to handling the messenger is very interesting. I do think that part of the solution was to suspend some of the line from rollers hanging from the beams (refer to Dafi's excellent tutorial). Using blocks could be a problem since the messenger is usually joined with large bends to form the continuous loop. I've made some more progress on the half hulls. I could not find any contemporary reference that verifies the presence of the chesstrees that are included in the kit. The Corne paintings don't show them and neither does the Hull model: I've elected to fill in the attachment points and smooth everything over: I have also enhanced the hawse pieces around the hawse holes and filled in the sides of the knighthead. The kit uses a flimsy piece that has molded rings fore and aft. I think these could be a weak point and otherwise look like molded plastic. I'll insert my own rings or perhaps replace the entire knighthead assembly with something scratch built: I've filled and sanded the gun port hinge openings and the forward bridle ports. I'll hit these with some light primer to expose areas that need extra attention and then lightly scribe some planking lines. Up next I'll need to start evaluating some of the rigging plans to determine appropriate openings, etc. that need to be added (or deleted) on these hull pieces. I'll also give consideration to adding the pin rails and cleats on the inner bulwarks with appropriate reinforcement for strength - I'll drill thru the bulwarks and insert some reinforcement pins. Lots to think thru going forward... Thanks for looking in... Evan

Henry - She's looking very fine. I hope the weather Gods will ease up on your winter - just skip spring and go directly to summer! Cheers Evan

Cheers Popeye! A bit of mindless fun: A few months back I was having another look at the historical deck plan of the US Frigate United States and I noticed an interesting detail on the gun deck: The items labeled "B" are listed in the legend as "Round Houses". Hmmm... I generally think of those as something external on larger ships a la Victory... I did a quick google search which found an article by Cmdr Tyrone Martin on the USS Constitution museum website that mentioned these in more detail. http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org/constitution-resources/the-captain-speaks/the-guns-of-constitution/ Apparently the crew referred to these as "Spice Boxes" (presumably because they resembled a common household item) and they were commonly included on the larger frigates for the convenience and privacy of the ships officers. It is tough to determine how permanent these were... You'd think they were flimsy screens that were easily removed when clearing for action. It seems that they might've been more solid fixtures... Captain Stewart ordered them removed prior to the battle with Cyane and Levant to give better clearance for the forward gun crews. They were not reassembled after the battle - probably because they were removed with an axe. On the cruise home the British officers began to grumble and get very vocal about the lack of private facilities for the gentleman. They felt that it was very undignified to have to relieve themselves using the leeward channels like common sailors. One of the American Lieutenants finally got fed up and remarked loudly to one of them something to the effect that the prisoners were well positioned to attest that American officers cared more about their gunnery than about their round houses... Presumably that ended the trouble. I decided that including them would be a waste of my limited Units of Effort since they would not be visible once the spar deck was positioned. But just a few weeks later the Log Lines blog on the Constitution Museum website had a great article on these same round houses. http://usscm.blogspot.com/2014/01/head-lines.html I took this as a sign from the Goddess of Ship Models that I should include these in my build for thoroughness. There would be one on both port and starboard, but since I do not know if these were removed before the battle with Guerriere, I decided to only include one and split the difference. More details soon. Thanks again for following along. Evan

Patrick - The modern restoration is often a good source for how NOT to do something for the 1812 version... Commander Martin has noted in his writings (and I think in the Bluejacket kit manual?) that a waterway was NEVER added across the stern transom. I'll have to hunt down the reference. Unfortunately my picture of the Hull model is not clear, but that artifact does not have waterways across the stern. Evan