trippwj

Nice job on the coppering, Sal. Looks really crisp!

Deck looks sharp, popeye! Send some of that nice weather this way, please?

Think I'll buy a ticket for this show as well!

t's tradition... but without the adult beverages and great food of St. Patrick's Day and Cinco de Mayo. You are obviously not of Italian heritage, Mark. In the old 'hood, there abundant adult beverages. Of course, the families all came over in the early 1900's. I will need to see if I can find it, but the Congressional Research Service recently released a brief report on Federal holidays that had some info on the history of Columbus Day. Became a Federal holiday in 1937. It would require an act of congress to un-holiday the day. I think the allure of Columbus is it reflects the spirit of exploration, where even a failed expedition results in something new. There are many tantalizing tidbits that may indicate an earlier visit to North America than 1492, but Columbus had an effective PR and marketing firm. As to not making it to the continent - he did not have a visa and Customs wouldn't let him land.... Blaming Columbus for the actions of his sponsoring government is like blaming the pilgrims for the Red Sox trading Babe Ruth.

No problem, Frank. Your 12 inches = 25 feet is also accurate.

The range from Russ sounds about right. The term "Cutter" has nothing to do with rig or form but rather function. It is a Revenue Cutter - a term still used today to describe the Coast Guard fleet.

I think either approach would make sense! They were both based on the 51 ton plans by Doughty. The following is extracted from US Coast Guard and Revenue Cutters, 1790-1935 by Donald L. Canney (1995). Note that he is the source for many of the older cutter records at the USCG History site, and is generally considered to be authoritative with thoroughly researched information. Both cutters were built by A. & N. Brown in New York. In terms of history, the Dallas served longer with numerous captures over the years (including at least 2 large slavers). The Surprise, however, lived a very short life. She was found to be too deep for service in Charleston, SC and was sent to Norfolk VA where she was sold in 1817.

As has been said already - nice job on them thar ports. While on the other side of the continent from Mark, getting a chilly rain all day here today as well, so much progress in the shipyard. Enjoy the summer weather tomorrow!

"tis indeed a challenge. There have been some discussions in the past which point out that the "perfect" alignment was likely less common than portrayed - it is a lot easier to paint them in a row than as they may have actually been on the ship. The Captain, Bosssun and sailing master would make adjustments to improve the trim, adjust the rake, or accommodate damage from storms, so the deadeyes would likely form a near- straight line as opposed to an actual straight line. I have seen some folks do an amazing job reeving the deadeyes off the hull - would need to do some real digging to show you the examples, but they are there. I guess one part of the equation is historical accuracy - for accurate termination of the lanyards, they are tucked through and around the shroud. If you can terminate the lanyard with, perhaps, a dollop of glue at the top of the deadeye, then you can install the shroud, get the right tension and the tie off the lanyard around the shroud.

Can be done, but the challenge is the shroud is where the lanyard gets tied. Getting the tension right by adjusting the shroud would be the big challenge, but not insurmountable.

While looking through some older Nautical materials I had downloaded, I came across the attached series of articles from The U. S. Nautical Magazine and Naval Journal from 1857 discussing the competition that resulted in William Webb building the Harriet Lane. Rather interesting set of specifications spelled out in the requirements article, closely matching the HL. Also a peek into the politics of the times! Never know what you will find in these old journals! Note that the article with a description of the proposed Revenue Cutter was by John Griffiths - one of the losing bidders, and also (coincidentally) the publisher and editor of the magazine. It is interesting to see how closely many of the dimensions and fittings align with the winning model proposed by Webb. Pages from 1857 Monthly_Nautical_Magazine_and_Quarterly.pdf

What they said! Those colours look great!

Both a capstan and a windlass showing on the plans from grant. Here is a drawing from China Tea Clippers by George Campbell (1954) of both a capstan and a windlass.

Based on the information from the USCG historian, the Dallas was a very shallow draft cutter, drawing 6 feet. TYPE/RIG/CLASS: Topsail schooner / Surprise Class COMMISSIONED: 1816 DECOMMISSIONED: Sold, 1821 DISPLACEMENT: 51 3/95 tons PROPULSION: Sail LENGTH: 56’8" BEAM: 17’ DRAFT: 6’ Dallas1816.pdf

Attached is an article from 1831 showing a compound capstan. Can also be found via Google books at http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Transactions_of_the_Society_Instituted_a.html?id=mlQ1AAAAMAAJ 1831 COMPOUND CAPSTAN.pdf

Looking good, Sal - nice job on this boat!

All I can say is WOW! That is some very impressive detail work, Sherry. Nicely done!

Thought I would throw in an illustration from Rees' Cyclopedia (1820) of the deck beam scarphing on a 74 gun ship.

Well put, Jason, and there is the essence of the issue - at the time in question (177x), there was no true American "Admiralty" to make those decisions - they issued general requirements to purchase "Sloops" or "Schooners", then for some "Frigates". Individual colonies then also had vessels built, but to no set mold or designs. The first effort at a standard design criteria wasn't until the first 6 frigates were ordered in the 1790's - and even those, whilst built based on the model and preliminary draughts by Humphreys, varied dramatically in final product, influenced by the builders personal vision and the Naval Captain (assigned to each as superintendent during construction). Add to that the subscription built vessels (such as the Essex) which were totally designed and built based on the local contract - then sold to the Federal government when completed. The concept of a standardized naval construction program - plans, materials, methods and so on - was much slower to take root in America, partly a result of our desire for "States Rights" during the earliest days of the Republic, and also a general mistrust of central government.

Hi, Sal - good question! I have also posted a response to your build log. In this case, it appears that the ship sat lower at the stern than the bow - not at all uncommon for these types. Increased speed, supposedly, as well as providing the rudder more bite and increased stability. The launch ways are angled to allow the ship to slide into the water - think of them in relation to the ground and the keel is parallel to the ways. 2.5 to 3.5 degrees was very common for launching ways - about the ideal slant to let the vessel slide in a controlled manner into the water, but not so much that she would start to move before the blocks were removed. The waterline is in reference to the way the ship will set in the water and will not match the slant of the ways. In the water, the stern would be lower, hence that 4.5 degree angle as opposed to the ways. They are really two totally different and unrelated sets of angles. the masts also showed different amounts of "rake" - in general, the fore mast had slightly less rake or angle than the aft (main) mast. This was very common across nearly all ship types.

Those are good points, Bart. I guess I was thinking more of folks like Joshua Humphreys. In his youth, he was a ship carpenter’s apprentice in Philadelphia, and after the death of the master, Humphreys was given control of the ship yard. His later creation of his own ship yard made him well-known in the colonies as a naval architect, and he was commissioned by the U. S. government in 1776 to build ships in Philadelphia and prepare them for the Revolutionary War. As I recollect, he did not visit Britain prior to the start of the 1800's, if at all. Many of the New England ship builders actually had closer ties to French influence (Canadian influence) and Irish than strict British practice. In fact, when you look at ship yards such as Portsmouth NH while the builders had British ancestry, they had been in New Hampshire since the mid 1600's - whatever influence came from Britain would have been long since diluted by the local maritime environment and nature of the fisheries and mercantile activities from those regions. See (for example) Preble's History of the United States Navy-yard, Portsmouth, N. H. (1892). In the Historical Society records for this region, the early permanent settlers of this part of Maine were from Massachusetts - and had been there for many years. The records on ship builders I have seen so far are for locally trained folks - they started building their own boats for fishing (patterned after the French, Portuguese, Spanish and British vessels in the Newfoundland/Bay of Fundy fisheries) but to their own preference. These evolved into privateers and merchant vessels in response to market pressures (for lack of a better phrase). While there were similarities to boats built in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, they also had some unique characteristics that set them apart.

Hi, sal - good question! In this case, it appears that the ship sat lower at the stern than the bow - not at all uncommon for these types. Increased speed, supposedly, as well as providing the rudder more bite and increased stability. The launch ways are angled to allow the ship to slide into the water - think of them in relation to the ground and the keel is parallel to the ways. The waterline is in reference to the way the ship will set in the water and will not match the slant of the ways. In the water, the stern would be lower, hence that 4.5 degree angle as opposed to the ways. They are really two totally different and unrelated sets of angles.

In thinking about the timber for masts, the British had been using New England (particularly Maine) trees for masts and spars for many years - see The Kings Broad Arrow for some good information. As to a side by side comparison, I have not seen any good comparisons. Below are a brief comparison of the British fifth Rate HMS Lark of 32 guns and the Continental Navy Frigate Randolph of 32 guns. have not done any digging yet for mast and rigging details - doubtful there is much for the Randolph unless in a painting somewhere. Class & type: British Richmond-class fifth-rate frigate HMS Lark Built in 1761-62 Tons burthen: 680 61⁄94 bm Length: 127 ft 2 in (38.76 m) (gundeck) 108 ft 0.375 in (32.92793 m) (keel) Beam: 34 ft 5 in (10.49 m) Depth of hold: 12 ft 0.5 in (3.670 m) Sail plan: Full-rigged ship Complement: 210 officers and men Armament: 32 guns comprising Upperdeck: 26 × 12-pounder guns Quarterdeck: 4 × 6-pounder guns Forecastle: 2 × 6-pounder guns Type: Continental Navy Frigate Randolph Built in 1776 by Wharton & Humphreys (Philadelphia) Designed by Joshua Humphreys Length: 132 ft 9 in (40.46 m) Beam: 34 ft 6 in (10.52 m) Draft: 18 ft (5.5 m) Depth: 10 ft 6 in (3.20 m) Armament: 26 x 12 pdrs; 10 x 6 pdrs

well done, Slog. Your turn!

Sorry, Jan - wrong fish! While this vessel was not from Eastport, it was an important part of a fishery which at one time was concentrated in Eastport, Maine. Small fish - big money back in the day!