CaptArmstrong

I found those on the Library of Congress' website, under "Sloop Hornet". The entry here lists Benjamin Lathrobe as the architect for it.
 
Here is the entry. You can download a higher resolution TIFF there. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/95860806/
 
I also found this model frigate held by a Seamen's Bank in New York City. Dunno what she's supposed to be. Too many ports to be HMS Cyane or USS Boston. Could be New York? The half-built-up bulwarks are interesting. EDIT: Here is the link. Could be British of course, but... https://www.loc.gov/item/gsc1994004940/PP/
 
5a23235u.tif

I made naval-pattern deadlights after Charlie for all my windows. Reinforced plywood, they fit into the cills, and attached with multiple barrel-bolts. Over the years I have painted them on both sides, and cut small light/vision ports in them using a door-knob cutter. Even if the house blows away, they will still stay in place. The larger windows have naval upper and lower half-lid-and-bucklers-style ports, just like Constitution had. The only issues are storage, warpage, and their great weight, especially with the upstairs shutters.

Hal, tell us what Rush wanted for the Congress!
 
I haven't blown out to sea yet, and I still have power and the inter-webby.  

Be safe Frolick!
 
Note that Chapelle inexplicably squished the quarter galleries on his plan of the class. The windows should reach as far down as the bottom edge of the rearmost gunport, as it does in both the doughty and fox plans (though doughty's was almost certainly the one used, fox's hull lines differed subtly). Though I reckon his outline of the United States' upper tier of galleries is pretty sensible. I've managed to make adjustments to other plans similar to making the quarter galleries deeper, so that might be something to consider before tackling additions. I assume you'll be reconstructing the transom as well, based on the shape of the 74's?

Be safe Frolick!
 
Note that Chapelle inexplicably squished the quarter galleries on his plan of the class. The windows should reach as far down as the bottom edge of the rearmost gunport, as it does in both the doughty and fox plans (though doughty's was almost certainly the one used, fox's hull lines differed subtly). Though I reckon his outline of the United States' upper tier of galleries is pretty sensible. I've managed to make adjustments to other plans similar to making the quarter galleries deeper, so that might be something to consider before tackling additions. I assume you'll be reconstructing the transom as well, based on the shape of the 74's?

Be safe Frolick!
 
Note that Chapelle inexplicably squished the quarter galleries on his plan of the class. The windows should reach as far down as the bottom edge of the rearmost gunport, as it does in both the doughty and fox plans (though doughty's was almost certainly the one used, fox's hull lines differed subtly). Though I reckon his outline of the United States' upper tier of galleries is pretty sensible. I've managed to make adjustments to other plans similar to making the quarter galleries deeper, so that might be something to consider before tackling additions. I assume you'll be reconstructing the transom as well, based on the shape of the 74's?

Hi Glenn, regarding Congress the 1799 ship might be a challenge to build as much detailing of the ship was never recorded and since she fought in no battles and therefore there are no contemporary depictions of her in battle and only one outboard profile. She had more or less a mundane existence was considered slow and left to rot after 1824. However if I were to ever consider building her I would first use what resources did exist and go from there. I would ask myself first what era would I want to build her as these ships changed over time. If at launching then I would use the profile plan of the Constellation class and stay as close to it as possible. If 1812 era then go off the outboard profile (see below). If 1824 well I would assume she may have appeared something similar to how Constellation did after her modernization, though I am unsure if Congress got such a renovation. At launching the Constellation class had 7 stern windows which then became 5 when the two nearest the quarter galleries were sealed. By the last refit they had 3 windows like Constitution does today and the detailing had less carvings and more general stuff like stars, wreaths, eagles etc. The exterior color changed as well from ochre to yellow to the white stripe and the figureheads were replaced with billetheads.  If I wanted to build such a model I would have to make a lot of guesses and use what is known about Constellation (see Constellation images) and then follow a similar style but imagine detailing for Congress. I am unsure if a record of her original carvings was recorded, frolick are you aware of any? What I do know is that Rush wanted the representation of the "Goddess of Wisdom." So I imagine that was her figurehead? 
 
America is different, there are models of America in existence to my knowledge anyways. I'd go hunt them down and see what the model makers did and do something similar. There are pics of such a model in this link. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/7707-american-ship-collection-with-plans/ Good luck!

This was the best I could manage of the image on the wall of the Mariner's Museum in Newport News VA.

So wondering if anyone is aware of a better quality version of this image? It's the 1823 Mediterranean squadron which includes North Carolina, Constitution, Brandywine (again) and Erie. In the image I have, you can see Connie appears to have a stern which looks at least somewhat like the model they have at the museum (can't really tell with the detail being so grainy). Brandywine has the characteristic "m" shape.  Also is there a record as to when Connie got fitted for 3 stern chasers?

Oooooooooo yes I have this!  Again it's a tiny image I'd really like to know if there is a place to view the full size images. That said it does offer some nice perspective even at this size for me to make a template drawing off from (or start anyways).  Those are roses, not stars? Also here are two modernish paintings of Chesapeake and Decatur. The Decatur reminds me of Jamestown and Congress a bit while Chesapeake looks like she does from the captured plans however I do wonder if she was ornamented as such since the bone model in Germany shows much more carvings?
 
 
Also starting to realize that the best way to understand a ships build and decorations will mean collecting info on builders and woodworkers, so I can get an understanding on each's style (Rush seems to be the primary carver for many ships). Any thoughts on books I should invest in, I have Figureheads and their carvers of course a great work.

That's pretty neat and also regarding the later "improved 74" I sorta imagine the stern drawing on that one to be similar to what United States looked at launching. Based on what drawings exist of the frigate it seemed to have a similar style balcony plus the design itself feels like a scaled up version of the super frigates or thus the frigates were "razed" versions of the 74 lol
 
And yeah that's the stern of Essex I am familiar with so I am assuming that was a merely a reconstruction? If so could she also have had additional carvings the drawing doesn't depict? This is 1812+ version of Essex that is...

Hi guys! So yeah I'm back after a bit of a long hiatus which consisted mainly of getting my business on track plus I have a busy nightlife in performance art.  I've been tinkering a lot with laser templates (which an update will be posted shortly for the cutter) but also been doing a lot of research and immersion. Sometimes a break from ones hobbies helps offer perspective. So with that out of the way, nice to be back (and wow the site is real different now lol). For this page my plan is to start making some templates on how various ship sterns and bows might have looked. First off is Potomac which I got started but not sure about quite a few details. I took the initial steps on the windows and overlaying the detailing from the builder plans. So lets have fun and happy to hear your informative opinions. I'm not sure about the windows if they should have one or two horizontal bars. I'm also assuming that the stern had mullion pillars like Constitution? Also I'm seeing a shadowy vertical detail that looks similar to the stern plan of Columbus, open to thoughts as to what sort of plant or scrolling that might be? What I'm seeing is a lot of navy ships from 1820 onward had a repeat of basic imagery, stars, eagles, wreaths, etc. A lot of the problems i'm having is the contemporary source materials I currently have are images from books that are 2" or so large. If larger versions of the source material exists for viewing would like to check it out. I'd like to do similar to Congress, Brandywine, Constellation, Chesapeake and other similar ships trying to get as close as possible to what they may have looked like.

 

Www.tineye.com is a good resource for tracking down the source of any image OR finding a better version of it. To get this image I clicked on then saved the picture posted above, went to tineye.com and uploaded the picture with a single click. Tineye comes back instantly with every version of the image available on the web, and convently they give the number of pixels for each choice so you can chose the biggest one. AND they give you the link to the website that has the image.

Hi frolick! Hope all is well  I am curious regarding Essex, there is that stern from Anatomy of the ship book then the one from Chapelle's book aka the british admiralty plan, so I assume Essex had five windows as such? Below for a bit of fun I lined up Potomac and Congress you can see how much longer the stern was for Congress

If it had five windows, I imagine her reconstruction was likely based on Chapelle's.
 

 
Uploading a pair of redrawings I did recently, the proposed 74 from the Revolution. Interesting ship, size-wise she matches up with what the British would call the Large-class. Just for fun, and because I always thought they were interesting (I blame Gardiner's book on Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars), I did a hypothetical razee in that style. The bow and stern are taken from Franklin's "as-built" profile and I think they really capture the same feeling as HMS Saturn's razee. I also recently was reading Millions for Defense, about the subscription frigates, which has me thinking about Boston, John Adams, and ones we don't have plans for. I wonder what we're missing with those ships and which of the "unnamed" plans in Chapelle match up with them, if any.

Oh wow! That is fine performance indeed. Are their dimensions on three decks really accurate? They seem not much bigger than a 38 really, and they aren't super full lined either. https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=16574
 
I don't have my Gardiner books on me, but Wikipedia says 14.4 large and 11 knots close-hauled, citing him. With 18pdrs, I'm sure, but still. 13.5 or 13.7 sounds right for 24pdrs. I believe the fir ones were considered a bit leewardly, being lighter and thus higher in the water. Though false keel additions helped.  Also with 28x 24pdrs they may have pitched a bit more than the original, but nothing too severe. They certainly topped the 13 knot mark for speed, but I don't think they quite matched the original. Leander and Newcastle were fast, but not as fast as Endymion. IIRC  They were capable of making 13kts large and 10kts close hauled. 

Just one small correction: The Endymion's fir sisters, Glasgow, Liffey, Forth, Liverpool, and one other, were redesigned to carry 28 main deck 24-pounder long guns, since at over 160 feet on deck, there was enough room to do so. Two of them fought at the Battle of Algiers in 1816, and the popular Glasgow survived to fight with the British fleet against the Turks at Navarino in 1828.

Endymion was based on the lines of the captured French Pomone, though fastened like a British ship instead. She was big for the time, slightly bigger than the Swedish Bellone mentioned above. Gardnier says that Pomone was originally built for 12-pounders, then fitted with 18-pounders, then captured with 24-pounders. Pomone was lightly-built as most French frigates were, compared to the British ships at least, and she was reduced to 18-pounders before being broken up early on. Even Endymion suffered and she was reduced to 18-pounders before the War of 1812 flared up and she was aimed against the American frigates. They also only had 13 ports a side, like a 36-gun frigate, instead of the 14 that a 38-gun had.  The structural issues with 24-pounders weren't limited to those, the other smaller 24-pounder frigates like Cambrian (built to British standards and heft) also had issues and several were reduced to 18-pounders. The biggest of the 24-pounders they had then was the captured Egyptienne, which didn't last long in strenuous British service either, which had about 150 tons displacement over Endymion, which had another hundred tons on Cambrian. By comparison, USS President was rated by the British at 1533 tons, over a hundred bigger than even Egyptienne. Gardnier references the wiki numbers (14.4/11kts) for the 18-pounder armament, and 13.6kts large and nearly 11kts close-hauled in any conditions. She was also sharp in French style and sensitive to trim, also long in wearing, especially in light winds.
 
The fir-built sisters to Endymion (Forte class) had a much lighter-weight hull thanks to the fir, which made them good sailors and able to carry the guns easily. They were still limited by the lack of main deck ports compared to the Constitution and her sisters (26 x 24-pdr versus 30 x 24-pdr). The British didn't consider them faster than the original and they were leewardy, over-stiff, and bad rollers because of the heavily-ballasted shallow hull, but that was fixed with additions to the false keel. Like Endymion, they were slow in wearing because of their length, and Gardnier references 9.6-10.4kts close-hauled and 13kts large.
 
Leander and Newcastle were in a completely different class of size, being over 1500 tons like the American ships and 15 feet longer on the gundeck. They could carry four more 24-pounders on the main deck like the American frigates. Compared to Endymion they were heavier and they sailed more like the razee-74s like Saturn, being fast in heavier winds and sea, while the lighter ships could outpace them in light winds. They had sharp hulls and were pretty sensitive to trim and loading and were heavy pitchers. Gardnier references 13kts close-hauled and 14kts large for Newcastle and points out that they were stable enough to be able to use their lee battery in any condition.
 
Elsewhere, he points out that British speed numbers were all dead reckoning for navigation and they conservatively overestimated them to provide a buffer to keep from making an....unexpectedly early landfall. They did this by moving the knots on the line closer together, with the normal RN 28 second hourglass, the knots should have been 47 ft 4 inches apart, but their standard was 42 feet instead. He says the exaggeration was so bad that 13kts cited was more like 11.5kts by modern measurement.

Oh wow! That is fine performance indeed. Are their dimensions on three decks really accurate? They seem not much bigger than a 38 really, and they aren't super full lined either. https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=16574
 
I don't have my Gardiner books on me, but Wikipedia says 14.4 large and 11 knots close-hauled, citing him. With 18pdrs, I'm sure, but still. 13.5 or 13.7 sounds right for 24pdrs. I believe the fir ones were considered a bit leewardly, being lighter and thus higher in the water. Though false keel additions helped.  Also with 28x 24pdrs they may have pitched a bit more than the original, but nothing too severe. They certainly topped the 13 knot mark for speed, but I don't think they quite matched the original. Leander and Newcastle were fast, but not as fast as Endymion. IIRC  They were capable of making 13kts large and 10kts close hauled. 

Wasn't the initital draft design smaller? Perhaps he heard of their dimensions and enlarged to the as built dimensions. Otherwise I'd say the constitution has much more in common in terms of hull form with Chapman's Bellona/Venus than with either the Forte or the South Carolina. But in dimensions and armament, the forte class was certainly closest! 

Well said! 

I agree entirely with your assessment of frigate designs. 
 
I think a mix of large (constitution class) frigates with more numerous Endymion/Pomone class vessels would be a smart balance. Though at a minimum of strength, stowage, and stability to carry 24pdrs, the Endy still had enough to be effective, and her speed was of course outstanding. What is the record on the bellona's performance? I can't say I know much about that class beyond its existence.  And I bow to your knowledge of 17th & early-mid 18th century shipbuilding 
 
I'm sure many here already (JohnE & Bava especially) know the late 18th century design differences between British and french frigates as well or better than I, but I'll add my take on why french 18pdr frigate design in particular was still viewed as superior in the late 18th/early 19th century by many British officers:
 
Though the British built the first 18pdr frigates-and the french took several years to catch on-when they did they built them at much more effective dimensions for 28x 18pdrs (~150' x 39', compared to 141' x 38'10" for hms Minerva) allowing them an edge in speed and even secondary armament due to the advantage of a higher lwl and L/B ratio, as JohnE mentioned. Of course This was standard design priorities at play for french warships at this point. But it was only compounded by the developments of the 1790s, which saw unwavering British conservatism in the face of some radical french experimentation.
 
British captains realized that their early 18pdr ships were cramped and a touch slow, but the admiralty was only willing to increase the dimensions of this still new type (notably length) very slowly and incrementally. In the 1790s, a foot was added every year or so to each of the surveyor's (rule and henslow) designs, gradually improving  speed in each new design by small amounts. (Roughly, and by speed I'm going by the highest quoted speed in sailing reports, from what I've read of Gardiner. ) Still, the dimensions (and iirc speed) of Sane's initial 18pdr design of 1782 was not entirely matched by British designed 38s until 1799 with the active and amazon. About the same time, the amphion and apollo were launched (the lead ships of the most successful 32 and 36 gun 18pdr classes) along with the copied Leda. However, at this moment of embracing reasonable dimensions at last, st Vincent became first lord of the admiralty(1801). He ordered a revival of a 36 gun frigate design from the 1780s, along with the 12pdr Richmond class of 1757 in fir! Just After his administration finished in 1804, the 154' lively (laid down in 1799) was launched, and along with the ledas, apollos, and amphions became the standard designs of the napoleonic wars- reliably matching french speed and size 20 years after the 18pdr type was introduced  
 
In the same timespan, the french had experimented with some radical designs, and had been building the more traditional but very effective sane design in numbers. Other 18pdr designs reached 160' long, and employed radically fine lines for such large hulls. The Seine  class by Forfait and the even bigger Resistance are prime examples
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66536.html
 
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66549.html
 
The latter clearly has a highly experimental hull form, and even had screws to adjust the rake of the masts for different points of sailing! 
A number of these ships turned out to be fine sailers, but I don't think it could be said with certainty that they were better outright than the Sane design or the livelys, especially considering all the design criteria listed by beef wellington. Some of the more experimental ideas weren't repeated or were immediately reconfigured (Forfait's fregate-bombards come to mind) I doubt they had as lasting of an effect on design nor offered as much real design superiority as the earlier innovations of the two Blaise's. But, considering the comparative size of British 18pdr ships at the time, and the radical forms of some french ships, they left a lasting impression of french design and a willingness to think (and build) Innovatively. When you have one of those (or a Sane 18pdr frigate) coming into harbor as a prize, and you can see an enlarged fir built royal Caroline (essentially a 100 year old hull form) on the stocks as part of your nation's response to that threat, it's easy to see how one could wonder if your shipwrights were less able.
 
The British did match the french for speed in 18pdr frigates in time for the napoleonic wars, while likely retaining their traditional advantage in seakeaping, stowage, cost, and strength. But they took their time doing so due to institutional conservatism. During the French Revolution there was a marked disparity between the two nation's frigate designs in innovation along with size and related performance-which left a lasting impression on the British officer corps, contributing greatly to the impression of french design superiority at that time. 

Wasn't the initital draft design smaller? Perhaps he heard of their dimensions and enlarged to the as built dimensions. Otherwise I'd say the constitution has much more in common in terms of hull form with Chapman's Bellona/Venus than with either the Forte or the South Carolina. But in dimensions and armament, the forte class was certainly closest! 

Well said! 

I agree entirely with your assessment of frigate designs. 
 
I think a mix of large (constitution class) frigates with more numerous Endymion/Pomone class vessels would be a smart balance. Though at a minimum of strength, stowage, and stability to carry 24pdrs, the Endy still had enough to be effective, and her speed was of course outstanding. What is the record on the bellona's performance? I can't say I know much about that class beyond its existence.  And I bow to your knowledge of 17th & early-mid 18th century shipbuilding 
 
I'm sure many here already (JohnE & Bava especially) know the late 18th century design differences between British and french frigates as well or better than I, but I'll add my take on why french 18pdr frigate design in particular was still viewed as superior in the late 18th/early 19th century by many British officers:
 
Though the British built the first 18pdr frigates-and the french took several years to catch on-when they did they built them at much more effective dimensions for 28x 18pdrs (~150' x 39', compared to 141' x 38'10" for hms Minerva) allowing them an edge in speed and even secondary armament due to the advantage of a higher lwl and L/B ratio, as JohnE mentioned. Of course This was standard design priorities at play for french warships at this point. But it was only compounded by the developments of the 1790s, which saw unwavering British conservatism in the face of some radical french experimentation.
 
British captains realized that their early 18pdr ships were cramped and a touch slow, but the admiralty was only willing to increase the dimensions of this still new type (notably length) very slowly and incrementally. In the 1790s, a foot was added every year or so to each of the surveyor's (rule and henslow) designs, gradually improving  speed in each new design by small amounts. (Roughly, and by speed I'm going by the highest quoted speed in sailing reports, from what I've read of Gardiner. ) Still, the dimensions (and iirc speed) of Sane's initial 18pdr design of 1782 was not entirely matched by British designed 38s until 1799 with the active and amazon. About the same time, the amphion and apollo were launched (the lead ships of the most successful 32 and 36 gun 18pdr classes) along with the copied Leda. However, at this moment of embracing reasonable dimensions at last, st Vincent became first lord of the admiralty(1801). He ordered a revival of a 36 gun frigate design from the 1780s, along with the 12pdr Richmond class of 1757 in fir! Just After his administration finished in 1804, the 154' lively (laid down in 1799) was launched, and along with the ledas, apollos, and amphions became the standard designs of the napoleonic wars- reliably matching french speed and size 20 years after the 18pdr type was introduced  
 
In the same timespan, the french had experimented with some radical designs, and had been building the more traditional but very effective sane design in numbers. Other 18pdr designs reached 160' long, and employed radically fine lines for such large hulls. The Seine  class by Forfait and the even bigger Resistance are prime examples
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66536.html
 
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66549.html
 
The latter clearly has a highly experimental hull form, and even had screws to adjust the rake of the masts for different points of sailing! 
A number of these ships turned out to be fine sailers, but I don't think it could be said with certainty that they were better outright than the Sane design or the livelys, especially considering all the design criteria listed by beef wellington. Some of the more experimental ideas weren't repeated or were immediately reconfigured (Forfait's fregate-bombards come to mind) I doubt they had as lasting of an effect on design nor offered as much real design superiority as the earlier innovations of the two Blaise's. But, considering the comparative size of British 18pdr ships at the time, and the radical forms of some french ships, they left a lasting impression of french design and a willingness to think (and build) Innovatively. When you have one of those (or a Sane 18pdr frigate) coming into harbor as a prize, and you can see an enlarged fir built royal Caroline (essentially a 100 year old hull form) on the stocks as part of your nation's response to that threat, it's easy to see how one could wonder if your shipwrights were less able.
 
The British did match the french for speed in 18pdr frigates in time for the napoleonic wars, while likely retaining their traditional advantage in seakeaping, stowage, cost, and strength. But they took their time doing so due to institutional conservatism. During the French Revolution there was a marked disparity between the two nation's frigate designs in innovation along with size and related performance-which left a lasting impression on the British officer corps, contributing greatly to the impression of french design superiority at that time. 

The idea of French frigates, and ships in general, being ‘better’ than others was true to a large extent at a certain period in time. The development of French warship technology and construction dates back to the mercantilist policies initiated by Richelieu and mastered by Colbert, with much of the increased state revenues going into development of the Navy, including development of the dockyards, schools, manpower base, and other infrastructure.
 
Colbert’s bureaucratic system allowed France to pursue technological advances in ship construction and maritime science, helped along no doubt by the burgeoning influence of the Academie Royale des Sciences and the dramatic revolutions in the sciences engendered by the Enlightenment. This institutionalization of French shipbuilding, and subsequent professionalism of the shipbuilding industry, promoted uniform understanding and dissemination of technical improvements throughout the Naval establishment.
 
In short, the immersion into the scientific principles of vessel motion and hull form led to led to the development of a new ‘model’ for French warships (Paul Hoste, Théorie de la Construction des Vaisseaux, 1697). They were considerably longer and broader than contemporary British or Dutch ships, but even with increased beam, they had a larger length/beam ratio. Modern naval architecture recognizes the importance of Lwl and L/B in determining vessel performance, especially speed. Indeed, the development of the science of metastability, and its calculation, resulted in the desire to find the optimum L/B ratio for vessels of various sizes and functions; too narrow a beam resulted in poor initial stability, a very tender sailing vessel, and inability to carry armament. Too wide a beam resulted in the increase of drag resistance and very poor performance with the breeze far forward or far aft (beating and running). In short, they “wallowed like pigs’.
 
For the most part, the French Navy, under the Naval Ordinance of 1689, was the envy and touchstone of Naval establishments the world over.  This obtained until about 1765, when the neglect imposed by the Seven Years War, and the consequent exhaustion of finances took hold with a vengeance. There was a brief interlude under Gabriel de Choiseul, and a second under Gabriel de la Croix de Castries, but in the later third of the eighteenth century, the French naval establishment suffered, perhaps most of all, from the pervasive bureaucratic retrenchment into irresolution, conservatism, and self perpetuation, affecting the State in general. Although many incremental advances were made, the state of revolutionary (and evolutionary) innovation languished.
 
By this time, Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, etc.. had caught up. Britain established its own scientific, academic, and bureaucratic infrastructure, learning from the experience and success of the French. They were certainly not above deconstructing notable captured vessels, right down to counting the bolts, and learning as much as possible about how ‘the other guy does it’, but by the last decade of the century she had grasped and internalized all the essentials of design and construction for performance.
 
France still had the vestigial reputation, and her ships were admittedly fast and elegant. However, given the divergence of French and British naval doctrine, and British adherence to scientific principles of design and construction, French vessels were no longer the ‘best’, or even ‘better’, for British imperitives.
 
This is a very thin and superficial gloss on the subject, and I apologize to those already familiar with its intricacies, for the amount of abstraction. There is room for several books, on several individual subjects, in this brief. Hopefully someone will find their muse and be moved to write one.
 
John

If I remember what  boudriot wrote correctly, the decorations for frigates were officially standardized during the ancien regime about 1785. The decoration plan for this order is reprinted in history if the french frigate. It is structurally very chunky, without much thought to how the stern was actually framed. It seems that quite rightly no constructors followed it in this regard, but the influence of its  motifs and some of the layout can be seen on a number of frigates of the 1780s and 1790s, and I think this accounts for the standardized, slightly more austere look you describe. But there are enough examples of frigates from this era with proper figureheads (rather than the arms of France, or later a Phrygian cap)  that it seems quite plausible that the cornilie was built with the carvings described, and that the plan will show them