Talos

This question made me curious so I poked around a little. I hope these pictures help.
 

 

 
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/450.htm

Excellent! That's how my experience with the National Gallery print was as well.

Excellent! That's how my experience with the National Gallery print was as well.

Excellent! That's how my experience with the National Gallery print was as well.

Mine isn't massive, fitting in an 11 x 14 frame with some matting. I had eyed prints online for years but never got one because of dodgy colors. I was pleased with the color on this one straight from the National Gallery though.

Mine isn't massive, fitting in an 11 x 14 frame with some matting. I had eyed prints online for years but never got one because of dodgy colors. I was pleased with the color on this one straight from the National Gallery though.

Mine isn't massive, fitting in an 11 x 14 frame with some matting. I had eyed prints online for years but never got one because of dodgy colors. I was pleased with the color on this one straight from the National Gallery though.

I love the painting and my family has heard me wax on about it before. As a result, when a few of them were in London early this year right before the travel lock-downs, they surprised me with a print from the museum the original is in. Got it framed, but have yet to hang it up. I also enjoyed Sam Willis' book on the ship and painting as well.

Rik,
 
I have one of the National Gallery prints and it looks great.
 
Yeah, the painting is beautiful and relaxing to look at. The colors are gorgeous, as is the sense of motion that draws you into it. It is sad too, in a nostalgic way that really encapsulates the Japanese ideal of "mono no aware", which you can define as "the pathos of things" or "an awareness of impermanence."

Rik,
 
I have one of the National Gallery prints and it looks great.
 
Yeah, the painting is beautiful and relaxing to look at. The colors are gorgeous, as is the sense of motion that draws you into it. It is sad too, in a nostalgic way that really encapsulates the Japanese ideal of "mono no aware", which you can define as "the pathos of things" or "an awareness of impermanence."

Rik,
 
I have one of the National Gallery prints and it looks great.
 
Yeah, the painting is beautiful and relaxing to look at. The colors are gorgeous, as is the sense of motion that draws you into it. It is sad too, in a nostalgic way that really encapsulates the Japanese ideal of "mono no aware", which you can define as "the pathos of things" or "an awareness of impermanence."

Rik,
 
I have one of the National Gallery prints and it looks great.
 
Yeah, the painting is beautiful and relaxing to look at. The colors are gorgeous, as is the sense of motion that draws you into it. It is sad too, in a nostalgic way that really encapsulates the Japanese ideal of "mono no aware", which you can define as "the pathos of things" or "an awareness of impermanence."

I love the painting and my family has heard me wax on about it before. As a result, when a few of them were in London early this year right before the travel lock-downs, they surprised me with a print from the museum the original is in. Got it framed, but have yet to hang it up. I also enjoyed Sam Willis' book on the ship and painting as well.

I love the painting and my family has heard me wax on about it before. As a result, when a few of them were in London early this year right before the travel lock-downs, they surprised me with a print from the museum the original is in. Got it framed, but have yet to hang it up. I also enjoyed Sam Willis' book on the ship and painting as well.

I actually restarted it a few months ago from scratch because I switched art programs. I wasn't going to say anything until I posted the redo. Heh.

I actually restarted it a few months ago from scratch because I switched art programs. I wasn't going to say anything until I posted the redo. Heh.

I actually restarted it a few months ago from scratch because I switched art programs. I wasn't going to say anything until I posted the redo. Heh.

The plans for Ohio's construction show the stern structure. The balcony was added when the ship was planked over, it was not there when the ship was built, nor were they fashionable for 74s since, what, 1810 or so? It's just scabbed onto the outside of the stern without other modifications, not even to the decoration.
 
 
Throwing in a photo of Ohio at the breakers that shows some interesting detail.

 
Edit: And a painting of a couple North Carolina-class ships to illustrate how the new generation of American 74s generally looked in the time period you asked about.
 

 
 

The plans for Ohio's construction show the stern structure. The balcony was added when the ship was planked over, it was not there when the ship was built, nor were they fashionable for 74s since, what, 1810 or so? It's just scabbed onto the outside of the stern without other modifications, not even to the decoration.
 
 
Throwing in a photo of Ohio at the breakers that shows some interesting detail.

 
Edit: And a painting of a couple North Carolina-class ships to illustrate how the new generation of American 74s generally looked in the time period you asked about.
 

 
 

This is a preview for a thread I'll write on the frigate Macedonian (II) sometime. I liked how it came out, so I couldn't resist posting it. It's an overlay of Chapelle's plans for Macedonian before and after she was cut down and there's some interesting changes and similarities. The frigate is in green, the sloop in purple.
 
Changes:
Head reshaped and extended, bowsprit rake changed, reshaped stem
Gun deck gunports reduced from 15 to 13, ports at the bow, stern, and amidships are in the same place
Foremast relocated aft, rake of masts adjusted
New rudder
Bulwarks cut down, of course
New quarter galleries (not drawn yet, plan was lacking them, will used Sloop Constellation's old galleries as a base)
Higher waterline despite the reduced upper works
(Not visible) Removal of additional heavy timbering bow reinforcement for Antarctic use during US Exploring Expedition, probably source of her sailing issues
 
 
Macedonian was a 2nd-class frigate and carried the same armament as Constellation. Before the new-generation 32-pdr standardization of the 1840s, it was:
 
Gun deck: 28 x 18-pdrs (8', 38cwt)
Spar deck: 2 x 18-pdrs (9'2", 40cwt), 16 x 32-pdr carronades (4'1", 21cwt)
Total 1480cwt
 
Afterwards it was:
Gun deck: 4 x 8" shell guns (8'4", 53cwt), 22 x 32-pdrs (8', 42cwt) (this armament requires either filled bridle ports or a permanent filling of the stern ports)
Spar deck: 2 x 8" shell guns (8'4", 53cwt), 8 x 32-pdr carronades (4'1", 21cwt)
Total 1410cwt
 
 

Crosspost from the American Sailing Warships thread and not big history or anything, but the receiving ship Independence, a razee'd 74, in drydock in Mare Island, San Francisco 130 years ago today.
 

She is a snow-brig with a spencer mast behind the mainmast, but it is not truly a separate mast in terms of categorizing by the number of masts (eg. a two-master or a three-master). It is a small mast scabbed onto the back of the mainmast, it does not reach down to the deck and is attached to the mainmast at the maintop. They were a feature of the later Antebellum US Navy warships, which had them on one, two, or even all three masts. Constellation used to have two in the past on her main and mizzen, but still has the one on her mizzen today.
 

She is a snow-brig with a spencer mast behind the mainmast, but it is not truly a separate mast in terms of categorizing by the number of masts (eg. a two-master or a three-master). It is a small mast scabbed onto the back of the mainmast, it does not reach down to the deck and is attached to the mainmast at the maintop. They were a feature of the later Antebellum US Navy warships, which had them on one, two, or even all three masts. Constellation used to have two in the past on her main and mizzen, but still has the one on her mizzen today.
 

The Comets are neat ships, trim and elegant. I don't have too much to add, though I can say that Gardiner's Warships of the Napoleonic Wars also has the plans from the NMM in it. He also points out that even though they operated as sloops, they maintained a quick fireship conversion capability, including a permanent fire room (which is shown in the plans). Erebus and Terror were decomissioned shortly after the war and their names immediately reused for a pair of new-build bombs that need little introduction.
 
In Winfield's British Warships  in the Age of Sail 1793-1817, he prints the specifications for the ship, including the removal of the spar deck and reduction in armament to 14 x 18-pdr carronades on the upper deck and a pair of long nines in the forecastle for Thais and Prometheus in 1814. Prometheus was likely the last survivor, as she became a lazerette and then recieving ship in Portsmouth under the name Veteran and wasn't broken up until 1852.  Comet (ii) meanwhile was sold into merchentile service as the Alexander. None of the others survived the 1810s, all being broken up before the end of the decade. Interestingly, Winfield they are nearly identical to the Cormorant class except for the spar deck. They were rerated as 20-gun Sixth Rates in 1811 or 1812, and 24-gun Sixth Rates in 1817. He lists the commanders as well, in Thais' case, her captain (Edward Scobell) was retained, but promoted from Commander to Captain in 1811 along with the rerating.

Portsmouth Dockyard had several drydocks in the 18th century, including a double-length one that could handle two ships. The current dock Victory is in was rebuilt around 1800 by Samuel Bentham. Here is a map from 1773 that shows several of the docks (the dockyard is at the top of the map).