Talos

Looks like: "The Victory had white hammock cloth spread loosely over the (others) and kept that (until she) commenced firing." to me.

Let me just interject a word of caution concerning the semantics of the time.  It is important to keep in mind that for the period under discussion (1770 - 1840), the term "Sloop of War" had absolutely nothing to do with the rig the vessel carried.  A "Sloop of War" was anything smaller than the smallest rated war ship (generally a 20 gun 6th rate).  In the American nomenclature, the early definition was quite similar.  The rig was immaterial - there were Brig Sloops of War, Schooner Sloops of War.  During the period of interest, terminology concerning the rig was much less precise and varied regionally.  Standardization would have to wait the development of the more bureaucratic navy during the mid 19th century.

That definitely sounds to me like someone from shore doing a model. The parts he'd be able to see would be pretty accurate, the parts he can't, including the deck fittings and birds-eye view of the bridge, would be much less or absent entirely, The guns make sense too, the gunports would be a lot more visible than the guns (or lack thereof) in them. Then of course the usual exaggeration in details and proportions from an amateur (as in not a naval architect)'s hands. It's a very neat model.
 
I'm glad I can help in any small way. I love the ships and the design and history of them, so doing the research was fun for me. I don't mind it!

I decided to annotate one of the pictures of Tennessee with the guns that are visible. This looks to be the armament configuration mtaylor gave, missing the two extra larger Parrotts it had at other times.

I could see that being the case, sure.
 
This might help with scaling the guns, it's a diagram of the space the different guns need. For your purposes, the IX-inch Dahlgrens are on the gun deck, the 8" converted rifles are the XI-inch iron carriages, and the 80-pdr Parrott breechloaders are the 100pdrs on this.

You also have the problem of finding enough commands for the higher ranking officers too. Can't have a Captain commanding a brig, after all. But certainly a large part of it is small fleet syndrome: they'll never have the numerical advantage, so each hull has to be as useful and powerful in that class as they can be. That's a big part of the reason for the 44s in the first place.

I could see that being the case, sure.
 
This might help with scaling the guns, it's a diagram of the space the different guns need. For your purposes, the IX-inch Dahlgrens are on the gun deck, the 8" converted rifles are the XI-inch iron carriages, and the 80-pdr Parrott breechloaders are the 100pdrs on this.

Tennessee, as refit, had a gundeck of 9" Dahlgrens. The two 8" rifles are converted smoothbore XI-inch Dahlgrens and were placed fore and aft on pivots. You can see the aft pivot rifled Dahlgren in the picture of the band mustered with their helmets on and the saber drill. Four 80-pdr converted breechloading Parrotts were in the broadside ports, two per side. She also carried four spar torpedoes and four Hotchkiss 1.5" breechloaders.

You also have the problem of finding enough commands for the higher ranking officers too. Can't have a Captain commanding a brig, after all. But certainly a large part of it is small fleet syndrome: they'll never have the numerical advantage, so each hull has to be as useful and powerful in that class as they can be. That's a big part of the reason for the 44s in the first place.

That definitely sounds to me like someone from shore doing a model. The parts he'd be able to see would be pretty accurate, the parts he can't, including the deck fittings and birds-eye view of the bridge, would be much less or absent entirely, The guns make sense too, the gunports would be a lot more visible than the guns (or lack thereof) in them. Then of course the usual exaggeration in details and proportions from an amateur (as in not a naval architect)'s hands. It's a very neat model.
 
I'm glad I can help in any small way. I love the ships and the design and history of them, so doing the research was fun for me. I don't mind it!

I could see that being the case, sure.
 
This might help with scaling the guns, it's a diagram of the space the different guns need. For your purposes, the IX-inch Dahlgrens are on the gun deck, the 8" converted rifles are the XI-inch iron carriages, and the 80-pdr Parrott breechloaders are the 100pdrs on this.

I decided to annotate one of the pictures of Tennessee with the guns that are visible. This looks to be the armament configuration mtaylor gave, missing the two extra larger Parrotts it had at other times.

I decided to annotate one of the pictures of Tennessee with the guns that are visible. This looks to be the armament configuration mtaylor gave, missing the two extra larger Parrotts it had at other times.

I could see that being the case, sure.
 
This might help with scaling the guns, it's a diagram of the space the different guns need. For your purposes, the IX-inch Dahlgrens are on the gun deck, the 8" converted rifles are the XI-inch iron carriages, and the 80-pdr Parrott breechloaders are the 100pdrs on this.

Thank you Talos.
 Because the scaling of the model is so mismatched, I'm just not sure a US modeler/former crew member would have done this taking into account the amount of time required for an individual to complete the build. Everything is hand carved including the single blocks and only single blocks were used, no deadheads or doubles. I'm thinking maybe this model was made in Hong Kong during a port visit? What think ye?...........KB

Tennessee, as refit, had a gundeck of 9" Dahlgrens. The two 8" rifles are converted smoothbore XI-inch Dahlgrens and were placed fore and aft on pivots. You can see the aft pivot rifled Dahlgren in the picture of the band mustered with their helmets on and the saber drill. Four 80-pdr converted breechloading Parrotts were in the broadside ports, two per side. She also carried four spar torpedoes and four Hotchkiss 1.5" breechloaders.

Tennessee, as refit, had a gundeck of 9" Dahlgrens. The two 8" rifles are converted smoothbore XI-inch Dahlgrens and were placed fore and aft on pivots. You can see the aft pivot rifled Dahlgren in the picture of the band mustered with their helmets on and the saber drill. Four 80-pdr converted breechloading Parrotts were in the broadside ports, two per side. She also carried four spar torpedoes and four Hotchkiss 1.5" breechloaders.

I have these few, and in much higher resolution than these pictures. An example of the full-size is located after the Imgur link the gallery is in. Lots of details of the deck fittings.
 

 
http://imgur.com/a/Rj7xn
 
https://www.history.navy.mil/bin/imageDownload?image=/content/dam/nhhc/our-collections/photography/images/NH%2072000/NH%2072844&rendition=original

I have these few, and in much higher resolution than these pictures. An example of the full-size is located after the Imgur link the gallery is in. Lots of details of the deck fittings.
 

 
http://imgur.com/a/Rj7xn
 
https://www.history.navy.mil/bin/imageDownload?image=/content/dam/nhhc/our-collections/photography/images/NH%2072000/NH%2072844&rendition=original

I’ve been fascinated with those two particular plans for a while. I included them in one of my profile comparisons, alongside the privateer Rattlesnake and the (incorrect!) Cyane.
 
The 18-gun one is just so weird, compared to the warships I’m used to seeing. More merchant-like for sure, but still too sharp to be a civilian one, too big for an illegal trader. Chapelle argues that she must be a naval or merchant-cruiser. He also suggests that it was a design by Fox because of the nature of her stem.
 
As far as the 20, it’s got the appearance of the typical American frigates of the era. Looking at the plans of John Adams and this ship, they’re virtually identical above the waterline except for size. Chapelle suggests that it was a design for an improved version of Maryland and Patapsco, nearly identical dimensions but with fewer guns and higher gunports to correct the guns on the earlier ships being very low. He also compares the ship to the Brazen-class Cyane post ship, which had more guns on the main deck, but 6pdrs instead of 9pdrs, and was the better sailor because it wasn't as overloaded until the War of 1812 when it carried 32 guns instead. I’ve pointed it out before, but I will again, but Chapelle got the wrong Cyane plans when he sent for them. The ones in the book are the older 18-gun Bittern-class sloop Cyane, not the 26-gun Brazen-class Cyane the Americans captured. Thinking it was the War of 1812 ship, he refitted the drawing with solid bulwarks like most ships of the era received. That’s the plan I have in the comparison I’m linking.
 
As far as the other ships go, Chapelle points out that everything in this era down to sloops tended to be shrunken versions of the 44s, at least above-water style-wise. You can see that comparing John Adams and the 20-gun ship. As long as you get the proportions and dimensions right, you can probably do a fair amount basing off of the 20-gun, Constitution/Constellation/Chesapeake, and the Philly, New York, Boston, and Essex.

I have these few, and in much higher resolution than these pictures. An example of the full-size is located after the Imgur link the gallery is in. Lots of details of the deck fittings.
 

 
http://imgur.com/a/Rj7xn
 
https://www.history.navy.mil/bin/imageDownload?image=/content/dam/nhhc/our-collections/photography/images/NH%2072000/NH%2072844&rendition=original

I have these few, and in much higher resolution than these pictures. An example of the full-size is located after the Imgur link the gallery is in. Lots of details of the deck fittings.
 

 
http://imgur.com/a/Rj7xn
 
https://www.history.navy.mil/bin/imageDownload?image=/content/dam/nhhc/our-collections/photography/images/NH%2072000/NH%2072844&rendition=original

I have these few, and in much higher resolution than these pictures. An example of the full-size is located after the Imgur link the gallery is in. Lots of details of the deck fittings.
 

 
http://imgur.com/a/Rj7xn
 
https://www.history.navy.mil/bin/imageDownload?image=/content/dam/nhhc/our-collections/photography/images/NH%2072000/NH%2072844&rendition=original

I have these few, and in much higher resolution than these pictures. An example of the full-size is located after the Imgur link the gallery is in. Lots of details of the deck fittings.
 

 
http://imgur.com/a/Rj7xn
 
https://www.history.navy.mil/bin/imageDownload?image=/content/dam/nhhc/our-collections/photography/images/NH%2072000/NH%2072844&rendition=original

You also have the problem of finding enough commands for the higher ranking officers too. Can't have a Captain commanding a brig, after all. But certainly a large part of it is small fleet syndrome: they'll never have the numerical advantage, so each hull has to be as useful and powerful in that class as they can be. That's a big part of the reason for the 44s in the first place.