CharlieZardoz

Greetings fellow ship enthusiasts! I've been doing research regarding some of the kits out there and was looking for some feedback regarding size variations of Baltimore Clippers.  Specifically with regard to the Albatros I've noticed 3 kits available Mantua, Constructo and Occre which lists scale at 1:40, 1:55 and 1:100 respectively.  That said the model lengths are reportedly 27" 20" and 22.5" respectively which doesn't make much sense.  I am aware that the Occre kit leaves something to be desired and doesn't look much like the other two but the scales must be off between the Mantua and Constructo kits as well?  I've been looking at the other Baltimore Clipper (or similar looking) kits available Lynx, Pride of Baltimore and Roger B. Taney whose scales are around 60-64 and sizes range from 27-34" the Harvey which is 36" at a 1:50 scale and also the Dapper Tom via Model Shipways which is 24ish" at 1:76 scale.  For the most part looking at the models they all seem somewhat similar in design gunports, hull shapes etc, so unless the Albatros was a significantly smaller than average clipper ship I'm wondering if there is some sort of logical explanation.
 
Thanks all

Talos, I have that image in one of my books that helps. It's a procession of ships 1823 in it is Brandywine and later Constitution and you can see the change. the photo itself is grainy and I'd love a larger version of the original. Consequently let's assume that United States also had their stern modified as well and remember there's an image of Constellation that time period too. My question is while Constitution had their new stern, did the stern details change a but over time. And this pic in addition to the one I have shows it did. Which is exciting so ty for loading this.

This is the tragic last act of the famed Salem frigate. She held an estimated 5.000 Irish prisoners during her twelve final years, who were mostly awaiting transport to Australia. Some of the prisoners' stories are recounted here:
 
 
 

Talos, I have that image in one of my books that helps. It's a procession of ships 1823 in it is Brandywine and later Constitution and you can see the change. the photo itself is grainy and I'd love a larger version of the original. Consequently let's assume that United States also had their stern modified as well and remember there's an image of Constellation that time period too. My question is while Constitution had their new stern, did the stern details change a but over time. And this pic in addition to the one I have shows it did. Which is exciting so ty for loading this.

Talos, I have that image in one of my books that helps. It's a procession of ships 1823 in it is Brandywine and later Constitution and you can see the change. the photo itself is grainy and I'd love a larger version of the original. Consequently let's assume that United States also had their stern modified as well and remember there's an image of Constellation that time period too. My question is while Constitution had their new stern, did the stern details change a but over time. And this pic in addition to the one I have shows it did. Which is exciting so ty for loading this.

Those are great Talos! Look at those lines wheewhoo! Do you posts these in a different forum I'd love to follow your progress. Consequently I have an image of the South's attempt to convert the Raritan as well. I guess they really didn't have the resources to convert these ships to ironclads, but poor Germantown and United States were taken into the navy as floating batteries and then scuttled. Neat stuff!

I'm really sorry to hear that, man. Also, sorry for not being around much myself. I went back to school, got my master's, then COVID hit, then I got a new job and also got distracted with my 3D printer, writing (I've published a few short stories!), and other stuff, so I haven't been around much recently. I feel the same way, though; I need to dig myself out and get back to all this, too.

Thank you kindly my friend. I only have the 1803 full. Was given a partial image of the 1799 one but it's just a small photo. I am unsure which one of them is at the library or if both of them are there. But happy to send you the one and prep that as soon as I can. Indeed how they able to keep hobbying when we all sobby messes makes the wood wet wahh 😭😅

Also I miss you all! I'm in the middle of a messy not divorce home separation that's been coming for some time! I'm eager to get back to art once this nightmare is finally over lol. But I'm fine I realized this was coming on the horizon and why I've been so quiet these last 2 years.

Hii! Well basically Dan (Pariser) had a copy and gave it to me so now I have it. Not entirely sure where he got it from the origibal is in the Mysic Seaport library and is reference only. But I would be able to print a copy of my copy out at staples and mail it? Again there are actually 2 Burrows plans the 1799 and the 1803 refit of Enterprize. I have the 1803 version

Thank you kindly my friend. I only have the 1803 full. Was given a partial image of the 1799 one but it's just a small photo. I am unsure which one of them is at the library or if both of them are there. But happy to send you the one and prep that as soon as I can. Indeed how they able to keep hobbying when we all sobby messes makes the wood wet wahh 😭😅

Also I miss you all! I'm in the middle of a messy not divorce home separation that's been coming for some time! I'm eager to get back to art once this nightmare is finally over lol. But I'm fine I realized this was coming on the horizon and why I've been so quiet these last 2 years.

Hii! Well basically Dan (Pariser) had a copy and gave it to me so now I have it. Not entirely sure where he got it from the origibal is in the Mysic Seaport library and is reference only. But I would be able to print a copy of my copy out at staples and mail it? Again there are actually 2 Burrows plans the 1799 and the 1803 refit of Enterprize. I have the 1803 version

Charley, I am so sorry to hear of your family problems. Once the dust has settled, you will be happier as a free agent, especially being a young fellow. The first casualties of marriage are always your hobbies, but rarely hers. At least she doesn't have a horse, like mine has.
 
I would be interested in a copy of each, if you can swing it, and I would, of course, pay any expenses.
 
 

Hi so the story of the plans is this. I gave up trying to go to the museum to find them at mystic then it came to my attention that in our brooklyn boat group had a copy and our head of group Dan Pariser gave his copy to one of our group members and made me a photocopy. So these copies are the only available version of the plan I know that are able to be sourced and not even sure where and when Dan got it from.

I think Tony is correct. You have to account that a portion of people who get into ship modeling (even if they have longed to build one for years, decades, blah) give it a go and just decide it's not for them. There's a certain masochism ... -er discipline that comes from doing detailed work which includes model ships that not everyone is cut out for. Seeing the list posted, yes a few were Connie's, one Bounty yeah but some were beginners kits, two Sultana's and one Armed Virginia Sloop which should be good starting points. So I think maybe including those on your list Chris may be part of the confusion here since those models were definitely the correct choice just the builders lost interest which is going to happen no matter how much or little the builders in question listen to the wisdom of experience.

Hi so the story of the plans is this. I gave up trying to go to the museum to find them at mystic then it came to my attention that in our brooklyn boat group had a copy and our head of group Dan Pariser gave his copy to one of our group members and made me a photocopy. So these copies are the only available version of the plan I know that are able to be sourced and not even sure where and when Dan got it from.

Hi so the story of the plans is this. I gave up trying to go to the museum to find them at mystic then it came to my attention that in our brooklyn boat group had a copy and our head of group Dan Pariser gave his copy to one of our group members and made me a photocopy. So these copies are the only available version of the plan I know that are able to be sourced and not even sure where and when Dan got it from.

Next we have the model built by Captain Percy Ashley at the Addison Gallery which looks to me like a very close approximation to the lithograph photo shown above if you take into account the placement of the gun ports etc.  Something I'd love to visit I wonder how it was built and if plans survive from the process.  

Greetings everyone! Been a bit quiet of late due to the fabulous summer but wanted to start a new post where those interested could gather information on the famous schooner/brig Enterprise.  While no plans of her exist, so much secondary information does that I cant help but feel an accurate model could easily be made of her.  Please feel free to add any docs/info to this thread though I'm trying to avoid the Constructo model which I've come to feel isn't a very accurate depiction of the ship.This is what I've come up with... enjoy
 
 
First below we have the half-hull model that exists in the Naval historical center which I'd love to get measurements of. This would be before her rebuilding and lengthening from 84.5' to 92'. I included some of the article from the Canney Sailing Warships book since it's a pretty interesting read.

Hello and greetings! I always find the idea of trying to reconstruct ships with little to no historical references daunting but also challenging. With some awareness of the history involved one can make an "interpretation" of such vessels as Magellons. The main thing to be mindful of is to be very aware of the exact time the ship was in service as there are subtle differences in ship design even of that time that one can notice decade to decade and be aware of or stumble over if not researched properly (see above about that stern tuck for example). The other is taking into account tonnage as a method of determining size and function. 
 
The only ship which seems to have had a reasonable attempt at reconstruction is Victoria and you can see examples of the ship below.  85 tons about 65 feet +/_ She strikes me as being a bit longer and more slender than a carrack like Santa Maria if I were to attempt a model of her I'd likely use alot of this material for reference. As for the others... that's really a challenge. These weren't naval vessels so there was no commissioned design but of a type one could assume larger ships looked closer to galleons while smaller ones looked more like caravels such as Nina. Personally I feel the more drab and unspectacular and weathered they looked the more close to reality they probably were. Exterior was covered in pitch and a modeler might want to add some subtle paint and detailing to avoid boredom but also these embellishments were likely not the case and its doubtful each had very little to distinguish themselves from the other. At any rate an interesting topic I wish you luck on.

Hello and greetings! I always find the idea of trying to reconstruct ships with little to no historical references daunting but also challenging. With some awareness of the history involved one can make an "interpretation" of such vessels as Magellons. The main thing to be mindful of is to be very aware of the exact time the ship was in service as there are subtle differences in ship design even of that time that one can notice decade to decade and be aware of or stumble over if not researched properly (see above about that stern tuck for example). The other is taking into account tonnage as a method of determining size and function. 
 
The only ship which seems to have had a reasonable attempt at reconstruction is Victoria and you can see examples of the ship below.  85 tons about 65 feet +/_ She strikes me as being a bit longer and more slender than a carrack like Santa Maria if I were to attempt a model of her I'd likely use alot of this material for reference. As for the others... that's really a challenge. These weren't naval vessels so there was no commissioned design but of a type one could assume larger ships looked closer to galleons while smaller ones looked more like caravels such as Nina. Personally I feel the more drab and unspectacular and weathered they looked the more close to reality they probably were. Exterior was covered in pitch and a modeler might want to add some subtle paint and detailing to avoid boredom but also these embellishments were likely not the case and its doubtful each had very little to distinguish themselves from the other. At any rate an interesting topic I wish you luck on.

Hello and greetings! I always find the idea of trying to reconstruct ships with little to no historical references daunting but also challenging. With some awareness of the history involved one can make an "interpretation" of such vessels as Magellons. The main thing to be mindful of is to be very aware of the exact time the ship was in service as there are subtle differences in ship design even of that time that one can notice decade to decade and be aware of or stumble over if not researched properly (see above about that stern tuck for example). The other is taking into account tonnage as a method of determining size and function. 
 
The only ship which seems to have had a reasonable attempt at reconstruction is Victoria and you can see examples of the ship below.  85 tons about 65 feet +/_ She strikes me as being a bit longer and more slender than a carrack like Santa Maria if I were to attempt a model of her I'd likely use alot of this material for reference. As for the others... that's really a challenge. These weren't naval vessels so there was no commissioned design but of a type one could assume larger ships looked closer to galleons while smaller ones looked more like caravels such as Nina. Personally I feel the more drab and unspectacular and weathered they looked the more close to reality they probably were. Exterior was covered in pitch and a modeler might want to add some subtle paint and detailing to avoid boredom but also these embellishments were likely not the case and its doubtful each had very little to distinguish themselves from the other. At any rate an interesting topic I wish you luck on.

Hello and greetings! I always find the idea of trying to reconstruct ships with little to no historical references daunting but also challenging. With some awareness of the history involved one can make an "interpretation" of such vessels as Magellons. The main thing to be mindful of is to be very aware of the exact time the ship was in service as there are subtle differences in ship design even of that time that one can notice decade to decade and be aware of or stumble over if not researched properly (see above about that stern tuck for example). The other is taking into account tonnage as a method of determining size and function. 
 
The only ship which seems to have had a reasonable attempt at reconstruction is Victoria and you can see examples of the ship below.  85 tons about 65 feet +/_ She strikes me as being a bit longer and more slender than a carrack like Santa Maria if I were to attempt a model of her I'd likely use alot of this material for reference. As for the others... that's really a challenge. These weren't naval vessels so there was no commissioned design but of a type one could assume larger ships looked closer to galleons while smaller ones looked more like caravels such as Nina. Personally I feel the more drab and unspectacular and weathered they looked the more close to reality they probably were. Exterior was covered in pitch and a modeler might want to add some subtle paint and detailing to avoid boredom but also these embellishments were likely not the case and its doubtful each had very little to distinguish themselves from the other. At any rate an interesting topic I wish you luck on.

Hello and greetings! I always find the idea of trying to reconstruct ships with little to no historical references daunting but also challenging. With some awareness of the history involved one can make an "interpretation" of such vessels as Magellons. The main thing to be mindful of is to be very aware of the exact time the ship was in service as there are subtle differences in ship design even of that time that one can notice decade to decade and be aware of or stumble over if not researched properly (see above about that stern tuck for example). The other is taking into account tonnage as a method of determining size and function. 
 
The only ship which seems to have had a reasonable attempt at reconstruction is Victoria and you can see examples of the ship below.  85 tons about 65 feet +/_ She strikes me as being a bit longer and more slender than a carrack like Santa Maria if I were to attempt a model of her I'd likely use alot of this material for reference. As for the others... that's really a challenge. These weren't naval vessels so there was no commissioned design but of a type one could assume larger ships looked closer to galleons while smaller ones looked more like caravels such as Nina. Personally I feel the more drab and unspectacular and weathered they looked the more close to reality they probably were. Exterior was covered in pitch and a modeler might want to add some subtle paint and detailing to avoid boredom but also these embellishments were likely not the case and its doubtful each had very little to distinguish themselves from the other. At any rate an interesting topic I wish you luck on.