Bill Morrison

Marc,

Thanks. I appreciate it. Also, the Artesania Latina has quite a few problems.  One issue is that they have used belaying pins in their advertisement, while the use of belaying pins came about almost 100 years later. Another is the lack of external decoration, her reputation being of a highly decorated ship.  There are others commented about in the comments section for the model on You Tube.  The kit has been around for about a month.

Thanks for the reference.  I will look it up and purchase of copy.

Bill

Marc,

Fair enough.  May I have the specifics about the reference?  Which book?  Which author?

Thanks!

Bill

On 9/27/2017 at 5:06 PM, Nek0 said:

So, I suppose the important point about a one hundred and four guns first rate warship is... the guns ! Here is what I did for the 36 gauge guns. At first, we had the opportunity Michel Saunier and I to work with Alexey Baranov, an ukrainian based craftsman, that could mold us the guns. Indeed, the guns of Le Soleil Royal were in bronze, not iron. It means they were prestigious pieces that were highly decorated. 

One of these guns still exist nowadays and is displayed in a french town called Le Croisic. In fact, it is a gun recovered from the wreck of the second Soleil Royal, but it may have belonged to the first one. 

 

I'm confused.  I thought that this is a model of the first SR but you say that she is pierced for 104 guns.  The first SR carried 110 guns, the second carried 104.  The gun displayed had to be of the first because of the sign claiming that it was off of SR in 1670, which is appropriate for the first.  The second ship wasn't built until she was started in 1692.  Could you please clarify?

Josh,

I honestly don't know.  It is probable that others have done so given that you found one.  But, you really made out on that deal! Good job!  It's also interesting to note that the Revell transom for the Constitution is also inaccurate for the 1812 period but not for the 1924 refit on which the kit is based.

Bill

I'm extraordinarily impressed by CRI_CRI's effort with the Saint Phillipe, which also looks in many ways like SR. He would be an excellent person to talk with.

Bill

Marc,

I agree most emphatically!  It is an interesting point that I found perusing Les Vasseaux de Louis XIV that there seemed to be common features among most ships of the line similar to virtually every model of French naval ships of the period.  The drawings in that book are quite explicit about many features common to the war ships of the time.  Unfortunately, it is written in French.  I do not speak French (to my immense sorrow).  

Bill

By the way, I counted the gunports on the Tanneron model.  The ship is pierced for 104 guns, not 110.

Bill

I agree to a point.  It is possible that some features of the older ship were carried over to the new.  But, we simply do not know since plans are lacking.  It is likewise possible that you are correct since Tanneron was working somewhat blindly as we are.  It makes for a fun discussion.

Bill

On 9/19/2017 at 5:31 PM, moflea said:

In two or three words, can you tell me why Tanneron's model is false? I was always fascinated by that model (never saw it in real life though) and to me it looked like a real reference (after all, it's displayed in a naval museum).

I do not believe that the Tanneron model is "false".  It simply does not represent the first SR.  It is much closer to the second ship of that name t was built beginning in 1692.   In fact, the Tanneron model is also not complete given that he died while the model was under construction.  The infamous "hole in the knee of the head" bears testimony to this fact, as does the alleged lack of deck furniture.  Look at the Berain paintings and compare the different details of the decorative carvings. Even the quarter galleries are different in shape and detail. Count the gunports: the first ship carried 110 guns while the second carried 104.  The third ship is not in consideration as she was an 80-gun ship.

I saw the Tanneron model in Paris and was impressed by his attention to detail in other models, It was clear to me that had he been able to finish the model, it would have been fantastic.

Bill

Good luck! Please let me know if I can be of any help.

Bill

On 3/12/2022 at 2:30 PM, Kevin-the-lubber said:

Alabama Bill, I think the Kearsage is quite similar to the Alabama isn’t it? I’ll need to have a look at your log when I’m ready to start on that (could be years!).

Kevin,

They are similar only on a glance.  Kearsarge has a much larger armament.  Her masts are almost vertical while Alabama's are raked aft. Alabama is 20 feet longer.  Their deck arrangement is very different.  Kearsarge was built in the USA while Alabama was built in Liverpool, UK.

Unfortunately, Revell used many of the same parts to manufacture both ships.  The USS Kearsarge is a well-detailed version of that ship as she appeared in 1874, well after the US Civil War.  The CSS Alabama kit does not represent the real ship at all.  Revell chose to simply use the Kearsarge's hull, the same cannons as in their Kearsarge kit.  They cannot be used in a model of the Alabama.

In my Alabama Model, I modified the hull, drilled out all the hull openings as the appeared on Alabama, scratch-built a correct deck, and layout, used the Cottage Industry after-market armament correct for Alabama, and scratch-built the correct deck furniture.  The model is now roughly 98% accurate.  I have the Kearsarge waiting in the wings.

Unfortunately, Revell had this tendency to create an excellent kit, then rebox it as something else with ever-so-slight modifications.  They manufactured the excellent USS Kearsarge, then reboxed it as Alabama. They manufactured the outstanding Cutty Sark, then reboxed it to Thermopylae and Pedro Nunes.  Their USS Constitution was reboxed as the USS United States with the addition of a Roundhouse aft and a fictional second level to the quarter galleries and an equally fictional transom.  Their excellent smaller sailing ships carried on with this practice.

But, I have discovered the fun that I can have trying to modify them and detail them according to their real designs. It can be challenging.

Bill

One more comment; the Revell kit of the United States includes the lower gallery molded on, with a separate part for the upper level.  It is easy to leave it off.

Bill

Yes, I have paintings of both the quarter galleries, which were single level like the Constitution and the President, which was more rounded at the top.  The kit's transom is flared out unlike any of the paintings.  Of the two kits, that of the Constitution resembles reality than does the kit's.  Note that the transom for the United States should be higher than that on the Constitution because of the roundhouse aft.  There is a nice illustration of the ship in the Osprey publication American Heavy Frigates, 1797-1860.

Bill

I have a question.  Are you planning on building her out-of-the-box or are you going to modify the kit to more accurately reflect th Frigate?  There are contemporary paintings that can be sourced to change her quarter galleries and transom.  Unfortunately, there is little else to research.  I will follow your build with great interest.

Bill

Yes, that is the hole in the knee of the head.

Bill

Absolutely!  Please look at the area of the prow and the heads.  The prow sweeps up towards the figurehead.  Beneath the figurehead, the prow opens up into an opening, or the hole in the knee of the head.  The original Berain paintings show this opening with carvings to help support the entire head.  Most commercial models of the Soleil Royal show this hole as simply hollow.  The Tanneron model at the Musee de la Marine in Paris shows this as a hollow opening.   Hence, my curiosity.  I hope that my explanation is adequate.

Bill

Roger,

Well said!

Bill

Chris,

I am really curious about your treatment of the hole in the knee of the head.  Can you please explain that which you did?

Thank you!

Bill

Phil,

Thank you for that reference!   I'm at the rigging stage for my detailing and upgrading of the Revell CSS Alabama.  Marquardt would be most helpful.

Bill

Thanks! I will do so.

Bill

Chris,

I'm an experienced modeler and can well understand what you are saying.  I started building when I was six years old and am now 68.

But, we can all learn from others as I am learning from your techniques.  I'm happy to make your acquaintance!

Bill

It is an interesting book.  I especially like the diagrams throughout.  I wonder if there is a similar one covering French rigging and masting.

Bill

On 3/1/2022 at 10:16 PM, k-mart said:

I can't believe its been two years since my last post.  Took a pause in model building due to life events.   Switched jobs. sold house moved 1000 miles away. Spend year looking for new house.  Bought new house...settled in.    Now I'm finally back to where I can work on my models again.    Unboxed my Connie and she's just as I left her 2 years ago.   No damage... Ready to start again.  Next post I'll show pics before I start to work on her and of my new hobby space. 

And I need to catch up on the other Connie build logs on this forum.   

 

Been there, done that.  24 US Navy veteran.  I love your Connie!

Bill

I was given a great reference for masting and rigging for my birthday last month that I recommend highly.  It is a book called "The Masting and Rigging for English Ships of War, 1625-1860".  The book was written by James Lees and was published by The Naval Institute Press in 1979.  It s full of diagrams and photos that really make the intricacies of rigging very clear.

Bill

I am impressed with your overall attention to detail and the overall appearance of the model.  You seem to have a sense of the overall balance of the ship and a keen sense of detail.

Bill