Talos

Indeed. Independence, the worst of the first generation American '74s, was said to be totally useless at sea because her lower gunports were only 3'10" from the water amidship when fully loaded with cannons, ammunition, and six months of provisions. There's zero way Victory was less than a foot higher than this when launched empty! Independence /did/ have to sail with her lower ports caulked shut during her time overseas too, Victory never had to.
 
 
For something of the size of a frigate or ship of the line, water coming in over the bow wasn't a major issue. It was for the small open-decked sloops and brigs however. Indeed, the Cherokee-class brigs were often likened to a rock at half-tide because the water kept coming onto the deck in any kind of weather. There were attempts to rectify it, including the Cherokees having a slight upwards kink at the bow, and other sloops like the Cruizers adding in a forecastle platform both to cut down on the water coming in over the deck as well as provide a better area for the sail handlers to work from (and I presume better for handling the anchors too). That's why you'll see plenty of sloops with a forecastle but no quarterdeck. One of the modifications to the Cherokee-class HMS Beagle when she was refit into an exploration ship was to install a low forecastle platform specifically to cut down on the water coming in over the bow. It was only a few feet above deck level, so useless for doing much under it.

I'm not sure. It's from the collection of the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich and only described in generic terms, the only other info is that it's from the late 18th century (I'd say into the early 19th century even), which fits the fittings, the mizzen spanker, and lack of forecastle bulwarks.
 
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/112664.html
 
I did notice the sweep ports between the gunports, which are rarely seen in depictions of frigates this large and this late.

Indeed. Independence, the worst of the first generation American '74s, was said to be totally useless at sea because her lower gunports were only 3'10" from the water amidship when fully loaded with cannons, ammunition, and six months of provisions. There's zero way Victory was less than a foot higher than this when launched empty! Independence /did/ have to sail with her lower ports caulked shut during her time overseas too, Victory never had to.
 
 
For something of the size of a frigate or ship of the line, water coming in over the bow wasn't a major issue. It was for the small open-decked sloops and brigs however. Indeed, the Cherokee-class brigs were often likened to a rock at half-tide because the water kept coming onto the deck in any kind of weather. There were attempts to rectify it, including the Cherokees having a slight upwards kink at the bow, and other sloops like the Cruizers adding in a forecastle platform both to cut down on the water coming in over the deck as well as provide a better area for the sail handlers to work from (and I presume better for handling the anchors too). That's why you'll see plenty of sloops with a forecastle but no quarterdeck. One of the modifications to the Cherokee-class HMS Beagle when she was refit into an exploration ship was to install a low forecastle platform specifically to cut down on the water coming in over the bow. It was only a few feet above deck level, so useless for doing much under it.

With all due respect, the freeboard - the distance from waterline to lower gun ports - was between 4' 6" and 5' 0" when fully laden, not at launch. Were this so, the ship, when rigged, armed, provisioned and manned would not make it far out of harbor!

I'm not sure. It's from the collection of the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich and only described in generic terms, the only other info is that it's from the late 18th century (I'd say into the early 19th century even), which fits the fittings, the mizzen spanker, and lack of forecastle bulwarks.
 
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/112664.html
 
I did notice the sweep ports between the gunports, which are rarely seen in depictions of frigates this large and this late.

He specifically asked about three-deckers cut down to two-deckers, not two-deckers cut down to frigates. 
 
Now there were proposals to cut down Pennsylvania into a two-decker. In an 1845 pamphlet called "The Big Guns" by a guy with a total 68-pdr fetish, he proposed cutting down Pennsylvania to a 100-gun 68-pdr ship with a double broadside of 6800 pounds, compared to 140 32-pdrs equal to 4480 pounds. He also proposed replacing the armament of the other ships, 60 guns in the 74s, 30 guns in the large frigates, 18 guns in the razee sloops, 14 in the large sloops, 12 and 10 in the smaller sloops, etc, etc. Doesn't specify if it's the 63cwt Paixhans gun or more like the British 68-pdr of 95cwt (the US Navy has their own version of this, the 64-pounder shot gun of 106cwt). He also advocated building 60-gun two-decker frigates displacing 2600 tons, and 30-gun sloops displacing 1300 tons.
 
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=yK1WAAAAcAAJ
 
 
 
A foot is way too low to the water. Even Vasa had more! Victory had over four feet, one foot would mean the lower gundeck itself would be below the waterline (it's about two feet below the lower sill of the gunport).
 
Waists were covered up by canvas all the way back to Elizabethan times (1500s). Though not filled in, you can see the waist racks for the hammocks that would be covered in canvas in the center of this frigate painting from the 1700s. There were lifelines sailors could rig to help stay on deck as well.
 

He specifically asked about three-deckers cut down to two-deckers, not two-deckers cut down to frigates. 
 
Now there were proposals to cut down Pennsylvania into a two-decker. In an 1845 pamphlet called "The Big Guns" by a guy with a total 68-pdr fetish, he proposed cutting down Pennsylvania to a 100-gun 68-pdr ship with a double broadside of 6800 pounds, compared to 140 32-pdrs equal to 4480 pounds. He also proposed replacing the armament of the other ships, 60 guns in the 74s, 30 guns in the large frigates, 18 guns in the razee sloops, 14 in the large sloops, 12 and 10 in the smaller sloops, etc, etc. Doesn't specify if it's the 63cwt Paixhans gun or more like the British 68-pdr of 95cwt (the US Navy has their own version of this, the 64-pounder shot gun of 106cwt). He also advocated building 60-gun two-decker frigates displacing 2600 tons, and 30-gun sloops displacing 1300 tons.
 
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=yK1WAAAAcAAJ
 
 
 
A foot is way too low to the water. Even Vasa had more! Victory had over four feet, one foot would mean the lower gundeck itself would be below the waterline (it's about two feet below the lower sill of the gunport).
 
Waists were covered up by canvas all the way back to Elizabethan times (1500s). Though not filled in, you can see the waist racks for the hammocks that would be covered in canvas in the center of this frigate painting from the 1700s. There were lifelines sailors could rig to help stay on deck as well.
 

He specifically asked about three-deckers cut down to two-deckers, not two-deckers cut down to frigates. 
 
Now there were proposals to cut down Pennsylvania into a two-decker. In an 1845 pamphlet called "The Big Guns" by a guy with a total 68-pdr fetish, he proposed cutting down Pennsylvania to a 100-gun 68-pdr ship with a double broadside of 6800 pounds, compared to 140 32-pdrs equal to 4480 pounds. He also proposed replacing the armament of the other ships, 60 guns in the 74s, 30 guns in the large frigates, 18 guns in the razee sloops, 14 in the large sloops, 12 and 10 in the smaller sloops, etc, etc. Doesn't specify if it's the 63cwt Paixhans gun or more like the British 68-pdr of 95cwt (the US Navy has their own version of this, the 64-pounder shot gun of 106cwt). He also advocated building 60-gun two-decker frigates displacing 2600 tons, and 30-gun sloops displacing 1300 tons.
 
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=yK1WAAAAcAAJ
 
 
 
A foot is way too low to the water. Even Vasa had more! Victory had over four feet, one foot would mean the lower gundeck itself would be below the waterline (it's about two feet below the lower sill of the gunport).
 
Waists were covered up by canvas all the way back to Elizabethan times (1500s). Though not filled in, you can see the waist racks for the hammocks that would be covered in canvas in the center of this frigate painting from the 1700s. There were lifelines sailors could rig to help stay on deck as well.
 

He specifically asked about three-deckers cut down to two-deckers, not two-deckers cut down to frigates. 
 
Now there were proposals to cut down Pennsylvania into a two-decker. In an 1845 pamphlet called "The Big Guns" by a guy with a total 68-pdr fetish, he proposed cutting down Pennsylvania to a 100-gun 68-pdr ship with a double broadside of 6800 pounds, compared to 140 32-pdrs equal to 4480 pounds. He also proposed replacing the armament of the other ships, 60 guns in the 74s, 30 guns in the large frigates, 18 guns in the razee sloops, 14 in the large sloops, 12 and 10 in the smaller sloops, etc, etc. Doesn't specify if it's the 63cwt Paixhans gun or more like the British 68-pdr of 95cwt (the US Navy has their own version of this, the 64-pounder shot gun of 106cwt). He also advocated building 60-gun two-decker frigates displacing 2600 tons, and 30-gun sloops displacing 1300 tons.
 
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=yK1WAAAAcAAJ
 
 
 
A foot is way too low to the water. Even Vasa had more! Victory had over four feet, one foot would mean the lower gundeck itself would be below the waterline (it's about two feet below the lower sill of the gunport).
 
Waists were covered up by canvas all the way back to Elizabethan times (1500s). Though not filled in, you can see the waist racks for the hammocks that would be covered in canvas in the center of this frigate painting from the 1700s. There were lifelines sailors could rig to help stay on deck as well.
 

There are also the five broadened Caledonia-class 1st rates that were cut down to 89 gun two-deckers when they were converted into screw steamers in 1858.
 
HMS Neptune
HMS Trafalgar
HMS Saint George
HMS Waterloo
HMS Royal William (never commissioned as a steamer, but was converted)
 
HMS London got the same, cut down from a 120-gun first rate to an 89-gun steamer.
 
HMS Royal Frederick of the Queen-class was as well.
 
HMS Prince Regent (converted to a 92-gun sailing ship in the 1840s)
 
HMS Boyne (cut down to a 76-gun third rate in the 1820s)
 
HMS Ocean (cut down to an 80-gun third rate in 1820)
 
HMS Windsor Castle (cut down to 74 in 1813)
 
HMS Atlas (cut down to 74 in 1802)
 
 
 

There are also the five broadened Caledonia-class 1st rates that were cut down to 89 gun two-deckers when they were converted into screw steamers in 1858.
 
HMS Neptune
HMS Trafalgar
HMS Saint George
HMS Waterloo
HMS Royal William (never commissioned as a steamer, but was converted)
 
HMS London got the same, cut down from a 120-gun first rate to an 89-gun steamer.
 
HMS Royal Frederick of the Queen-class was as well.
 
HMS Prince Regent (converted to a 92-gun sailing ship in the 1840s)
 
HMS Boyne (cut down to a 76-gun third rate in the 1820s)
 
HMS Ocean (cut down to an 80-gun third rate in 1820)
 
HMS Windsor Castle (cut down to 74 in 1813)
 
HMS Atlas (cut down to 74 in 1802)
 
 
 

There are also the five broadened Caledonia-class 1st rates that were cut down to 89 gun two-deckers when they were converted into screw steamers in 1858.
 
HMS Neptune
HMS Trafalgar
HMS Saint George
HMS Waterloo
HMS Royal William (never commissioned as a steamer, but was converted)
 
HMS London got the same, cut down from a 120-gun first rate to an 89-gun steamer.
 
HMS Royal Frederick of the Queen-class was as well.
 
HMS Prince Regent (converted to a 92-gun sailing ship in the 1840s)
 
HMS Boyne (cut down to a 76-gun third rate in the 1820s)
 
HMS Ocean (cut down to an 80-gun third rate in 1820)
 
HMS Windsor Castle (cut down to 74 in 1813)
 
HMS Atlas (cut down to 74 in 1802)
 
 
 

There are also the five broadened Caledonia-class 1st rates that were cut down to 89 gun two-deckers when they were converted into screw steamers in 1858.
 
HMS Neptune
HMS Trafalgar
HMS Saint George
HMS Waterloo
HMS Royal William (never commissioned as a steamer, but was converted)
 
HMS London got the same, cut down from a 120-gun first rate to an 89-gun steamer.
 
HMS Royal Frederick of the Queen-class was as well.
 
HMS Prince Regent (converted to a 92-gun sailing ship in the 1840s)
 
HMS Boyne (cut down to a 76-gun third rate in the 1820s)
 
HMS Ocean (cut down to an 80-gun third rate in 1820)
 
HMS Windsor Castle (cut down to 74 in 1813)
 
HMS Atlas (cut down to 74 in 1802)
 
 
 

There are also the five broadened Caledonia-class 1st rates that were cut down to 89 gun two-deckers when they were converted into screw steamers in 1858.
 
HMS Neptune
HMS Trafalgar
HMS Saint George
HMS Waterloo
HMS Royal William (never commissioned as a steamer, but was converted)
 
HMS London got the same, cut down from a 120-gun first rate to an 89-gun steamer.
 
HMS Royal Frederick of the Queen-class was as well.
 
HMS Prince Regent (converted to a 92-gun sailing ship in the 1840s)
 
HMS Boyne (cut down to a 76-gun third rate in the 1820s)
 
HMS Ocean (cut down to an 80-gun third rate in 1820)
 
HMS Windsor Castle (cut down to 74 in 1813)
 
HMS Atlas (cut down to 74 in 1802)
 
 
 

But an important name! And above the waterline apparently not too far apart from the evolved form of the original ship, as de Kay comments in his "Chronicles of the Frigate Macedonian" about an older British gentleman living in the US who came aboard the ship during a port call on her first commission. He had been a sailor on the original British ship under John Carden and stayed in the US after his capture by Decatur. He told the American sailors stories about his service on her, pointed out his duty station, etc.
The more I look at it, the more I think that she wasn't built to the original ship's dimensions but instead built to the standard US 2nd class frigate dimensions of the time, eg: Congress and Constellation. She was rated and armed exactly as Constellation was anyway and they are only a foot apart in beam and /six inches/ apart in length. They were fairly close to the original ship's dimensions anyway, so not a huge difference. It makes sense that they would build to their class standards instead of arbitrarily making one eight to ten feet shorter just to match the older vessel. No one's going to notice that it's different, it's not like they upscaled her to a 1st class frigate. What's more interesting to me is everyone I've read (Chapelle, etc) comments that the change in dimensions was because she had longer, narrower clipper-style ends for speed, but looking at the lines compared to each other...
 
Interestingly, Constellation's replacement was built to the dimensions of a razee frigate...Cumberland in this case, except a lot narrower (five feet less beam, just about the same length). She was just a purpose-built, lighter, more optimized version of it. Had she been a true razee or kept to the original's dimensions, she would have been the exact same dimensions as Macedonian instead of being twelve feet longer. It reminds me that I was recently going through the length/width ratios of the American ships of that era, looking at proportions and trying to figure out a sweet spot for a 3rd class frigate (as mentioned below). Jamestown stuck out at me. Three inches narrower than Saratoga, but 17 feet longer (163 feet to 146.3 feet). Highest ratio I found in the American ships I was looking at (pretty much all the frigates ever, plus the post-war 1st and 2nd class ship-sloops).
There's some similarities in basic hull forms, of course, but pretty different. Designed by the same guy in roughly the same time period. Definitely a more modern hullform compared to the earlier 1st class frigate designs though, but an evolution instead of a huge difference. Congress is also the 1st class to Macedonian's 2nd class. I've had a mind to come up with my own design for a 3rd class frigate equivalent too, a follow-on to ships like Boston just for fun.

But an important name! And above the waterline apparently not too far apart from the evolved form of the original ship, as de Kay comments in his "Chronicles of the Frigate Macedonian" about an older British gentleman living in the US who came aboard the ship during a port call on her first commission. He had been a sailor on the original British ship under John Carden and stayed in the US after his capture by Decatur. He told the American sailors stories about his service on her, pointed out his duty station, etc.
The more I look at it, the more I think that she wasn't built to the original ship's dimensions but instead built to the standard US 2nd class frigate dimensions of the time, eg: Congress and Constellation. She was rated and armed exactly as Constellation was anyway and they are only a foot apart in beam and /six inches/ apart in length. They were fairly close to the original ship's dimensions anyway, so not a huge difference. It makes sense that they would build to their class standards instead of arbitrarily making one eight to ten feet shorter just to match the older vessel. No one's going to notice that it's different, it's not like they upscaled her to a 1st class frigate. What's more interesting to me is everyone I've read (Chapelle, etc) comments that the change in dimensions was because she had longer, narrower clipper-style ends for speed, but looking at the lines compared to each other...
 
Interestingly, Constellation's replacement was built to the dimensions of a razee frigate...Cumberland in this case, except a lot narrower (five feet less beam, just about the same length). She was just a purpose-built, lighter, more optimized version of it. Had she been a true razee or kept to the original's dimensions, she would have been the exact same dimensions as Macedonian instead of being twelve feet longer. It reminds me that I was recently going through the length/width ratios of the American ships of that era, looking at proportions and trying to figure out a sweet spot for a 3rd class frigate (as mentioned below). Jamestown stuck out at me. Three inches narrower than Saratoga, but 17 feet longer (163 feet to 146.3 feet). Highest ratio I found in the American ships I was looking at (pretty much all the frigates ever, plus the post-war 1st and 2nd class ship-sloops).
There's some similarities in basic hull forms, of course, but pretty different. Designed by the same guy in roughly the same time period. Definitely a more modern hullform compared to the earlier 1st class frigate designs though, but an evolution instead of a huge difference. Congress is also the 1st class to Macedonian's 2nd class. I've had a mind to come up with my own design for a 3rd class frigate equivalent too, a follow-on to ships like Boston just for fun.

Was meaning to finish this up and post it, but here's a lines comparison of the two Macedonian's bow and stern lines. I scaled them the same since there's only a foot difference between the two. They're lined up at the top of the keel and the widest points on both are in the same place. HMS Macedonian is in red and the later USS Macedonian in blue. I don't know if the USS Macedonian's fore/aft lines are compressed vertically or not in the book, it seems shorter in this comparison.
 
Still, the hull forms seem to be very different, especially for a pair of ships said to have nearly identical offsets (with the Americans copying the original ship to make a near-replica of it). HMS Macedonian is very typical British frigate of the Napoleonic Wars, while the hull shape of the American ship is very evocative of other ships of the era on both sides of the Atlantic, higher deadrise, straight floors, etc.

But an important name! And above the waterline apparently not too far apart from the evolved form of the original ship, as de Kay comments in his "Chronicles of the Frigate Macedonian" about an older British gentleman living in the US who came aboard the ship during a port call on her first commission. He had been a sailor on the original British ship under John Carden and stayed in the US after his capture by Decatur. He told the American sailors stories about his service on her, pointed out his duty station, etc.
The more I look at it, the more I think that she wasn't built to the original ship's dimensions but instead built to the standard US 2nd class frigate dimensions of the time, eg: Congress and Constellation. She was rated and armed exactly as Constellation was anyway and they are only a foot apart in beam and /six inches/ apart in length. They were fairly close to the original ship's dimensions anyway, so not a huge difference. It makes sense that they would build to their class standards instead of arbitrarily making one eight to ten feet shorter just to match the older vessel. No one's going to notice that it's different, it's not like they upscaled her to a 1st class frigate. What's more interesting to me is everyone I've read (Chapelle, etc) comments that the change in dimensions was because she had longer, narrower clipper-style ends for speed, but looking at the lines compared to each other...
 
Interestingly, Constellation's replacement was built to the dimensions of a razee frigate...Cumberland in this case, except a lot narrower (five feet less beam, just about the same length). She was just a purpose-built, lighter, more optimized version of it. Had she been a true razee or kept to the original's dimensions, she would have been the exact same dimensions as Macedonian instead of being twelve feet longer. It reminds me that I was recently going through the length/width ratios of the American ships of that era, looking at proportions and trying to figure out a sweet spot for a 3rd class frigate (as mentioned below). Jamestown stuck out at me. Three inches narrower than Saratoga, but 17 feet longer (163 feet to 146.3 feet). Highest ratio I found in the American ships I was looking at (pretty much all the frigates ever, plus the post-war 1st and 2nd class ship-sloops).
There's some similarities in basic hull forms, of course, but pretty different. Designed by the same guy in roughly the same time period. Definitely a more modern hullform compared to the earlier 1st class frigate designs though, but an evolution instead of a huge difference. Congress is also the 1st class to Macedonian's 2nd class. I've had a mind to come up with my own design for a 3rd class frigate equivalent too, a follow-on to ships like Boston just for fun.

But an important name! And above the waterline apparently not too far apart from the evolved form of the original ship, as de Kay comments in his "Chronicles of the Frigate Macedonian" about an older British gentleman living in the US who came aboard the ship during a port call on her first commission. He had been a sailor on the original British ship under John Carden and stayed in the US after his capture by Decatur. He told the American sailors stories about his service on her, pointed out his duty station, etc.
The more I look at it, the more I think that she wasn't built to the original ship's dimensions but instead built to the standard US 2nd class frigate dimensions of the time, eg: Congress and Constellation. She was rated and armed exactly as Constellation was anyway and they are only a foot apart in beam and /six inches/ apart in length. They were fairly close to the original ship's dimensions anyway, so not a huge difference. It makes sense that they would build to their class standards instead of arbitrarily making one eight to ten feet shorter just to match the older vessel. No one's going to notice that it's different, it's not like they upscaled her to a 1st class frigate. What's more interesting to me is everyone I've read (Chapelle, etc) comments that the change in dimensions was because she had longer, narrower clipper-style ends for speed, but looking at the lines compared to each other...
 
Interestingly, Constellation's replacement was built to the dimensions of a razee frigate...Cumberland in this case, except a lot narrower (five feet less beam, just about the same length). She was just a purpose-built, lighter, more optimized version of it. Had she been a true razee or kept to the original's dimensions, she would have been the exact same dimensions as Macedonian instead of being twelve feet longer. It reminds me that I was recently going through the length/width ratios of the American ships of that era, looking at proportions and trying to figure out a sweet spot for a 3rd class frigate (as mentioned below). Jamestown stuck out at me. Three inches narrower than Saratoga, but 17 feet longer (163 feet to 146.3 feet). Highest ratio I found in the American ships I was looking at (pretty much all the frigates ever, plus the post-war 1st and 2nd class ship-sloops).
There's some similarities in basic hull forms, of course, but pretty different. Designed by the same guy in roughly the same time period. Definitely a more modern hullform compared to the earlier 1st class frigate designs though, but an evolution instead of a huge difference. Congress is also the 1st class to Macedonian's 2nd class. I've had a mind to come up with my own design for a 3rd class frigate equivalent too, a follow-on to ships like Boston just for fun.

Was meaning to finish this up and post it, but here's a lines comparison of the two Macedonian's bow and stern lines. I scaled them the same since there's only a foot difference between the two. They're lined up at the top of the keel and the widest points on both are in the same place. HMS Macedonian is in red and the later USS Macedonian in blue. I don't know if the USS Macedonian's fore/aft lines are compressed vertically or not in the book, it seems shorter in this comparison.
 
Still, the hull forms seem to be very different, especially for a pair of ships said to have nearly identical offsets (with the Americans copying the original ship to make a near-replica of it). HMS Macedonian is very typical British frigate of the Napoleonic Wars, while the hull shape of the American ship is very evocative of other ships of the era on both sides of the Atlantic, higher deadrise, straight floors, etc.

Was meaning to finish this up and post it, but here's a lines comparison of the two Macedonian's bow and stern lines. I scaled them the same since there's only a foot difference between the two. They're lined up at the top of the keel and the widest points on both are in the same place. HMS Macedonian is in red and the later USS Macedonian in blue. I don't know if the USS Macedonian's fore/aft lines are compressed vertically or not in the book, it seems shorter in this comparison.
 
Still, the hull forms seem to be very different, especially for a pair of ships said to have nearly identical offsets (with the Americans copying the original ship to make a near-replica of it). HMS Macedonian is very typical British frigate of the Napoleonic Wars, while the hull shape of the American ship is very evocative of other ships of the era on both sides of the Atlantic, higher deadrise, straight floors, etc.

Chapelle mentions in that book that ship sloops in the War of 1812 usually carried 4-6 boats and brigs 3-4. He doesn't go into more detail than that, unfortunately. It's halfway down page 504 at the end of the entry on USS President's boats in 1806.

A photo I took of a painting of Macedonian in the Naval Academy

I don't think they could mount them on the gundeck. That would be just above the water line and way too close to open in any kind of weather. I think if purchased it would more likely get the sides built-up and used as an open-decked sloop like the aforementioned Maryland and Patapsco. That whole raised/sunken quarterdeck cabin thing, where it is in between the main deck and gun deck, is so merchant-y too. Not a typical warship and an enigma.

I don't think they could mount them on the gundeck. That would be just above the water line and way too close to open in any kind of weather. I think if purchased it would more likely get the sides built-up and used as an open-decked sloop like the aforementioned Maryland and Patapsco. That whole raised/sunken quarterdeck cabin thing, where it is in between the main deck and gun deck, is so merchant-y too. Not a typical warship and an enigma.