Force9

Here's the latest:
 
I've completed the iron bolt heads ("rivets") on the spar deck bulwarks, filled out the gun deck bulwarks, and started in on the gun deck knees.
 
The knees are a bit of a guess.  Here is how they currently look on the restored ship:
 

 
I suspect these are more reflective of the 1927 effort to stiffen her structure than how they would've appeared in 1812.
 
Howard Chappelle in his History of the American Sailing Navy includes a plan view of USS President (taken from the Admiralty draught done after her capture) which shows interconnected diagonal knees (plan 16 between pgs 265-266).  I've elected to follow this approach in my build.  I chopped up a few small chunks of styrene and glued them in the appropriate locations to represent the beams for affixing the knees.  None of this will be visible once the spar deck is in place - even with the holes I intend to cut into the deck to expose the underlying beams and open small views to the gun deck.
 
I first marked the beam locations as defined by the spar deck pieces:
 

 
(Incidentally, the spar deck butt pattern aligns well with the general positioning of the beams - unlike the Heller Victory kit)
 
I'll only represent the "legs" of the knees and not the "arms" at this point.  I'll likely need to include both at the waist where they may be visible.
 
The result seems to align well with Chappelle's representation and I'm very satisfied:
 

 

 

 
I've left the knees along the starboard waist undone for now.  Those will need to be closely aligned with the beams under the spar deck when I have those in place.
 
Still a few things to be done, but I'll set aside the half hulls for now and move on to the decking - if only to introduce some variety.  Wish me luck in eliminating the seams.

Essentially the Bluejacket Manual/plan set was purchased to help me rig the beast when I eventually get to that phase... I want to respect the intellectual property of the BJ folks, but I'm sure they won't mind a small snippet to encourage other modelers to invest in their own set:
 

 
Hopefully this gives a sense of the terrific detail that the plans provide.
 
A funny thing happened when I went online to the BJ site to order the manual set... It finally registered in my feeble mind that the Bluejacket kit was 1/8 scale (The same as 1/96)... I had never realized that before.  When I received my packet in the mail and ripped it open I found something nearly as valuable as all the rest - the detailed parts listing.  I sent along a note to the good folks at Bluejacket asking them whether the individual parts for their USS Constitution kit were available for separate sale.  Lisa wrote back and said that would be no problem.  Bluejacket, of course, is a major supplier of model ship parts, but you will not find most of their Connie components in their catalog.  After close examination I noted some specific part numbers, placed my order, and within a very reasonable period a small box showed up:
 

 
I won't reveal all the contents... Those will show up at various points in my build log along the way, but here is an important sample:
 

 
The longest boat provided in the Revell kit would scale to about 28 feet.  That might do to represent something like the commodore's barge, but not the Pinnace (long boat).  According to Tyrone Martin, the long boat would be 36 feet in length - which at 1/8 scale would measure out to around 4.5 inches.  Fortunately the BJ kit has a cast resin version (part no. 8633) that fits the bill very nicely.
 

 
A bit of enhancement with some styrene components and this will be a real winner.
 
More good stuff from the Bluejacket box to be revealed as we move along...

Folks -
 
I should make mention of the sources I have been utilizing for my build...
 
Unfortunately there are no books out there that really satisfy me in every respect - some are certainly better than others, but all seem to have blatant flaws.  The AOTS book by Karl Heinz Marquardt is a well criticized case in point.  He seems to have invented a representation of the ship that is a hybrid between the 1927 restored version and various "historic" representations across the years cobbled together from old photographs, plans of other ships (USS President) and various paintings - not all of which trace to the War of 1812 glory years.  His omission of the Hull model is downright inexplicable.  In Mr. Marquardt's defense, it should be said that he had a much tougher job than McKay did with the AOTS for the HMS Victory.  There are many contemporary sources for the construction and refits of the Victory to reference - and ultimately McKay probably did very little archeological research beyond consulting the well researched restored version of the ship.  Same can be said for Longridge and his Anatomy of Nelson's Ships - it is essentially relying on the restored ship.  Old Ironsides is a more complicated situation - the restored ship is at most a faint glimmer of her War of 1812 configuration... Lt. John Lord seems to have restored her to an "historic" configuration without any deep effort to match her glory years... It seems like somebody tapped him on the shoulder, or otherwise whispered in his ear, and told him that he should focus on restoring the structural integrity of the ship and ensure that nobody had to come back and restore her again within their lifetimes... The historical "accuracy" was almost an afterthought with folks winking and nodding that she was brought back to her War of 1812 appearance.
 
Underlying all of this is the reality that we have very little extant historical documentation of her War of 1812 appearance.  When the newly appointed William Jones took over as Secretary of the Navy amid the War of 1812, he found an underfunded department in shambles with no cohesive record keeping in place to help manage the precious few ships available for battle.  He hired a bunch of extra clerks, reorganized the entire record keeping process, and ordered that all ship construction, maintenance, and provisioning records be forwarded to Washington DC for proper cataloguing.  He utilized these records to carefully dole out the pitiful funds at his disposal where they were most needed.  Unfortunately, this meant that all of these valuable resources (at least for us future ship modelers) went up in flames when the British ungallantly sacked our capitol city and burned the public buildings and the navy yard.  That leaves folks to make assumptions on her war years appearance by extrapolating from when the written records peter out... The 1811 refit undertaken by Isaac Hull is reasonably well documented in journals and logs and is probably reflected in three dimensions by the Hull model in the Peabody Essex museum.  Most experts assume that she carried this configuration deep into the War of 1812 since the only written record to contradict it shows up when Charles Stewart noted in the log that he painted a Yellow stripe on the ship.  The reality is almost certainly something different... The advent of war changed the circumstances completely and likely caused the various captains of USS Constitution to restyle her as a wolf in sheep's clothing... Every captain's dream was to sail into the midst of a large convoy of merchant ships and cut out as many valuable prizes as possible before getting chased off by a ship of the line.  Every instant of doubt that a yellow stripe could introduce would be very helpful.  We see her represented in every credible painting of the period with a yellow stripe.  The record we have from Charles Stewart is interesting... He waited until he was offshore to rig up the painting platforms and repaint the stripe out of sight of prying eyes and informants on shore who might otherwise tip off the British fleet to the deception.  If Hull and/or Bainbridge overpainted the stripe, they likely did it offshore for the same reasons.  For this reason and others, I've elected to refer to the contemporary paintings to guide my project.
 
The only book I anticipate using as a key reference is Howard Chapelle's History of the American Sailing Navy.  In particular I will refer to the plan view of USS President (plate 16 between pgs 265-266) for the positioning of the diagonal knees on the gun deck and the proper placement of the bitts and the various pumps.
 
For the rigging I've gone ahead and purchased the very fine Bluejacket Manual/plan set for their 1/96 wooden kit model:
 




 
The manual includes many historical research notes from Cmdr Tyrone Martin as well as detailed rigging directions.  The real value is added by the terrific scale deck and rigging plans that are included (there are four full size sheets) all produced in 1/96 scale.  Highly recommended.

Let's build some more of the model...
 
I now come to a decision point faced by better modelers than me... Do I include the iron bolt "rivet" details on the spar deck bulwarks?
 
You can see those on the post-refit spar deck 
 

 
Looks like it was a PITA to remove them during the restoration effort:
 

 
Are they authentic to 1812?  I have no clue... It is interesting that they were put back in the recent reconstruction of the spar deck.  It may be that there is something definitive that justifies including them... In truth I don't really care.  I've decided that it would be a nice way to pay homage to the restored ship while at the same time including some interesting detail to enhance my model.
 
Unfortunately there may be no way around the tedium that adding all these rivets will entail... Model railroaders have some decals of resin rivet strips that might work in a pinch, but it looks like a very expense solution.  Modelers on larger scale ships will add thousands of dots worth of thick paint or actually insert the gazillions of pins necessary to represent the bolt heads properly... 
 
Here was the approach I took:
 

 
I used the thinnest strips of styrene in my inventory and punched in the bolt pattern using an inexpensive scribe tool purchased at the local hardware store. None of the three pin wheel tools I have had the right pattern I was after - so I did it one at a time. Amazing how sore your fingers can get after a few hundred of these... Once done, I simply flipped the strips over and affixed them to the bulwarks.  When completely dry, I came back along and trimmed the edges with a file.  All very neat.
 

 
This has the added benefit of covering over the overdone wood grain detail moulded on the bulwarks of the kit as well as some obvious injection marks.

Folks
 
I've got the port side bulwarks mostly complete - I'll add a ledge/shelf strip across the top and a few touch ups with a file are needed, but otherwise I'm pleased with the progress:
 

 

 

 

 
The candle in the background is not to set the mood... The dog managed to find a dead fish on the shoreline tonight and reeked to high heaven...  x20x    After a thorough bath in the garage washtub (the DOG, not me!), I needed to light the scented candle (orange flavored, I think) to overlay on the stench before proceeding to my project.
 
Thanks for looking

Continuing along the theme of Old Ironsides
 
As usual, I've gone crazy with the hobby knife and peeled back a bit of the lower hull - this time to reveal the stout framing of an American Heavy Frigate.
 
I've gone ahead and used the 1875 photo as guidance and spaced my frames accordingly:
 

 

 

 

 
Russ here at MSW confirms that the 1875 photo should be accurate.  Research confirms that the keel on Old Ironsides is original as well as most of the futtocks and flooring.  This would dictate the spacing of the frames for the life of the ship - even if the contours of the upper framing changed over the years.
 
The placement of my gash is not arbitrary - it is actually symbolic.  Captain Dacres testified in his court martial after the battle that "on the larboard side of the Guerrière there were about thirty shot which had taken effect about five sheets of copper down.."  This was most likely the result of Constitution's initial broadside which Captain Hull had held back until his ship was directly alongside his opponent at half-pistol shot range.  The blast fairly rocked Guerriere and sent "washtubs" of blood pouring down her hatches according to an eyewitness.  The damage below the waterline ultimately sealed her fate.  The prize crew couldn't stem the flow and Hull ordered her blown up the next morning.
 
My representation here should give folks an idea of just how much damage the Guerriere absorbed from the outset of the fight.

Well... They didn't call her Old Ironsides for nuthin'...
 
I've been building up the gun deck bulwarks:
 
Gun ports are lined with .080 x.156" Evergreen strip
Bulwarks are planked with .040 x .156" Evergreen strip
 

 

 

 
Not particularly glamorous, but it will seem satisfying when all is completed.
 
And, as usual, I've peeled back a bit of the lower hull to reveal the stout framing of an American Heavy Frigate... 
 

 

 

 
This does, however, pose a bit of a quandary... There is quite a bit of contention regarding the actual layout of Constitution's frames...
 
Karl Heinz Marquardt presents a "classic" frame layout in his AOTS book - double frames between the gun ports with single frames spaced apart in between.  Commander Tyrone Martin states in his writings that Joshua Humphries specified closely spaced frames - about two inches separation.  This historic photo from her 1873 refit would seem to agree.  We see the frames exposed after the outer planking has been stripped away:
 

 
It is surmised that she did, in fact, have the diagonal riders fitted originally and they were removed in an earlier restoration. Her waist was also filled in and her spar deck bulwarks built up during an earlier refit which was supposed to stiffen her and introduce longitudinal strength - a thought shared by Lt. John Lord when he supervised the 1927- 1934 refit.  In reality, all this did was introduce about 16 tons of unneeded stress on her keel (all of which was removed in her most recent refit).

The kit came packaged much better than I remember back in the day... The parts all seem undamaged on initial inspection.
 



 
Might as well jump right in and start with the Bridle Ports:
 
I'll put in a bit of backing behind the ports to give a surface for the styrene sheet that will fill the gap.  


 
Next I'll insert some sheet carefully shaped to fit the openings to eliminate the ports.  
Then I need to lay on a very thin strip to continue the run of the upper wale line.



 
 
Later I'll come back in with some filler and use a heavy grit (80) sandpaper to add some grain.  I've experimented a bit with this and it seems to work reasonably well on my test pieces.

Folks - Here is my rebuilt log of my Plastic Constitution build.  I've copied the entries over from another forum and I reserve the right to alter a few things to clean up previous errors:    
I’ve had a Revell 1/96 USS Constitution fall into my stash at a very reasonable price (Overstock.com) and it seems appropriate to take it on in recognition of the upcoming anniversary of USS Constitution’s victory over HMS Guerriere on August 19.
 
I’ve been spewing forth much hot air in defense of the Michel Felice Corne paintings and their representation of the ship as she first burst into glory against HMS Guerriere, so I feel obligated to back up my tirades with action. I’ll try to make this version align very closely to what we see in these paintings commissioned by Captain Hull immediately after his victory

(https://picasaweb.google.com/106997252788973852335/PEMMichelFeliceCorneGuerrierePaintings'>https://picasaweb.google.com/106997252788973852335/PEMMichelFeliceCorneGuerrierePaintings).
This does mean that I’ll set aside my Heller HMS Victory build for a time - I haven’t lost a bit of enthusiasm for that project - but I’ll apply what I learn in this new effort towards making that one better down the line.
 
Like many of us (most of us?) I’ve built this kit before... a few decades (or more) back. It seems to have been almost a rite of passage for anyone wanting to take ship modeling seriously. I’ll call that one the MK 1 version and it still exists in a dusty condition on a high shelf in the garage:

 

 
I was never happy with that earlier effort. Much has happened in the intervening years to improve my chances of making a more representative kit - most notably the proliferation of great information on the internet to inform my approach.
 
This venerable kit was originally issued back... well, back before some of us were born(!)... and I think it still holds up well. Certainly there is plenty of flash and injection moulding marks that we don't see in modern kits, but the kit still makes up into an impressive display as we can see in the various log entries across this forum.  It seems to be a copy of the 1/48 George Campbell plan model in the Smithsonian collection (http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/sail/constitution-48-sm/con-index.html'>http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/sail/constitution-48-sm/con-index.html) - which itself is a refinement of the famous Hull model built by the crew and presented to Captain Hull following his victory over Guerriere

(https://picasaweb.google.com/106997252788973852335/PEMUSSConstitutionHullModel'>https://picasaweb.google.com/106997252788973852335/PEMUSSConstitutionHullModel).
We see plenty of similarities in the bow and stern between the models and the Revell color guide somewhat follows the original. So the question becomes - does this Revell kit align well to the configuration of the Constitution when she earned her “Old Ironsides” moniker against HMS Guerriere? Well, strictly speaking no... In fact, if built OOB it would not actually represent Constitution as she was configured in any of her wartime cruises. There is a critical difference between the historic model and her modern copy - the Hull model shows 15 gun ports on each side of her gun deck (although the forward most are a bit too far forward) and the Revell kit shows 16. The difference is explained by this journal entry from Frederick Baury - one of Constitution’s midshipmen:
 
21 Sep 1812  Carpenters cutting bridle ports in bows ‑‑ Lieutenant Morgan and Midshipman Taylor left on recruiting duty.
 
After returning to Boston following the battle, Isaac Hull resigned and command was handed over to the much despised William Bainbridge. He proceeded to make a few changes including the addition of “bridle ports” up forward to help in towing, anchoring, and to potentially serve as bow chaser positions. Unlike the guidance provided by the Revell instructions, these positions would not normally have had a gun mounted. If needed during a chase, a nearby 24-pounder would be hauled into one of these spots to lob a few shots and try for a lucky hit to take out a spar and slow down the prey. To that end Bainbridge made another change as outlined by Commander Tyrone Martin in his overview of Constitution’s armament:
 
Following his succession to command of the ship on 15 September 1812, Commodore William Bainbridge eliminated the 18-pounder, simplifying his ammunition loading and handling problem by dropping one caliber. The gun had been virtually useless, anyway, since the ship's bow structure was not well suited to the accommodation of a chase gun.
 
Bainbridge may have been a jerk of a human being, but he was an astute naval commander and he thought it made more sense to offload the 18 pdr chase gun and make room to store more 24 pdr ammunition for his main guns.
So the 16 gun ports and the spar deck bow chaser as provided in the kit could not co-exist. The easiest solution to bring things into alignment is to ditch the bow chaser and the two forward main deck guns and call it a day. You’d likely have the correct representation of Constitution’s configuration when she scored her victory over HMS Java. Since I am trying to show her during the battle with HMS Guerriere, I will preserve the bow chaser gun, but I will need to take the drastic step of filling in the forward bridle ports. 
 
If you want to represent her last war cruise under Charles Stewart, then you’ll have to revisit the carronades on the spar deck. Here again Commander Martin provides some insight:
 
[Charles Stewart] reduced the number of carronades to twenty and added two 24-pounder "shifting gunades" recently captured from the British by an American privateer. Designed by Sir William Congreve in 1814, each was 8' 6" long, but being of thinner barrel construction weighed only about 5000 pounds on carriage. The design was an attempt to combine the range of a long gun with the lighter weight of a carronade. The pair sat on carriages like the long guns, and it was expected that, since they were lighter, they could readily be shifted from side to side as combat required.
 

 
 
Apparently Stewart had the two forward most and two aft most carronades removed and replaced with one each of the newfangled gunnades. I have no idea how these actually looked when mounted on a carriage, but it might be possible to find slightly over scale carronade barrels and mount them to the two gun carriages no longer needed on the main gun deck. Oh, and you’d also need to paint her with a yellow band - that is well documented.
 
Regarding the carronades... As represented in the kit with the wooden quoins, these would seem to be rather quaint. The carriages on the foredeck with their small trucks would also seem to be inappropriate for 1812. Certainly by the time of Trafalgar it would be more typical for a carronade to be mounted with a pin to the bulwark with trajectory controlled by an elevation screw. I think Karl Heinz Marquardt addresses these same concerns in his AOTS book since the restored ship has these outmoded versions still represented. I’ll optimistically try to modify all of the carronades to include the elevation screws and eliminate the funky rolling carriages on the foredeck.
 
Many folks get caught up in the various permutations of the stern gallery windows. Were there six or five?... or three or eight? The Hull model shows six, but the Corne paintings have five... I’m frankly not concerned either way. I assume there were many chances for the configuration to have changed across the years as different commanders supervised different refits within different time and budget limitations. Perhaps Hull and his crew replaced the six windows with only five after destroying the original gallery windows during their escape from Broke’s squadron (they axed out the windows and some of the transom to position guns to fire at their pursuers). Maybe there were always six and Corne got this wrong. Nobody knows the truth and we likely never will... I’m fine with working with the six depicted on the kit.
 
The rudder on this kit is a bit perplexing... It is moulded with wood grain without any copper plating represented. Hmmm... That doesn’t seem correct. I’ll ponder the idea of putting some of my extra styrene strips to work and setting that right.
 
Of course the kit provided plastic eyelets and rings are worthless - easily broken and a bit over scale. Those will be replaced with wire or PE versions. Somehow I managed to not break any of the plastic hammock cranes on my first effort all those years ago, but I’ll replace those with ones fashioned from brass micro-tubing and Jotika eyelets. Some of the thinner spars are also vulnerable to bending/breakage. I’ll try to shape some brass rod for replacements. I’ll need to carefully consider the moulded blocks - some may be usable or otherwise converted to usefulness. I suspect I’ll replace most with online purchases. The gun port lids will be omitted altogether - the Hull model and the credible paintings of the period (including the Corne series) don’t show them mounted (although the Hull model has a lid for the forward most ports).
 
The pre-formed ratlines, moulded deadeyes, and vacuum formed sails will not be utilized. ‘Nuff said. As for the accuracy of the rig represented in the kit... I am having trouble finding a stable representation of her complete masting and rigging layout. The 1817 Charles Ware diagram may be about the best, but as Marquardt points out it differs in some respects to other seemingly authoritative sources. It is also interesting to note that the Corne paintings are showing crows feet rigged... that is unique. At least it appears that the trysail mast (immediately abaft the mizzen) is authentic - records indicate that Isaac Hull had this added to allow better movement for the boom and gaff. The Hull model clearly shows it fitted as well. I’ll worry more about the rigging when I’m much closer to that phase, but in the meantime I’ll probably fork over the $60 bucks for the Bluejacket manual set and perhaps rely on that for guidance...
 
The biggest bugaboo in this kit is the multi-part decking. Ugh... The forums are full of attempts to mitigate the unsightly seams with various levels of success. Some folks just don’t worry about them at all and instead try to make the rest of the deck interesting enough to be distracting. I’ve even seen one modeler glue “battens” over them and pass them off as a “feature”. My first attempt was relatively successful in aligning the deck sections and eliminating any meaningful gap, but I was hesitant to fill and sand because I was trying to preserve the moulded wood grain detail. I was attempting to follow the “Les Wilkins” method of using a razor or low-grit sandpaper to remove the top layer of tan paint to reveal the base coat of black and highlight the grain (guidance that is also provided in the Revell instructions). I’ve since decided that the grain is a bit overdone at this scale and it’d be best to smooth everything down and use shades of paint and perhaps some artist pencils to impart the wood tones. Eliminating the seams is more important than preserving the grain.
 
There are many fine efforts out there... Here’s one that inspires - well known to those of us who prowl the web for impressive builds:
http://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=11091&sid=a22ea2a7adc8efe9b2fcffd0273bb134'>http://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=11091&sid=a22ea2a7adc8efe9b2fcffd0273bb134
Other useful online resources:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/war1812/atsea/con-guer.htm'>http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/war1812/atsea/con-guer.htm
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/46/46021.htm'>http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/46/46021.htm
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/sailing_ships/constitution/uss_constitution.htm'>http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/sailing_ships/constitution/uss_constitution.htm
http://www.hazegray.org/features/constitution/'>http://www.hazegray.org/features/constitution/
http://navysite.de/ships/consttour.htm'>http://navysite.de/ships/consttour.htm
http://www.captainsclerk.info/'>http://www.captainsclerk.info/
 
Here are some of the modifications I hope to incorporate along the way:
Customized elements:
Fill in the forward Bridle ports.
Thicken the gunport sills.
Add a scratch built galley stove.
Show the anchor cable/messenger cable rigged on the gun deck.
Display Carronades with elevation screws.
Replace rolling carronade carriages with lug mounted versions.
Copper plating on the rudder.
Hammock Cranes fashioned from brass micro-tubing.
Brass Rod for delicate spars.
New capstan on spar deck (and gun deck).
 
Paint scheme (guidance from Corne paintings and Hull model):
Yellow ochre band ending up forward in a scalloped half-circle.
White trim on bow and stern details.
Red gallery windows. 
Red gunport sills/linings,
Green interior bulwarks on spar deck.
White bulwarks on the gun deck.
Green deck coamings/furniture on spar deck.
Yellow ochre lower masts with “natural” above.
Tops in Black.
Black bowsprit with “natural” jib boom.
 
Let the fun begin.

Well, here goes....
 

 
I probably shouldn't be leading with  close-up of such a finicky detailed part. In fact, I should probably have the clumsy hands who carried out this messy paint job flogged through the fleet. But it really doesn't look too bad from a distance. I may fool with it a bit more. Lurking here has certainly given me a  new perspective about what is possible with patience and perseverance. Unfortunately, talent seems to be required as well. 
 
But first things first. My name is Paul. I'm from Rochester, Minnesota, USA. It seems that many here in MSW are very familiar with this kit. In Force9's incredible Build Log he describes it as a "rite of passage". I guess that fits with how I feel about the project. I'm getting a glimpse of how much more there is to the "World" of ship modeling. Than what I thought when I started out with this kit. 
 
I thought I should start with a post about the kit itself. I actually started this kit over 35 years ago. Actually,  I opened the box,  checked out the instructions, checked out a few books from the library about ship modeling, and the frigate's history. I got bogged down in "Paralysis of analysis", and set the kit aside, always meaning to finish it someday. 
 
Then my life happened. One marriage, two kids, two houses, two dogs, and two jobs later, I find myself in an empty nest, nearing retirement, and stuck at home with COVID restrictions. And my thoughts turned back to that Constitution kit. "It must be around here somewhere!". But no, somewhere it fell by the wayside. I shudder to think that somebody (maybe one of you) picked it up for $5 at garage sale. 
 
So I started looking for another kit. I thought a wooden kit might be nice. Sticker shock! Maybe better to start with something small and plastic. I spent a couple of days in a state of confusion over 1:96 vs. 1:196. The more I looked the more I became convinced that what I wanted was what I had. The Constitution is a noble ship, handsome and rich in history and american pride. 
 
That decision made, I started looking for it. Amazon has a listing for it but flagged "not available, we don't know when this item will be available". The Revell site has no mention of it. So I figured it is "out of print". Does anybody know for sure what the deal is? There actually seem to be plenty of these kits around. Perhaps, like Disney, they put the molds "In the vault" periodically. 
 
At any rate I found a couple on EBay, one in an open box that the seller "thinks has all the parts". But for only a few dollars more, a kit in a sealed box. The concoction of fear that this might be the last kit in the world and the abrupt level-set I got concerning what a serious kit can cost, and my nostalgia for wanting what I once had,  convinced me to pay more than I should have, perhaps. 
 
Here is the obligatory box photo: 
I just hope I can do her justice. 
 
I'm about three weeks into my build, and I hope to get this log caught up in an orderly way over the next few days. Thanks for reading this far, and coming along with me on this voyage. 
 
Paul  

It is interesting how an official report attempts to put the best spin on what both sides would seem to agree was a bloody repulse. Amazing how these privateers - which generally weren't heavily manned - were able to hold off such assaults... Reid's crew did even better in the famous incident in the Azores near the end of the war.
 
Great to read thru these accounts.
 
Evan

Another similar fight, this time between two schooners of war, being the battle between the American Privateer Decatur, of Charleston, SC, and HMS Dominica. This is taken from a scanned classic "The History of American Privateers" by Edmond Stanton Maclay. The formatting is weird, and the the scanners misspelled many words, but still ... I corrected as much as I could. Note that plans of the Dominica appear in Howard Chapelle's "The Search For Speed Under Sail":
 
 
"The Dominica was a three-masted schooner carry- ing twelve short 12-pounders, two long 6-pounders, one brass 4-pounder, and a short 32-pounder on a pivot. She was manned by eighty-eight men and boys. On September 4, 1812, this cruiser captured the 8-gun armed schooner Providence, Captain N. Hopkins, of Providence. The Providence is not credited with any prizes, being taken shortly after leaving port. In the chase of ten hours, Captain Hopkins had thrown overboard all his guns on the leeward side. At the time the Dominica fell in with the Decatur she had under her convoy the Government packet ship Princess Charlotte, from St. Thomas for England, and the merchantman London Trader, from Surinam homeward bound. The Princess Charlotte carried a formidable armament, and the London Trader also was well armed. The Decatur left port in the summer of 1813 on a general cruise against British commerce, and early in August she was in the track of British West India traders homeward bound. Early on the morning of August 5th, when in latitude 23 4' north, longi- tude 67 0' west, or a little to the south of the Bermudas, the Decatur was heading northward under easy sail, hoping for some prize to appear. About 10.30 A. M. the man at the masthead reported a sail bearing away to the south, and shortly afterward another, steering in the same direction, was sighted. Captain Diron promptly tacked southward, with a view of getting the weather gauge of the strangers, so that, should they prove to be British cruisers, he would have the advantage in a chase. This precaution was rendered doubly necessary, as the fact of two vessels cruising in company rendered it prob- able that they were the enemy's sloops of war, for so astonishing had been the victories of the little American navy, and so appalled had the British pub- lic become at the results of the war as far as it pertained to their navy, that their Lordships of the Admiralty had directed British 38-gun frigates to avoid the dreaded American 44-gun ships, while their sloops of war were to sail in pairs. For this reason Captain Diron approached the strangers with caution, knowing that there was a strong probability of their being a couple of Brit- ish sloops of war. The danger of approaching a stronger force, however, did not prevent the Americans from coming to closer range, and at 11 A. M. it was seen that the sails were a ship and a schooner, which, on making out the sails of the Decatur, had changed their course to the north so as to meet her. The three vessels slowly reduced the distance between them, and at 12.30 P. M. the Decatur, having secured a position a little to windward, and being almost within gunshot, wore round and ran a little to leeward, upon which the schooner showed English colors. Captain Diron was now satisfied that he had an English war schooner to deal with and that the ship was under its protection. Half an hour later he wore again, still keeping the weather gauge, and about 1.30 P. M. the stranger fired a shot, which fell short. Knowing that the British commander had a heavier armament than the privateer, but believing that he had the greater number of men to man his ship, Captain Diron determined to have the fight at the closest quarters, and to carry the Englishman by boarding. Accordingly he cleared for action, sent his men to quarters, loaded all his guns, and hoisted American colors. To make sure that no man could leave his post and run below, Captain Diron, after having got all his ammunition, water, sand, etc., on deck, ready for instant use, ordered all the hatches closed. It was the plan of the Americans to get as close to the enemy as possible before firing a shot, deliver their entire broadside and a volley from their small arms, and then to board in the smoke. In order to secure the British ship alongside grappling irons were in readiness to be thrown aboard.
 
Having made all his arrangements for the battle, Captain Diron about 2 P. M. wore ship, with a view of passing under the stern of the enemy and giving a raking fire, but as the schooners neared each other the Englishman luffed and gave his broadside, most of the shot passing over the American. This is only  another indication of the overconfidence of the British naval officer in this war. So confident was Lieutenant Barrett of taking the American that he ordered his gunners to aim at the Yankee's rigging so as to prevent her from running. But if this was the Englishman's motive in firing so high he soon had cause to repent it, for at 2.15 P. M. the Americans began the fire of their long torn, and as it was aimed with coolness and deliberation, within half- gunshot distance, the effect in so small a vessel was serious, disabling several of the Englishman's guns, besides injuring many men. At all events, it speedily changed the English commander's tactics, and the few guns that remained mounted on that side were now trained on the privateer's hull. The destructive work done by the American's long torn, however, had given Captain Diron the advantage, and, so far from evincing a disposition to run away, he soon discovered that that was the purpose of his opponent, and in order to prevent it he filled away so as to bring his bowsprit over the enemy's stern. The English endeavored to frustrate this by directing a whole broadside at the advancing Yankee, but they were too excited, or their gun- nery was so poor that the shot did little or no execution. Had they taken good aim the effect of those guns at such a short distance would have been terrific. The Decatur could respond to this fire only with her long torn, but as that was discharged with the usual skill and coolness of American gunners it effected far greater damage than the Englishman's broadside. It was now 3 P. M., and the vessels were so near to each other that the voices of the officers aboard the British ship, urging their men to renewed energy, could be distinctly heard. Captain Diron then order his boarders to leave their guns and assemble forward, arm themselves with muskets and cutlasses, and be in readiness to spring upon the enemy's decks. 1813. The British at this stage of the battle evidently realized the seriousness of the fight, for their officers could be heard warning their gunners to take better aim, and to fire into the Yankee's hull instead of his rigging, as heretofore. The result of this admonition was seen in the effect of the next broadside which the enemy delivered. The shots hulled the Decatur, killed two of her crew, and materially injured her sails and rigging. This broadside did more damage than all the others. It also prevented Captain Diron from carrying out his plan of boarding; for, some of his ropes being severed, his sails became temporarily unmanageable.
 
Repairs were quickly made, and, though foiled in their attempt to board, the Americans renewed the action with their long torn and 12-pounder, believing that an opportunity would yet be offered them to settle the fight on the Englishman's deck. After delivering their first effective fire, the Englishmen filled away so as to prevent the Americans from boarding, while Captain Diron doggedly followed close under their stern, determined to board at any cost. In this way, bow to stern, the two craft ran several minutes, neither side being able to main- tain a very effective fire. The Americans now made another attempt to board, but it was frustrated in the same manner as the first. But the last move made by the British schooner, in her endeavor to avoid boarding, gave the Decatur the advantage in sailing, and, persisting in following close in the wake of his enemy, Captain Diron finally had the satisfaction of seeing his craft gradually overhaul the Englishman. Again he called for his boarders, and at 3.30 P. M. the Decatur ran her bow- sprit over the enemy's stern, her jib boom piercing the Englishman's mainsail. This was the signal for the Americans to board, and while some of them poured in a heavy fire of musketry others, led by Vincent Safitt, the prize master, and Thomas Wasborn, the quartermaster, clambered along the bow- sprit and sprang to the Englishman's deck. Then began a terrible scene of slaughter and bloodshed. The two crews were soon intermingled in an inextricable mass, which the narrow decks of the schooner kept compact as long as the struggle lasted. Nearly two hundred men and boys armed with pistols, cutlasses, and muskets were now shout- ing, yelling, and cheering, and slashing at each other in a space not more than twenty feet wide and eighty feet long. One of the first to fall on the side of the enemy was their gallant commander, Lieutenant Barrett, a young man not more than twenty-five years old, who had conducted himself from the beginning of the fight with conspicuous gallantry, notwithstand- ing his contempt for the Yankee sailor. He had received a bad wound early in the action, two musket balls having passed through the left arm. But this did not prevent him from remaining at his post. He was urged several times by his surviving officers to surrender, but refused to do so, avowing his deter- mination not to survive the loss of his vessel. A few moments before he received his fatal wound he severely injured one of the American officers with a saber cut. The sailing master, Isaac Backer, and the purser, David Brown, of the Dominica, also were killed, while Midshipmen William Archer and Wil- liam Parry were wounded. In fact, the only English officers not killed or wounded were the surgeon and one midshipman. It was not until eighteen of the Dominica's crew were killed and forty-two wounded that the few survivors were induced to surrender. A total of sixty killed or wounded in a crew of eighty-eight fully attests the desperate nature of the struggle and the gallantry of the men against whom the Americans fought. Even with this appalling percentage of killed and wounded the Englishmen can not be reported as having surrendered for the Americans hauled down the colors with their own hands. On the part of the privateer five men were killed and fifteen wounded, which disparity of casualties is to be ascribed solely to the superior sea- manship of Captain Diron and the better marksman- ship of the Americans, both with the cannon and small arms. That this was in truth a battle royal will be seen by comparing it with the regular naval actions between sloops of war in the conflict:
 
While the battle between the American privateer and the British cruiser was raging the commander of the Princess Charlotte did not deem it his place to take part in the fight, and for over an hour remained a passive spectator. But as soon as it was seen that the American was the victor the Princess Charlotte tacked to the south, and by sunset had disappeared. She had left St. Thomas for England, and was to be under the escort of the Dominica until well clear of the American coast, when she had intended to proceed on her voyage alone. Arriving in Eng- land, the commander of the packet reported that he had left " the Dominica in hot pursuit of a Yankee privateer." As soon as victory was assured Captain Diron employed all the men he could in repairing damages; for capturing a ship and taking her safely into port when the coasts of the United States were swarming with British cruisers were two very distinct achievements. Having given the dead a sailor's burial, and having attended the wounded (the English receiv- ing quite as much attention as the Americans), Captain Diron headed for Charleston. The Decatur and the Dominica made land near Georgetown, and running down the coast crossed Charleston bar safely August 20th, the Dominica appearing under the colors she had taken from the Providence. For several days before two English brigs of war had been hovering off the port; but, fortunately, on the day Captain Diron approached they had been drawn off in chase to the south. Arriving in port, Captain Diron heard that the British merchant ship London Trader had arrived safely at Savannah. This ship had been sailing in company with the Dominica and the Princess Charlotte when they fell in with the bold Decatur. The London Trader made her escape while the American privateer was engaged in fighting the Dominica, but on the following day Captain Diron fell in with and captured her. She had on board a cargo consisting of two hundred and nine hogsheads of sugar, one hundred and forty tierces of molasses, fifty-five hogsheads of rum, seven hundred bags of coffee, and sixty bales of cotton. Captain George Coggeshall, who commanded several privateers in this war, happened to be in Charleston about the time the Decatur entered that port with her prize, and, in conversation with the captors and prisoners, learned many details of this action. He said: "The surviving officers of the Dominica attributed the loss of their vessel to the superior skill of the Decatur's crew in the use of musketry and to Captain Diron's adroit manner in maneuvering his schooner during the action, which rendered the Englishman's carriage guns in a manner almost useless. It was acknowledged by the English prisoners that during their captivity they were treated with great kindness and humanity by Captain Diron, his officers and crew, and that the utmost care and attention were paid to the sick and wounded. The crew of the captured vessel were all fine-looking young men. There were among them eight or ten boys. To see this youthful crew on their arrival at Charleston in their mangled condition was enough to freeze the blood with horror of any person not accustomed to such sanguinary scenes. Among the crew was a small boy, not eleven years old, who was twice wounded while contending for victory on the deck of the Dominica. I saw daily one of the wounded English midshipmen with his arm in a sling, who had the privilege of walking about the city on his parole of honor." The Dominica subsequently was fitted out as a privateer, carrying four guns and thirty-six men, but on May 23, 1814, she was captured by the British ship of the line Majestic. In November, 1813, the Decatur got to sea again, but after a cruise of eighty days she returned to Charleston without having taken one vessel. She made another venture in this war, but was captured June 5, 1814, by the British Frigate Rhin off Mona Passage, after a chase of eleven hours."
 

 
Two modern depictions of the fight:
 

 

 
The Privateer Decatur in a contemporary engraving. Now that's what I call a long tom!
 

 
 
 
 

Great to see all of this insight…
 
I think the comment about NAM Rodgers suggesting that the more powerful frigate generally won is more telling than we realize.  In fact, it goes to the core of what rocked the Royal Navy in the initial stanza of the naval war.  They were used to WINNING single ship actions where the opponent was oftentimes more powerful.  Their annals are full of French and Spanish frigates yielding to less powerful British opponents during the Napoleonic era. The Royal Navy fully expected to win when an American heavy frigate hove into view.  Captain Dacres of the Guerriere admonished his crew that he would be very disappointed if Constitution did not surrender within 30 minutes. That didn’t turn out so well. The memo eventually issued to all RN captains that they were forbidden by admiralty directive to engage an American Constitution class frigate one on one was seismic.
 
The harsh reality that James tried to address was that American crews were generally as good – and oftentimes better – than their British counterparts.  He attributed that to the high percentage of seasoned Tars that had defected from the RN.  Perhaps.  But America already had a vast seafaring population of experienced professionals – officers included.  Preble’s Boys were hitting their prime and had been battle tested.  Mixing in seasoned hands that had trained in the RN made the USN a more powerful adversary to England in a way that the French and Spanish could not match.  The social, economic, and political upheavals that had torn through Europe left the Continental navies at a distinct disadvantage when trying to muster officers and crews that could meet the level of battle efficiency needed to compete consistently with the RN on the high seas.  Not so in the United States.  And the Royal Navy didn’t acknowledge that reality and were not initially prepared for the investment in resources that would be needed to contain the American frigates.  They never really did find a solution for the Wasp and other non-frigates.
 
I see that Morgan has inadvertently tripped a wire to set me off on another tangent… I would not recommend any money be spent on Andrew Lambert and his ‘The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812’   Gawd do I hate that book.  I see it as an example of the very worst sort of manipulative history.  Full of deep scholarship by a well credentialed professor that distorts everything to drive a preconceived alternative history.  I don’t think Lambert is an idiot landsman who doesn’t understand his subject.  On the contrary – I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he twisted reality to match the axe he had to grind.  I think he saw an opportunity to insert himself into the War of 1812 bicentennial to give the “British Perspective” without regard to the wider historical perspective that legitimate modern historians had developed.  Simply put, Lambert over-inflates the British victories (land and sea) and under-inflates the American ones.  He over-inflates the American defeats and under-inflates the British ones.  His conclusions are wrong and presented out of proper context. Broke and the Shannon rightly deserve recognition for their professional victory of arms – the best prepared crew won the fight.  But the hagiography of Phillip Broke that lies at the heart of Lambert’s narrative creates a magnetic field that warps all sense of reality around everything else.  The incredible fights highlighted by the privateers in this thread barely gain a mention.  I think at some point Lambert literally says something like ‘In September the privateer General Armstrong was destroyed at Fayal…’  That’s it.  No other context.
 
This review by the well-regarded Piers Brendon in the Independent sums it up pretty well: 
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-challenge-britain-against-america-in-the-naval-war-of-1812-by-andrew-lambert-7827277.html

Great to see all of this insight…
 
I think the comment about NAM Rodgers suggesting that the more powerful frigate generally won is more telling than we realize.  In fact, it goes to the core of what rocked the Royal Navy in the initial stanza of the naval war.  They were used to WINNING single ship actions where the opponent was oftentimes more powerful.  Their annals are full of French and Spanish frigates yielding to less powerful British opponents during the Napoleonic era. The Royal Navy fully expected to win when an American heavy frigate hove into view.  Captain Dacres of the Guerriere admonished his crew that he would be very disappointed if Constitution did not surrender within 30 minutes. That didn’t turn out so well. The memo eventually issued to all RN captains that they were forbidden by admiralty directive to engage an American Constitution class frigate one on one was seismic.
 
The harsh reality that James tried to address was that American crews were generally as good – and oftentimes better – than their British counterparts.  He attributed that to the high percentage of seasoned Tars that had defected from the RN.  Perhaps.  But America already had a vast seafaring population of experienced professionals – officers included.  Preble’s Boys were hitting their prime and had been battle tested.  Mixing in seasoned hands that had trained in the RN made the USN a more powerful adversary to England in a way that the French and Spanish could not match.  The social, economic, and political upheavals that had torn through Europe left the Continental navies at a distinct disadvantage when trying to muster officers and crews that could meet the level of battle efficiency needed to compete consistently with the RN on the high seas.  Not so in the United States.  And the Royal Navy didn’t acknowledge that reality and were not initially prepared for the investment in resources that would be needed to contain the American frigates.  They never really did find a solution for the Wasp and other non-frigates.
 
I see that Morgan has inadvertently tripped a wire to set me off on another tangent… I would not recommend any money be spent on Andrew Lambert and his ‘The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812’   Gawd do I hate that book.  I see it as an example of the very worst sort of manipulative history.  Full of deep scholarship by a well credentialed professor that distorts everything to drive a preconceived alternative history.  I don’t think Lambert is an idiot landsman who doesn’t understand his subject.  On the contrary – I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he twisted reality to match the axe he had to grind.  I think he saw an opportunity to insert himself into the War of 1812 bicentennial to give the “British Perspective” without regard to the wider historical perspective that legitimate modern historians had developed.  Simply put, Lambert over-inflates the British victories (land and sea) and under-inflates the American ones.  He over-inflates the American defeats and under-inflates the British ones.  His conclusions are wrong and presented out of proper context. Broke and the Shannon rightly deserve recognition for their professional victory of arms – the best prepared crew won the fight.  But the hagiography of Phillip Broke that lies at the heart of Lambert’s narrative creates a magnetic field that warps all sense of reality around everything else.  The incredible fights highlighted by the privateers in this thread barely gain a mention.  I think at some point Lambert literally says something like ‘In September the privateer General Armstrong was destroyed at Fayal…’  That’s it.  No other context.
 
This review by the well-regarded Piers Brendon in the Independent sums it up pretty well: 
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-challenge-britain-against-america-in-the-naval-war-of-1812-by-andrew-lambert-7827277.html

Great to see all of this insight…
 
I think the comment about NAM Rodgers suggesting that the more powerful frigate generally won is more telling than we realize.  In fact, it goes to the core of what rocked the Royal Navy in the initial stanza of the naval war.  They were used to WINNING single ship actions where the opponent was oftentimes more powerful.  Their annals are full of French and Spanish frigates yielding to less powerful British opponents during the Napoleonic era. The Royal Navy fully expected to win when an American heavy frigate hove into view.  Captain Dacres of the Guerriere admonished his crew that he would be very disappointed if Constitution did not surrender within 30 minutes. That didn’t turn out so well. The memo eventually issued to all RN captains that they were forbidden by admiralty directive to engage an American Constitution class frigate one on one was seismic.
 
The harsh reality that James tried to address was that American crews were generally as good – and oftentimes better – than their British counterparts.  He attributed that to the high percentage of seasoned Tars that had defected from the RN.  Perhaps.  But America already had a vast seafaring population of experienced professionals – officers included.  Preble’s Boys were hitting their prime and had been battle tested.  Mixing in seasoned hands that had trained in the RN made the USN a more powerful adversary to England in a way that the French and Spanish could not match.  The social, economic, and political upheavals that had torn through Europe left the Continental navies at a distinct disadvantage when trying to muster officers and crews that could meet the level of battle efficiency needed to compete consistently with the RN on the high seas.  Not so in the United States.  And the Royal Navy didn’t acknowledge that reality and were not initially prepared for the investment in resources that would be needed to contain the American frigates.  They never really did find a solution for the Wasp and other non-frigates.
 
I see that Morgan has inadvertently tripped a wire to set me off on another tangent… I would not recommend any money be spent on Andrew Lambert and his ‘The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812’   Gawd do I hate that book.  I see it as an example of the very worst sort of manipulative history.  Full of deep scholarship by a well credentialed professor that distorts everything to drive a preconceived alternative history.  I don’t think Lambert is an idiot landsman who doesn’t understand his subject.  On the contrary – I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he twisted reality to match the axe he had to grind.  I think he saw an opportunity to insert himself into the War of 1812 bicentennial to give the “British Perspective” without regard to the wider historical perspective that legitimate modern historians had developed.  Simply put, Lambert over-inflates the British victories (land and sea) and under-inflates the American ones.  He over-inflates the American defeats and under-inflates the British ones.  His conclusions are wrong and presented out of proper context. Broke and the Shannon rightly deserve recognition for their professional victory of arms – the best prepared crew won the fight.  But the hagiography of Phillip Broke that lies at the heart of Lambert’s narrative creates a magnetic field that warps all sense of reality around everything else.  The incredible fights highlighted by the privateers in this thread barely gain a mention.  I think at some point Lambert literally says something like ‘In September the privateer General Armstrong was destroyed at Fayal…’  That’s it.  No other context.
 
This review by the well-regarded Piers Brendon in the Independent sums it up pretty well: 
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-challenge-britain-against-america-in-the-naval-war-of-1812-by-andrew-lambert-7827277.html

Hello Mark!
 
The timing of your note is impeccable... I've just now started to pull everything out to assess how to restart my project.  I've left off exactly where you last saw an update, so there is much yet to do.
 
Apologies to yourself and others who've been looking for new updates... My health has been fine and the family is good (thanks to those who've asked in the background) - it is the other culprit to blame for the project downtime - Work.  The company I work for was acquired almost exactly a year ago in a very public transaction involving gazillions of dollars... The new leadership offered me an expanded role with a bunch more money, but it required that I relocate my family to the east coast to be near the corporate headquarters.  My kids are early in their high school tenures and are absolutely thriving - great academically, great extracurricular activities, and great social circles.  It seemed like a tough time to rock their world, so I had to respectfully decline the opportunity - but I had the luxury of a very generous severance package.  In the intervening period, however, there was much travelling back to the corporate office and other locations and a concerted effort to help map out the necessary steps to combine various systems/platforms and define the future roadmap before I finally "off boarded" (the polite euphemism for such exits).  I'm only a few weeks into my freedom and have finally decompressed enough to reorganize my workshop and start to get Old Ironsides back on track. (I also had a jury duty stint in there somewhere!)
 
I'll be starting in again on the cannon and I have yet to finish the chains, but I hope to have some progress to share in the next few weeks.  Hopefully the ideas will begin to flow again and more of the "first rate adjunct research" from the other forum members will resurface.
 
Many thanks for the patience from you and others and I'm looking forward to setting sail again.
 
Regards,
Evan

Ahoy...

Apologies for the long interlude... Had some computer issues and had to upgrade my system to get back on track.

I have made some progress on cleats, dead eyes and such and will post some pictures soon. In the meantime, I had a nice visit last week to the US Naval Academy museum... They have the other set of the Michel Felice Corne paintings of the Constitution vs Guerriere battle that were commissioned by Captain Hull. These are exquisite and I think I stared at them for at least 30 minutes:

The series is hung in a bit of a jumble, but very visible.








Here are some details of the stern. The ventilation ports under the counter are clearly visible - I'm glad I added those to my version.




Rigging detail:



Here is a detailed view from the Corne painting of the Tripoli campaign:


The basement of the museum contains the gift store and the model maintenance workshop. It turns out that if you stare through the viewing window long enough (it helps to have a forlorn puppy dog expression as well) someone in the workshop will take pity and invite you inside for a tour. Jack was extremely generous with his time and showed me all the projects and some of the terrific tools - including a very nice rope serving set up and a clever/inexpensive micro-torch he built for detailed solder work.

At some point I mentioned my own "learner's" project on the Revell Constitution and I was invited into the Curator's office to have a look at a "small Constitution" model kept on top of a file cabinet.





It should be readily apparent that this is no ordinary model. In fact, this is a Donald McNarry masterpiece showing Constitution's early appearance. The pictures don't give a true perception of the small scale... I'd think it is 1/192 or thereabouts (less than half the length of my project) and each element is executed with unfathomable detail. The guns, boats, wire rigging, etc. are all incredible. I urged The curator to find a way to get it on the display floor, but he explained that there is not much room in the current display area for all of the incredible models in the museum collection. Gawd only knows what the thing is worth - especially after the passing of Mr. McNarry.

The museum is a true treasure trove of American history. The collections include the original "Don't Give Up The Ship" flag, the actual table (and tablecloth) used for the Japanese surrender on board the USS Missouri (it was a mess table quickly adapted for use after the beautiful wooden table provided by the British turned out to be too small for the surrender documents), and the spur that snapped off the boot of John Wilkes Booth when he leaped off the balcony and got caught on the flag bunting - breaking his ankle on the landing.

Folks should make the effort to visit Annapolis if at all possible - well worth the side trip from DC!

I'll post some more project pictures later this week to catch everyone up on my progress.

Thanks
Evan

Folks -
 
I thought I should share another source of research material now available... The fine newly updated version of the USS Constitution CD produced by the Naval History & Heritage Command (NHHC).  The CD includes many plans compiled by the Boston Detachment of the NHHC.  It mostly includes copies of Lt John Lord's drawings used for the 1927 restoration.  As such, they are not necessarily pertinent to the 1812 period, but do have some useful drawings of details like whale boats, Anchors, etc.  In particular, there are some historical references also included that I have found very interesting.  Finally, the drawings often include notes and links to sub-references that clarify the differences between the 1927 and 1812-14 versions.
 



 
It should also be pointed out that the updated website for the NHHC/USS Constitution includes a very nice virtual tour of the ship:
 
http://www.history.navy.mil/USSCTour/Movie.html
 
The tour includes links as appropriate to many of the documents/plans included in the new CD.  Click on the FILE REFERENCE tab:
 
http://www.history.navy.mil/USSCTour/frDrawings.html
 
This link contains good stuff!  I highly recommend anyone interested in the great ship to peruse the link and explore the material available...
 
Enjoy!

Back to the build...
 
Spent my last few sessions scratching away at the gun deck to put some semblance of planking in place.
 
I set up the workbench with a bit of old cardboard for the pins underneath the deck to grab onto (and not break off) while I abused the topside.  I clamped the deck down by the bow to hold her steady and proceeded to scribe the decking.
 
The process was relatively simple and I hope I illustrate it well enough.  I used some spare lengths of styrene strips to represent each row of planking to establish the alignment of my straight edge.  I used the existing hatch coamings as the baseline, laid a styrene strip against it, then aligned the straight edge to the strip.  After clamping the edge down, I would remove the temporary styrene and scribe the line.  I would add another temporary strip to the mix to align my edge to the next row of planking... and so on... working from the middle out to the edges.
 




 
For the middle decking I clamped down the straight edge and used the styrene strips for guidance (custom fit for the space)

 
Next I scribed in a four step butt pattern following the guidance of Longridge (pages 120-21).
 
Came back along with a 180 grit sanding block and smoothed down the edges.
 
Took about six hours altogether.

Folks -
 
I should make mention of the sources I have been utilizing for my build...
 
Unfortunately there are no books out there that really satisfy me in every respect - some are certainly better than others, but all seem to have blatant flaws.  The AOTS book by Karl Heinz Marquardt is a well criticized case in point.  He seems to have invented a representation of the ship that is a hybrid between the 1927 restored version and various "historic" representations across the years cobbled together from old photographs, plans of other ships (USS President) and various paintings - not all of which trace to the War of 1812 glory years.  His omission of the Hull model is downright inexplicable.  In Mr. Marquardt's defense, it should be said that he had a much tougher job than McKay did with the AOTS for the HMS Victory.  There are many contemporary sources for the construction and refits of the Victory to reference - and ultimately McKay probably did very little archeological research beyond consulting the well researched restored version of the ship.  Same can be said for Longridge and his Anatomy of Nelson's Ships - it is essentially relying on the restored ship.  Old Ironsides is a more complicated situation - the restored ship is at most a faint glimmer of her War of 1812 configuration... Lt. John Lord seems to have restored her to an "historic" configuration without any deep effort to match her glory years... It seems like somebody tapped him on the shoulder, or otherwise whispered in his ear, and told him that he should focus on restoring the structural integrity of the ship and ensure that nobody had to come back and restore her again within their lifetimes... The historical "accuracy" was almost an afterthought with folks winking and nodding that she was brought back to her War of 1812 appearance.
 
Underlying all of this is the reality that we have very little extant historical documentation of her War of 1812 appearance.  When the newly appointed William Jones took over as Secretary of the Navy amid the War of 1812, he found an underfunded department in shambles with no cohesive record keeping in place to help manage the precious few ships available for battle.  He hired a bunch of extra clerks, reorganized the entire record keeping process, and ordered that all ship construction, maintenance, and provisioning records be forwarded to Washington DC for proper cataloguing.  He utilized these records to carefully dole out the pitiful funds at his disposal where they were most needed.  Unfortunately, this meant that all of these valuable resources (at least for us future ship modelers) went up in flames when the British ungallantly sacked our capitol city and burned the public buildings and the navy yard.  That leaves folks to make assumptions on her war years appearance by extrapolating from when the written records peter out... The 1811 refit undertaken by Isaac Hull is reasonably well documented in journals and logs and is probably reflected in three dimensions by the Hull model in the Peabody Essex museum.  Most experts assume that she carried this configuration deep into the War of 1812 since the only written record to contradict it shows up when Charles Stewart noted in the log that he painted a Yellow stripe on the ship.  The reality is almost certainly something different... The advent of war changed the circumstances completely and likely caused the various captains of USS Constitution to restyle her as a wolf in sheep's clothing... Every captain's dream was to sail into the midst of a large convoy of merchant ships and cut out as many valuable prizes as possible before getting chased off by a ship of the line.  Every instant of doubt that a yellow stripe could introduce would be very helpful.  We see her represented in every credible painting of the period with a yellow stripe.  The record we have from Charles Stewart is interesting... He waited until he was offshore to rig up the painting platforms and repaint the stripe out of sight of prying eyes and informants on shore who might otherwise tip off the British fleet to the deception.  If Hull and/or Bainbridge overpainted the stripe, they likely did it offshore for the same reasons.  For this reason and others, I've elected to refer to the contemporary paintings to guide my project.
 
The only book I anticipate using as a key reference is Howard Chapelle's History of the American Sailing Navy.  In particular I will refer to the plan view of USS President (plate 16 between pgs 265-266) for the positioning of the diagonal knees on the gun deck and the proper placement of the bitts and the various pumps.
 
For the rigging I've gone ahead and purchased the very fine Bluejacket Manual/plan set for their 1/96 wooden kit model:
 




 
The manual includes many historical research notes from Cmdr Tyrone Martin as well as detailed rigging directions.  The real value is added by the terrific scale deck and rigging plans that are included (there are four full size sheets) all produced in 1/96 scale.  Highly recommended.

Lads...
  I've been laboring away at the build but haven't taken many photos along the way... And some that I have taken have gone missing in the nether world of my old hard drive.   I'll pick up here with my progress and get the build log up to snuff.   Firstly, I decided that my original location for the main sheet sheave holes was too far forward.  They really should've been positioned aft a bit - centered in the gap between the main and mizzen shrouds.  So I filled in the first version and laid in a new row of inner planking with rivet detail, etc. and painted it all to match.  Then I redid the sheave holes and moved the cleat.     You'll notice the addition of more cleats along the bulwark.  My understanding is that halyards were NOT tied off to pin rails... Those tie off to cleats or bollards at the ends of the pin rails.  I used the guidance from Olof Eriksen to position appropriate cleats to tie off the various halyards on either port or starboard.  The cleats were quickly fashioned from Styrene I-Beams from Evergreen using the handy Chopper:     Once sliced off of the stock piece, one end would be snipped and the remainder filed to shape and glued into a hole drilled almost thru the bulwark to maximize the surface area for holding power when glued.  After the glue dried, I came back and painted with wood brown.   Deadeyes:     I've got the deadeyes all primed and painted to resemble wood with iron strops and light tarring (just smeared them with a dark wash).  I wanted them to be wood-like- not entirely black.   I've reamed out the holes in the channels and test fitted the initial batch on the fore channel.     You'll also notice that the forward most shroud will lead to a triple block instead of a standard deadeye.  (I've got a test version mocked up for now and should have something in place after I put the solder iron to work on the wire strops.)   The Hull model in the Peabody Essex museum clearly shows the triple blocks fitted on the forward shrouds on the fore and main channels.  The mizzen does NOT have this block - just the standard deadeye.       This contradicts the guidance from Larry Arnot in the BlueJacket kit manual, but Mr. Eriksen confirms this approach against the Brady Naval Apprentice Kedge Anchor (Ed. 1841)  Apparently these first shrouds would be eased or tightened as the ship changed tacks.  As such, Eriksen refers to these as "Swifters" - although that term is a bit ambiguous to me.  I know, for example, that the aft most shrouds on a channel were often referred to as the "Swifters" - they are not paired with another shroud when rigged and seem to have evolved from some sort of backstay in an earlier time.   All part of the mysteries of rigging as I venture forth.   Sorry for the delayed update and thanks again for all the Likes and interest.   Evan

Ahoy...

Apologies for the long interlude... Had some computer issues and had to upgrade my system to get back on track.

I have made some progress on cleats, dead eyes and such and will post some pictures soon. In the meantime, I had a nice visit last week to the US Naval Academy museum... They have the other set of the Michel Felice Corne paintings of the Constitution vs Guerriere battle that were commissioned by Captain Hull. These are exquisite and I think I stared at them for at least 30 minutes:

The series is hung in a bit of a jumble, but very visible.








Here are some details of the stern. The ventilation ports under the counter are clearly visible - I'm glad I added those to my version.




Rigging detail:



Here is a detailed view from the Corne painting of the Tripoli campaign:


The basement of the museum contains the gift store and the model maintenance workshop. It turns out that if you stare through the viewing window long enough (it helps to have a forlorn puppy dog expression as well) someone in the workshop will take pity and invite you inside for a tour. Jack was extremely generous with his time and showed me all the projects and some of the terrific tools - including a very nice rope serving set up and a clever/inexpensive micro-torch he built for detailed solder work.

At some point I mentioned my own "learner's" project on the Revell Constitution and I was invited into the Curator's office to have a look at a "small Constitution" model kept on top of a file cabinet.





It should be readily apparent that this is no ordinary model. In fact, this is a Donald McNarry masterpiece showing Constitution's early appearance. The pictures don't give a true perception of the small scale... I'd think it is 1/192 or thereabouts (less than half the length of my project) and each element is executed with unfathomable detail. The guns, boats, wire rigging, etc. are all incredible. I urged The curator to find a way to get it on the display floor, but he explained that there is not much room in the current display area for all of the incredible models in the museum collection. Gawd only knows what the thing is worth - especially after the passing of Mr. McNarry.

The museum is a true treasure trove of American history. The collections include the original "Don't Give Up The Ship" flag, the actual table (and tablecloth) used for the Japanese surrender on board the USS Missouri (it was a mess table quickly adapted for use after the beautiful wooden table provided by the British turned out to be too small for the surrender documents), and the spur that snapped off the boot of John Wilkes Booth when he leaped off the balcony and got caught on the flag bunting - breaking his ankle on the landing.

Folks should make the effort to visit Annapolis if at all possible - well worth the side trip from DC!

I'll post some more project pictures later this week to catch everyone up on my progress.

Thanks
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

PiperMat
 
Great to see your wonderful Victory on this forum.  Your example of useful jigs will help us all when we reach this stage (assembling and rigging the guns).
 
Terrific work!
 
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