CharlieZardoz

Sanding the top of the stern into shape was relatively easy and using the light I matched up the stern windows to the top of the deck making sure logically there was just enough space for them to fit in.

Regarding the stern I used wood putty to shape it up to the size and angle it needed to be. This required a lot of back and forth and also a bit of instinct as you want enough thickness so that the windows are where they should be. I cut out a piece from the templates I made above and used it as an acting transom to determine where the lines should be. Using a few photos of the stern from the replica to act as a guide.

Here you can see frame #3 and why up front the bow needs more extensive shaping down. The frame curves in and so using a dremel and some sand paper starts the process of shaping down the bow to the point where it fits the templates nicely. I still have a bit more to do on this part. Oh and make sure that you check the evenness of your sanding using the tool I'm using which name I've forgotten

I used the keel piece to determine the thickness of the what the keel area should be.

I then matched up each piece to the lines on the hull to see how they fit modifying the thickness of the wood here and there where needed. When they fit snug but not tight they are as they should be!

Firstly the old templates were not really useful so I decided to make new ones using the plans themselves. Basically I scanned the plans in my computer then added the reverse image to make the width lines whole on both sides. This is much more useful in determining whether the hull fits in nicely or is snug and needs wood removed. I added some thin basswood in the back from a local hobby shop to give them strength and shaped them accordingly as so.

Greetings everyone! Time to update this blog so you can all see my progress. Was a splendid summer and wound up being out quite a bit however been tinkering away on Sultana and pace is picking up now that we are entering the fall. To give you an idea of the work needed to be done below is a pic of Sultana as she appears atm. I realized that for the most part the hull itself doesn't need much shaping only in a few specific areas which I arrowed to show where I mean. First is the stern which required some shaping and rebuilding, the next is the keel which requires some sanding down to get it to the shape it needs to be to hold the keel piece. The last is the bow area which unlike the stern required a significant portion of wood be removed as the templates stopped fitting nicely at around template #4. I will show you what I mean with each process.

Captain Armstrong: To my knowledge the Hancock was a member of the Randolph class which included Randolph, Raleigh, Hancock, Warren (the most powerful of the bunch) and the ill fated Washington. Calling it a class though might be a bit of a stretch more like they were al 32's built to a conceptual plan but each builder added variation based on their own design preferences. I dont think at this point a Federal commission to build a class of ship was really possible but I think the general concept was there. Is there any record or Alliance's carving detailing? While I wouldnt say that Essex is in any way a direct descendent to the Alliance like Guerriere class was to Constitution, the builder surely worked off of what they had done in the past and in general the non Humphreys ship were more traditionally British in appearance. The subscription frigates werent trying to reinvent the wheel however I imagine they followed their own evolutionary path.

And yes the traffic getting down here was epic

Haha im actually in Delaware today on my way to Sultana in Chesterfield for a cruise on the ship and to take some measurements. Thing is in my opinion alot of ship model building is conjecture. Even with Sultana there is no record of the figurehead just a description so studying the works of Millar helps me get an understanding of how others guestimate figureheads, deck details, stern carvings etc and will be useful to me down the line if I one day decide on other models like Vixen or Randolph.

The conjectural stuff is interesting to me though I have to agree that Alliance is a bit of a stretch.

The figureheads are all very interesting and probably close to what they actually had at the very least it's nice to find out what theme they were based on Greek god, mermaid, etc. Yeah I like it and would like to find more books like this one.

Ok so I got "American ships of the Colonial and Revolutionary Periods" by John F Millar and have to say there are some very interesting conjectural draughts in this book. I scanned a few based on the original list made in this post, the Warren, Trumbull and the Alliance. While the first two are pretty much just slightly altered versions of the class ship they belong to (Trumbull a Virginia type and Warren a Randolph type), his Alliance is in my opinion sort of a stretched out Raleigh and takes a bit of creative license. His reasoning is that she was built in the same yard as Raleigh by the same builders only a year later but looks very little like the Confederacy (wouldn't they have used the same builders plans?). For each conjecture he mentions the methodology he used and while it's all a stab in the dark with some educated guesses it's nice at least that someone took the time to put this resource together and I enjoyed looking through all the ships regardless. What do y'all think?

So the Barbados is the Scourge you are saying? Suits me fine the name sounds cooler, I am however curious if she was a sister ship to Rattlesnake as they do bear a similarity. Here's the model and admiralty plan. How might one reconstruct the figurehead if the one Rhodes drew is wrong?

The Rhodes is legit, the admiralty plans are available on the uk website. I ordered the books used on Amazon so ill look into them and see what he's all about. I also fixed the link thanks

Is anyone familiar with the works of John Fitzhugh Miller? I've stumbled through 2 of his books" Early American Ships" and "American Ships of the Colonial and Revolutionary Periods." In these books are many conjectural images of American privateers which can be found on the www.awiatsea.com American War at Sea site. Most of these images looks like stretched out and distorted Frankenstein versions of Fair American, Randolph or Rattlesnake to me however I am curious how much research he put into it and if there is any sort of credibility to these "drawings". I will say though that within the list I came across the privateer Rhodes which does look like actual lines were taken off by the British after capture and also a nice looking model was made so definitely a pleasing find. Below are the Amsterdam, General Washington, Saucy Jack, Rhodes

Uh what did you get backwards exactly? lol

I personally do like titles on boats and have no problem with naming the Lexington model or a Santa Maria though Id probably want to place a description on the plaque which states the model is conjectural and what sources were used. Again a matter of taste but for me if your intent is to make an interpretation of a ship you may as well state what ship you were striving to recreate if at the very least to lend oneself to the ridicule of their peers

Me neither however if someone out there wishes to make a hobby out of building fantasy pirate ships from films or their imagination I say go for it as long as they are not being misleading. That said a little history knowledge and research can only help make your work convincing in my opinion. Even a basic understanding of what fittings went with what era in ship building, one can easily make a model of better quality than quite a few kits on the market today.

While I wouldnt go so far as Chapelle's article in stating that every ship model built needs to be a representative tombe of historically accurate data to be vaunted by the historical community, I do enjoy the process of data gathering and the process of becoming learned in a certain period or process of ship design and construction. The gathering of sources is a lifelong endeavour and I do think being able to separate the reliable source material only helps us in our own journey in being better model builders not to mention students of history. Personally Ive been getting so much joy this year buying books, going to research archives and discussing thoughts with fellow builders and looking forward to what else ive left to discover.

Just curious about the length of the full Lexington model. I'm assuming it's somewhere between 24-27" stem to jib fully rigged?

Yes yes I just read over Chapelle's article. As a history major myself I understand how frustrating it can be when history gets diluted by those wishing to fill in the missing facts with inference and then having that plausible history be considered factual by those who don't look too closely. Was Braveheart a good film? Essentially yes. Was it butchering history for the sake of a mans ego? Absolutely and aggravating that even till this day people still believe that the story in the film was accurate. I just watched the John Adam's HBO miniseries which may be somewhat accurate but obviously a lot of creative license was taken to make the story interesting for TV. Still I enjoyed it for what it was. This question is really a matter of taste in my opinion and I refuse to believe there is a definitive right or wrong answer to this. When it comes to "historically accurate ship models" that are 100% accurate there are very few examples. Obviously ship models based on ships which survive today Constitution, Victory etc are accurate if you build them the way they look today but build them in their heyday and now maybe you have 75-90% accuracy. Even ships with very detailed admiralty plans like Essex, Syren or President have a certain margin for error. Then you take a step further and look into ships with certain surviving information like United States, John Adams and (plausibly) Enterprize now maybe you've hit the 40-50% mark and the question of accuracy becomes more a concern. But it's really a matter of comfort level in my opinion. Are you building a model to be touted as a true historical representation that you plan on making an argument to historians (which one will undoubtedly lose), or are you building something for yourself simply because you enjoy the process of conjecture and accept that is all that you are doing. I suppose for me when I was a kid my pop built a Santa Maria based on various sources and we've no idea what it looked like for sure but he had a general idea of what a Spanish carrack looked like and obviously many conjectural models built everywhere to work with. Did he fill the blanks with a few educated guesses? Of course he did but are they offensive or merely flourishes of ones own imagination for the sake of personal joy. There is in my opinion no clear cut line as to where historical inference goes from being an acceptable estimate to where it's just too much guess work. Again it's a matter of taste. I've no idea what the NRG's thoughts are of Dr Feldman's Lexington though I believe she looks far more like a continental privateer should look like rather than the Neal Parker model. I know he had fun researching/building her and I think he did a good job. Might a moldy plan of her surface one day? Perhaps but we'll both likely be dead by then ;D I'd like to do something similar with Enterprize and United States one day though I suppose that makes me -er "obstinate" and the replica is of "less value" but ones own personal enjoyment should be taken into account, no? That said I wouldn't try to build a model of something like Adams with where 0-1% historical information exists as I'm not that "obstinate" BTW great job on the Lexington!!

I'd also like to add (if it hasn't been added already) that while an "entry level" kit may be all around easier than a complex model like Victory or Sovereign, a lot of it is relative to the amount of work you put into it. Someone with 20-30 years of experience could build an entry level kit and probably spend significantly more time in detailing or possibly building the whole thing plank on frame from scratch and probably get through it a lot faster due to their accumulated knowhow. Therefore I agree that entry level is a very relative term though obviously I wouldn't recommend building the Victory on the first go.

Very well put jbshan. While I am happy to consult a secondary source if it is well researched, it is in the end a contemporary interpretation and not nearly as useful as a primary source from the time. The Adams painting above is not really historical and looks in my eyes like a generic small frigate/corvette from the time with nothing much to distinguish it, however I imagine this is sort of what she looked like the artist did a reasonably good job and was nice to find either way.

I know of a book "ships and Seamanship: The Maritime Prints of J.J. Baugean" That could be the 'all in one spot" place though haven't looked at the book myself. But very astute observations I agree about the wartercolor artist looks right