Force9

Great to see the entirety of James’ overview laid out here…
 
I’ve always been a bit confused with William James and his perspective on the Guerriere battle.  He seems to be at odds with Captain Brenton as well as the exultant and often distorted versions of the battle provided in the American press.  To counter these views, he throws in everything he can to reshape the narrative and bring some honor to Dacres and his crew.  But he does seem contradictory as he goes along… He points out, for example, that the Americans had the advantage of hand picked crews (including British citizens that were lured to the other side) and were trained more diligently at gunnery (including using live rounds), while the British crews were a motley bunch that neglected their gunnery… Yet somehow he implies that they would hold their own if the ships were of equal force.
 
There is no doubt that the Constitution was a far more powerful ship than the Guerriere (or any of the frontline British 38 “Heavy” frigates) and would’ve won the battle under almost any circumstance. The listing of disadvantages for the Guerriere include her reduced crew size (even for her rate), the deteriorated condition of her masts, etc., and her lower weight in broadside.  James certainly belabors those deficiencies. Yet none of these factors provided a moment of hesitation for Captain Dacres when Constitution hove into view.  Based on what we now know, you’d think he’d have uttered “Holy Crap Lads!”, turned tail, and set all sail to head in the other direction… He did quite the opposite.  He backed a topsail and waited for Constitution to bear down.  He also admonished the crew that he’d be very disappointed if the enemy ship did not surrender within minutes.  Dacres further had a barrel of molasses hoisted into the fore rigging as a taunt to the Yankees who enjoyed a concoction called “switchel” that included water, rum, and molasses (of course the barrel was blasted apart and covered the foredeck and crew with a gooey glop during the heat of the fight).  All of this suggests that he went into the battle confident that he had a well trained crew and a serviceable battle platform under his feet that was ready for the task at hand.
 
When the rude awakening had settled the issue and Dacres found himself in a court-martial, he and the court whitewashed the reality facing the Royal Navy.  It wasn’t the superiority of the Constitution and her crew that caused defeat.  It was the “accident” of Guerriere losing her rotted mizzen at a critical juncture that decided the outcome.  (No doubt the double-shotted carronades and long guns of the Constitution had much to do with the accident of losing the mizzen.)  James suggests that the Guerriere had not suffered any appreciable damage to that point.  Hogwash.  Dacres testified that he had upwards of 30 shot holes below the waterline in line with the fifth row of copper.  Water was pouring into the ship. This was almost certainly the result of the first coordinated broadside delivered at point blank range by Captain Hull.  The captive master William Orne’s account tells us of bucketsful of blood flowing down the hatches after the initial broadsides.  Chaos likely ruled on the upper decks within minutes of the commencement of the close action. Simply stated, the Guerriere did not belong on the same ocean with an American 44 and was annihilated within 30 or so minutes of very intense close range combat.  Constitution suffered hardly at all.  Even William James had trouble reporting any significant damage to Constitution. He tries to stretch the casualties inflicted on the American crew, but there has never been anything to corroborate his (slightly) inflated total.  And he made no mention that the American officers were certain that Guerriere had many more unaccounted for dead that were likely thrown overboard during and shortly after the fighting.  The crew manifest was chucked overboard along with all other important documents prior to surrender and no cross reference could be made.
 
James (and Andrew Lambert et al) argued that it wasn’t a fair fight.  It wasn’t.  Point conceded.  In fact, Captain Dacres and the Guerriere lost the battle before the Constitution ever left Boston.  The battle was lost years before when Joshua Humphries put pen to paper and convinced the Secretary of War to invest in a more powerful class of frigate to overmatch the common heavy frigates of the European powers – specifically the British 38s.  The designer(s) drew it up so that there wouldn’t be a fair fight.  Of course, the development of a professional American officer corps combined with competent crews and high levels of training provided a critical difference to what the British had come to expect when combating equal or more powerful European opponents.
 
As noted, William James also tosses in other elements to help absolve Captain Dacres and his crew… The Americans, he insists, used sheet lead cartridges to eliminate the need to sponge out the gun and enhance their rate of fire.  I’m not a researcher, but I’ve never seen any independent corroboration of this.  No historical accounting records seem to show such expensive purchases on the books.  We see Spongers listed for each gun crew assigned during William Bainbridge’s command, so that would run counter... Constitution's log after the Guerriere battle notes the death of Robert Brice "through want of precaution in not sponging his gun being blown from the muzzle piece..."  If lead sheet cartridges were in use, it didn't help Bob.  In any case, the math based on Constitution’s ammunition expenditure suggests that her rate of fire was @one discharge every 3 minutes or so.  Not particularly rapid.  The court-martial of Dacres included testimony that Guerriere outshot Constitution by a 3-2 margin.  No one ever disputed that.
 
The question of the national origins of the American crews during the War of 1812 is a common focal point in any historical study.  William James attributes much of the American successes to the large component of natural born Englishmen in the makeup of the crew of the Constitution and other ships.  This may be generally true – I don’t know.  But it usually boils down to the question of naturalization.  The United States has always been a nation of immigrants.  Not only the crews of American ships, but many shop keepers, farmers, and members of the professional class were one generation or less removed from the British empire.  These were largely Irish and Scots who had no love for the Crown and Great Britain.  Irrespective of the legitimacy of any papers carried by American crew to prove citizenship or naturalization, the Royal Navy regarded any native born Englishmen as once and always fair game for impressment.  Seamen with common British surnames were also fair game regardless of the fact that they may have been born in America. William James seems to agree. This was obviously a source of contention with the United States and a key trigger of the war. Many in the Constitution’s crew had served in the Royal Navy under various circumstances – including impressment. These men generally fought well against their former compatriots. Indeed, the “plucky” Irishman Dan Hogan clambered up the rigging during the most intense part of the combat with Guerriere to nail the ensign to the foremast after it was cut loose and threatened to flutter free to the deck.  After the battle, Captain Hull called out his act to the Secretary of the Navy and procured for him an extra months’ pay.  (Dan was later seriously wounded in the Java battle).  James points out that Captain Dacres allowed 7 Americans pressed aboard Guerriere to go below during the battle and assist with the wounded rather than fight their countrymen.  He neglects to highlight that this was after they had sent a delegation to the quarterdeck to request this consideration.  Interestingly, there is no record of a similar delegation approaching Captain Hull.  Bottom line, I don’t think England gets to take credit for providing trained crews to the American navy. James implies that many were trained in gunnery by the RN and coerced or otherwise paid to join the Constitution. I'd say that James should've conceded that their skill in gunnery was largely acquired through repetition on the American ships and they were not loyal Englishmen. Most of these seaman had willingly moved to the American side out of hatred for the Crown and very willingly fought like tigers (Dacres' words) against the Royal Navy.  A few may have been induced to switch sides with financial lures, but that practice was not limited to just one side.  There are likewise accounts of American crews being offered financial inducements to join the Royal Navy after their capture.  Tit for tat.
 
William James’ main motive here was to debunk the idea perpetuated by the victors that Constitution defeated an equal opponent. I think he succeeded in his main thrust. I will, however, give a pass to Hull and his crew for allowing the disparity in relative size and strength to go unheeded.  There was a bunch of prize money to be gained by implying that the Guerriere was of nearly equal force.  A lesser opponent warranted a lesser payout. Having this idea of a comparable opponent perpetuated in the press (and with his commissioned paintings) allowed Hull and his crew to benefit significantly when the checks were doled out…
 
Ultimately the Royal Navy did not focus on the key learning from the loss of the Guerriere. If all that William James contends held true, then he should have argued that Captain Dacres deserved censure by the court for knowingly engaging a superior force with an undermanned ship in very poor condition.  Guerriere should have broken off contact and proceeded immediately to Halifax for her refit. Instead, they absolved the captain and crew and put into the official record James Dacres’ absurd declaration that he would be eager to refight the exact same battle with his ship in peak condition and the same crew.  James seems to do the same. Despite his admonitions about the arrogance and complacency of the Royal Navy with regard to the threat of the American frigates, William James ultimately helped to obscure the true reality of the British situation in 1812… The Americans had taken a very intelligent and measured approach to their naval resources and the RN could not match the overall quality of ships and men on the American side.  Certainly on paper the RN had advantage in numbers and could eventually overwhelm the opposition and bottle up their bigger ships, but this would come at great expense and some sacrifice across other stations.  England was stretched nearly beyond capacity to defend her far reaching empire in time of war.  In truth, they had not enough resources in manpower and materiel to match their needs across multiple fronts.  The merchant class was already under an incredible tax strain and the national debt had reached epic proportions in relation to Great Britain’s GDP.   Further expansion of a war that was not being fought for survival was not particulalrly welcomed on the homefront. The Constitution’s victory over Guerriere portended rough seas ahead for British arms and it took a few more hard lessons before the reality compelled tougher measures and renewed commitment (and additional expenditures) to stabilize the situation.
 

Very happy to see you back.  Your work is inspiring. 

Evan,
I am so very glad you are well and back up on the net.  Your Constitution is an example of what can be done with a dose of passion and a bucketful of patience.  I look forward to your next posts as the pictures and interplay they engender are both a pleasure to read and thought provoking as well.
 
Welcome back,
 
Mark

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

I know too how life gets in the way of leisure and hobbies. I feel lucky if I get a few hours per week to think about and build on my Connie.
 
It is very good to have you back Evan.
 
Dave

*happy*
 
XXXDAn

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

Very glad things are well with you and yours, Evan.  I've enjoyed your build immensely and learned much.

I am sure that I am not the only one to be very glad you are well and that you have taken up the Constitution again.  
 
I will take a moment to thank you for all you have done so far with your build.  Your build log has been most educational and informative.  I can tell you that I look forward with much anticipation and interest in just what you come up with next.
 
Thank you for taking the time to share your build with us.
 
Dan

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

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

Hello everyone,
a few years ago, I finished my most beautiful ship - Sovereign of the Seas and I wished to find another similarly beautiful sailing ship which I would be able to build. There are plenty of glorious boats, but only for a few of them there are avalialbe good plans and exact information. I decided to create and build a card model of Royal Katherine from 1664. I do not have exact plans so I will proceed according to other plans of ships from 17th century - HMS Sussex and HMS Prince and use information from professional literature as well. I like great challenges and connection of fun and education, so I am looking forward to this project very much. The model will be created in the scale of 1/55,  so there is an oportunity to create many details in a higher level of quality.  
During creation of previous models I have received many valuable and professional information about sailing ships, their construction and fitting from one of the greatest experts - Captain K.L. who has taught me a lot and I will also use his advice here.

 
The main build log you can find here:
 
http://modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=110763
 

My four year build log has alas fallen victim to the latest system upgrade, and like the ship she represents is now presumed lost, as Pegasus was in 1777.
To re-instate all the information contained within the orginal log which ran for over 100 pages is a bit of an ask but where I can pick up the information quickly I will include it in this replacement log with priority being given to specific aspects where I have modified the basic kit, to produce the model which is now allbut finished.
My log which was first posted in 2013 lacked much of the earlier stages of the build which had been going since 2010, and this revision will include aspects of the earlier build stages which may assist those embarking on a new Swan build adventure.
I would like to thank all those members who have shown interest in my build over the past four years, and for the many appreciative comments and 'likes' I received. I still can't believe that over 257,000 visits were made to the log, but it is nice to think that it was of use to the membership.
Also thank you to those who have messaged me with kind words about the loss of the original log, and with offers of help.
Hopefully this revised version, risen from the ashes, will continue to provide useful information to the membership, particularly those involved with Swan Class Sloops.
 
B.E.
5th March 2017

I dry fit the Spar Deck today after trimming the partially complete deck beams to make them fit to the bulwarks. The camboose is about as snug as it can be and in fact, the frames are holding it down and the camboose top is giving the deck some needed camber. It will probably have to be lowered or I will have to correct the beams at this area. The Gun Deck can now be completed - manger, anchor cable with messenger to the capstan and canon balls. I am still not sure of what colors to put on the beams. They are a bit glaring right now. I would like to match the color of the inner bulwarks for the beams bottom and sides but a neutral grey or contrasting brown color for the tops would look nice - like exposed aged wood. That is still in thought.
 

Hello James
 
A very good observation on your part!
 
The shot garlands/racks pose an interesting dilemma.  The Revell 1/96 Constitution makes no allowance for shot storage so we are left to our own inclinations...  The Hull model in the PEM does not show them at all and that probably led to the absence on the Revell kit.  As you point out, Larry Arnot and Cdr. Tyrone Martin apparently invested much research into the Bluejacket kit and they suggest shot racks between all the guns but not around the hatches.  

I would think, however, that shot storage around the hatches would be a standard approach in 1812.  Certainly many period models would show these included.  But is there more justification?

Here is my reasoning... Old Ironsides pounded HMS Guerriere to kindling in only 30 minutes.  Evidence very strongly suggests that part of the reason was that the American gun crews fired TWO round shot on EVERY discharge during the battle.  The data suggests that each gun shot @10 times in 30 minutes. That is a lot of cannon balls to have to haul up the companionways. Common sense would suggest that the crew pre-positioned most of that in shot racks before the shooting began - and they'd need plenty of storage.  I suspect that there was storage around the hatches AND in between each gun - at least on the main gun deck.  This would seem to be supported by the c1820 gun deck plan of USS United States made by Charles Ware which shows both storage options in place:



 
Using this deck plan as guidance, I intend to include shot racks in between the 24 pdr guns on my model in addition to what you already see around the hatches.

The spar deck is another matter... I will include shot storage around the hatches on that deck as well, but NOT include shot racks between the carronades.  Despite the guidance from the Bluejacket manual and other representations (Gilkerson’s painting in the Gillmer “Old Ironsides...” book), I just don’t think that was a practical solution.  Many of those guns have pin rails in between them and the necessary cordage dangling down would likely be in the way... The same deck plans of USS United States offer a solution.  Here is the spar deck:


 
This clearly shows that the carronades would have a tray of round shot close at hand for battle as well as shot stored around the hatches.  There is also another clue that helps me justify my approach.  If you were a famous personage back in that era, the most flattering compliment would be to have your portrait painted by an accomplished artist.  This was a very expensive thing to do back in those days - often many thousands of dollars in an age when a good sailor made 10 bucks a month.  The important businessmen in the City of New York commonly took up a subscription to pay for a commissioned work of military heroes after a great victory.  They gradually built up a significant "Hall of Fame" collection in city hall.  Here is the one done for Commodore William Bainbridge following his victory over HMS Java (still in the collection of the city of New York http://www.nyc.gov/html/artcom/html/portrait/portrait.shtml):



We see the talented artist captured the Commodore’s famous arrogance and pomposity.  He has also captured something else - look at the shot tray under Bainbridge’s boot.  This is the approach I’ll take for the spar deck.  (We’ll come back to this painting when it comes time for the carronades).

I don’t mean to overly sway everyone in my direction. Unlike Cdr Tyrone Martin and others, I’m not an historian or professional researcher... Folks have to go with what works for them and this approach just feels right to me.

Thanks for enduring a brain dump.

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

I'm with wq regarding the absence of gun port lids - at least on frigates.
 
We've had a healthy discussion of this topic in my Constitution build log.
 
I have a 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 other 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. 
 
In the case of USS Constitution, however, we have several sources to illuminate the use of half port lids to keep out heavy seas.  Margherita Desy is the official historian of the USS Constitution attached to the Naval History &Heritage command and she studied the issue in preparation for the next refit.  
 
Definition of half port used by Ms. Desy from John Fincham, An Introductory Outline of the Practice of Ship-Building... (Portsea, UK: William Woodard, 1825), 200.:
 
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 either not have any lids fitted or would have the removable 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. Here are some quotes from her study:
 
 
The oldest recorded model of USS Constitution is the one built in 1812 by the ship’s crew for Capt. Isaac Hull. He, in turn, donated the model to the East India Marine Society (now part of the present-day Peabody Essex Museum/PEM) not long after the model was constructed. Hull claimed that it was quite an accurate depiction of the ship as she looked around the period of her battle with HMS Guerriere. There are no port lids on the gun deck, with the exception of the two single-door lids on the two forwardmost gun ports 
 
 
The PEM model depicts single doors on the two forward ports on both sides of the ship. It is very likely that Constitution had single doors on these two ports because of their vulnerability to being stove in during storms or when sailing in heavy seas.
 

 
Confirming this supposition that the two forward-most ports carried single doors is the well-known Boston image of USS Constitution from the War of 1812 period, engraved by Abel Bowen.
 
 
...The aftermost gun ports may have had slightly different gun port covers for captains’ cabins ports. We’ll begin with another definition of “port-lids”:
“PORT-LIDS, a sort of hanging doors, to shut the ports at sea. They are fastened by hinges to the edges of the upper sill, so as to let them down when the cannon are drawn into the ship, whereby the water is prevented entering the lower decks.
Upon the main deck, and particularly in ships carrying only one tier of cannon, half ports are used: they are a kind of shutters with a circular hole in the centre, large enough to go over the muzzle of the gun, and furnished with a piece of canvas, which is nailed round its edge to tie upon the gun, whereby the water is prevented entering at the port, although the gun remains run out.” 
 
There are [several contemporary paintings that show] canvas covers in the gun ports farthest aft on the vessels – the location of the captain’s great or forward cabin. The canvas covers in the captain’s great/forward cabin gun ports would have kept out some water when sailing in general or light weather, but more important, would have allowed diffused light to enter the cabin during all daylight hours, no matter the weather. If the weather was really inclement, likely half ports could have been fitted into the ports to secure them from heavy seas.
 
Conclusion of findings and recommendations for restoration:
In conclusion, in compliance with the mission of the Naval History & Heritage Command Detachment Boston which includes in part, “ensur[ing] material compliance and documentation with the historic requirements of [Constitution], maintaining [the ship] as close to its 1812 configuration as possible,” 19 [emphasis added by author] the gun port lids of USS Constitution should be as follows:
1. Adapt the half ports presently found on Constitution: A. Retrofit the upper half port so that the lid is completely removable, but so
that it can be secured in the port with bolts.B. Retrofit the lower half port lid so that the lid drops to 90° and projects outward from the hull of the ship
2. Substitute two single gun port doors on each of the two forward-most ports in the bows of Constitution
3. Retrofit the two aftermost ports, at the captain’s great/forward cabin with canvas, as per the sail plans and artwork depicting such configurations on Constitution, Congress, and President
 
 
There does not seem to be any indication of hinged lower half lids in place during the Guerriere fight. The receipts presented in Ms. Desy's essay 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 with Guerriere. It may be that the lower half ids were not hinged and permanently mounted until later in the war - or at least not until sometime after the Guerriere battle. The research around the canvas covers along the captain cabin ports is extremely interesting. 
 
Fun stuff.
 
Evan

I'm with wq regarding the absence of gun port lids - at least on frigates.
 
We've had a healthy discussion of this topic in my Constitution build log.
 
I have a 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 other 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. 
 
In the case of USS Constitution, however, we have several sources to illuminate the use of half port lids to keep out heavy seas.  Margherita Desy is the official historian of the USS Constitution attached to the Naval History &Heritage command and she studied the issue in preparation for the next refit.  
 
Definition of half port used by Ms. Desy from John Fincham, An Introductory Outline of the Practice of Ship-Building... (Portsea, UK: William Woodard, 1825), 200.:
 
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 either not have any lids fitted or would have the removable 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. Here are some quotes from her study:
 
 
The oldest recorded model of USS Constitution is the one built in 1812 by the ship’s crew for Capt. Isaac Hull. He, in turn, donated the model to the East India Marine Society (now part of the present-day Peabody Essex Museum/PEM) not long after the model was constructed. Hull claimed that it was quite an accurate depiction of the ship as she looked around the period of her battle with HMS Guerriere. There are no port lids on the gun deck, with the exception of the two single-door lids on the two forwardmost gun ports 
 
 
The PEM model depicts single doors on the two forward ports on both sides of the ship. It is very likely that Constitution had single doors on these two ports because of their vulnerability to being stove in during storms or when sailing in heavy seas.
 

 
Confirming this supposition that the two forward-most ports carried single doors is the well-known Boston image of USS Constitution from the War of 1812 period, engraved by Abel Bowen.
 
 
...The aftermost gun ports may have had slightly different gun port covers for captains’ cabins ports. We’ll begin with another definition of “port-lids”:
“PORT-LIDS, a sort of hanging doors, to shut the ports at sea. They are fastened by hinges to the edges of the upper sill, so as to let them down when the cannon are drawn into the ship, whereby the water is prevented entering the lower decks.
Upon the main deck, and particularly in ships carrying only one tier of cannon, half ports are used: they are a kind of shutters with a circular hole in the centre, large enough to go over the muzzle of the gun, and furnished with a piece of canvas, which is nailed round its edge to tie upon the gun, whereby the water is prevented entering at the port, although the gun remains run out.” 
 
There are [several contemporary paintings that show] canvas covers in the gun ports farthest aft on the vessels – the location of the captain’s great or forward cabin. The canvas covers in the captain’s great/forward cabin gun ports would have kept out some water when sailing in general or light weather, but more important, would have allowed diffused light to enter the cabin during all daylight hours, no matter the weather. If the weather was really inclement, likely half ports could have been fitted into the ports to secure them from heavy seas.
 
Conclusion of findings and recommendations for restoration:
In conclusion, in compliance with the mission of the Naval History & Heritage Command Detachment Boston which includes in part, “ensur[ing] material compliance and documentation with the historic requirements of [Constitution], maintaining [the ship] as close to its 1812 configuration as possible,” 19 [emphasis added by author] the gun port lids of USS Constitution should be as follows:
1. Adapt the half ports presently found on Constitution: A. Retrofit the upper half port so that the lid is completely removable, but so
that it can be secured in the port with bolts.B. Retrofit the lower half port lid so that the lid drops to 90° and projects outward from the hull of the ship
2. Substitute two single gun port doors on each of the two forward-most ports in the bows of Constitution
3. Retrofit the two aftermost ports, at the captain’s great/forward cabin with canvas, as per the sail plans and artwork depicting such configurations on Constitution, Congress, and President
 
 
There does not seem to be any indication of hinged lower half lids in place during the Guerriere fight. The receipts presented in Ms. Desy's essay 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 with Guerriere. It may be that the lower half ids were not hinged and permanently mounted until later in the war - or at least not until sometime after the Guerriere battle. The research around the canvas covers along the captain cabin ports is extremely interesting. 
 
Fun stuff.
 
Evan

I'm with wq regarding the absence of gun port lids - at least on frigates.
 
We've had a healthy discussion of this topic in my Constitution build log.
 
I have a 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 other 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. 
 
In the case of USS Constitution, however, we have several sources to illuminate the use of half port lids to keep out heavy seas.  Margherita Desy is the official historian of the USS Constitution attached to the Naval History &Heritage command and she studied the issue in preparation for the next refit.  
 
Definition of half port used by Ms. Desy from John Fincham, An Introductory Outline of the Practice of Ship-Building... (Portsea, UK: William Woodard, 1825), 200.:
 
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 either not have any lids fitted or would have the removable 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. Here are some quotes from her study:
 
 
The oldest recorded model of USS Constitution is the one built in 1812 by the ship’s crew for Capt. Isaac Hull. He, in turn, donated the model to the East India Marine Society (now part of the present-day Peabody Essex Museum/PEM) not long after the model was constructed. Hull claimed that it was quite an accurate depiction of the ship as she looked around the period of her battle with HMS Guerriere. There are no port lids on the gun deck, with the exception of the two single-door lids on the two forwardmost gun ports 
 
 
The PEM model depicts single doors on the two forward ports on both sides of the ship. It is very likely that Constitution had single doors on these two ports because of their vulnerability to being stove in during storms or when sailing in heavy seas.
 

 
Confirming this supposition that the two forward-most ports carried single doors is the well-known Boston image of USS Constitution from the War of 1812 period, engraved by Abel Bowen.
 
 
...The aftermost gun ports may have had slightly different gun port covers for captains’ cabins ports. We’ll begin with another definition of “port-lids”:
“PORT-LIDS, a sort of hanging doors, to shut the ports at sea. They are fastened by hinges to the edges of the upper sill, so as to let them down when the cannon are drawn into the ship, whereby the water is prevented entering the lower decks.
Upon the main deck, and particularly in ships carrying only one tier of cannon, half ports are used: they are a kind of shutters with a circular hole in the centre, large enough to go over the muzzle of the gun, and furnished with a piece of canvas, which is nailed round its edge to tie upon the gun, whereby the water is prevented entering at the port, although the gun remains run out.” 
 
There are [several contemporary paintings that show] canvas covers in the gun ports farthest aft on the vessels – the location of the captain’s great or forward cabin. The canvas covers in the captain’s great/forward cabin gun ports would have kept out some water when sailing in general or light weather, but more important, would have allowed diffused light to enter the cabin during all daylight hours, no matter the weather. If the weather was really inclement, likely half ports could have been fitted into the ports to secure them from heavy seas.
 
Conclusion of findings and recommendations for restoration:
In conclusion, in compliance with the mission of the Naval History & Heritage Command Detachment Boston which includes in part, “ensur[ing] material compliance and documentation with the historic requirements of [Constitution], maintaining [the ship] as close to its 1812 configuration as possible,” 19 [emphasis added by author] the gun port lids of USS Constitution should be as follows:
1. Adapt the half ports presently found on Constitution: A. Retrofit the upper half port so that the lid is completely removable, but so
that it can be secured in the port with bolts.B. Retrofit the lower half port lid so that the lid drops to 90° and projects outward from the hull of the ship
2. Substitute two single gun port doors on each of the two forward-most ports in the bows of Constitution
3. Retrofit the two aftermost ports, at the captain’s great/forward cabin with canvas, as per the sail plans and artwork depicting such configurations on Constitution, Congress, and President
 
 
There does not seem to be any indication of hinged lower half lids in place during the Guerriere fight. The receipts presented in Ms. Desy's essay 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 with Guerriere. It may be that the lower half ids were not hinged and permanently mounted until later in the war - or at least not until sometime after the Guerriere battle. The research around the canvas covers along the captain cabin ports is extremely interesting. 
 
Fun stuff.
 
Evan

I'm with wq regarding the absence of gun port lids - at least on frigates.
 
We've had a healthy discussion of this topic in my Constitution build log.
 
I have a 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 other 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. 
 
In the case of USS Constitution, however, we have several sources to illuminate the use of half port lids to keep out heavy seas.  Margherita Desy is the official historian of the USS Constitution attached to the Naval History &Heritage command and she studied the issue in preparation for the next refit.  
 
Definition of half port used by Ms. Desy from John Fincham, An Introductory Outline of the Practice of Ship-Building... (Portsea, UK: William Woodard, 1825), 200.:
 
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 either not have any lids fitted or would have the removable 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. Here are some quotes from her study:
 
 
The oldest recorded model of USS Constitution is the one built in 1812 by the ship’s crew for Capt. Isaac Hull. He, in turn, donated the model to the East India Marine Society (now part of the present-day Peabody Essex Museum/PEM) not long after the model was constructed. Hull claimed that it was quite an accurate depiction of the ship as she looked around the period of her battle with HMS Guerriere. There are no port lids on the gun deck, with the exception of the two single-door lids on the two forwardmost gun ports 
 
 
The PEM model depicts single doors on the two forward ports on both sides of the ship. It is very likely that Constitution had single doors on these two ports because of their vulnerability to being stove in during storms or when sailing in heavy seas.
 

 
Confirming this supposition that the two forward-most ports carried single doors is the well-known Boston image of USS Constitution from the War of 1812 period, engraved by Abel Bowen.
 
 
...The aftermost gun ports may have had slightly different gun port covers for captains’ cabins ports. We’ll begin with another definition of “port-lids”:
“PORT-LIDS, a sort of hanging doors, to shut the ports at sea. They are fastened by hinges to the edges of the upper sill, so as to let them down when the cannon are drawn into the ship, whereby the water is prevented entering the lower decks.
Upon the main deck, and particularly in ships carrying only one tier of cannon, half ports are used: they are a kind of shutters with a circular hole in the centre, large enough to go over the muzzle of the gun, and furnished with a piece of canvas, which is nailed round its edge to tie upon the gun, whereby the water is prevented entering at the port, although the gun remains run out.” 
 
There are [several contemporary paintings that show] canvas covers in the gun ports farthest aft on the vessels – the location of the captain’s great or forward cabin. The canvas covers in the captain’s great/forward cabin gun ports would have kept out some water when sailing in general or light weather, but more important, would have allowed diffused light to enter the cabin during all daylight hours, no matter the weather. If the weather was really inclement, likely half ports could have been fitted into the ports to secure them from heavy seas.
 
Conclusion of findings and recommendations for restoration:
In conclusion, in compliance with the mission of the Naval History & Heritage Command Detachment Boston which includes in part, “ensur[ing] material compliance and documentation with the historic requirements of [Constitution], maintaining [the ship] as close to its 1812 configuration as possible,” 19 [emphasis added by author] the gun port lids of USS Constitution should be as follows:
1. Adapt the half ports presently found on Constitution: A. Retrofit the upper half port so that the lid is completely removable, but so
that it can be secured in the port with bolts.B. Retrofit the lower half port lid so that the lid drops to 90° and projects outward from the hull of the ship
2. Substitute two single gun port doors on each of the two forward-most ports in the bows of Constitution
3. Retrofit the two aftermost ports, at the captain’s great/forward cabin with canvas, as per the sail plans and artwork depicting such configurations on Constitution, Congress, and President
 
 
There does not seem to be any indication of hinged lower half lids in place during the Guerriere fight. The receipts presented in Ms. Desy's essay 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 with Guerriere. It may be that the lower half ids were not hinged and permanently mounted until later in the war - or at least not until sometime after the Guerriere battle. The research around the canvas covers along the captain cabin ports is extremely interesting. 
 
Fun stuff.
 
Evan

The Trafalgar Companion by Mark Adkin will fit your requirement. Look no further!
 
Evan

The Trafalgar Companion by Mark Adkin will fit your requirement. Look no further!
 
Evan

The Trafalgar Companion by Mark Adkin will fit your requirement. Look no further!
 
Evan

The Trafalgar Companion by Mark Adkin will fit your requirement. Look no further!
 
Evan

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


 
Hmmm... I'm just sayin'...!