GMO2

The earliest I know of that the topgallant rail is seen is in the photograph taken in 1858 of the rebuild of that period.Presumably it had been present for some time prior to that. It was not on the 1907 refurbishment,but was added to the 1927 restoration.I see from some recent images that it has been removed again in the latest work.I gather that the intention is to return the ship to its appearance during its most active period of service.There are a large number (527) of images online contemporary to the 1927 restoration available through the Boston Public Library website.

Ed, Wait until you have reached he point of looking forward to having an occaisional "junior moment". Gary

Rob, Thank you for sharing your sail making technique.I have gone back and looked at your pictures of your sails,and along with your descriptions I think I see what you do.,I gather that you have had no problem with the paper wanting to become discolored over time as some acidic papers are prone to do.Perhaps the paint reduces that tendency.I first contemplated using rag bond,but they only sold it by the ream at $35.00,and that put me off,not needing 500 sheets.I think the Morgan is a little too far along to do the sails,now that I think about it,but I have some other projects in mind where it will work just fine. Thanks again for your help. Gary

Rob, In regards to the sailmaking process,what would be most helpful to me is to know the type of paper you find best,and what you use to mark the seams . If it proves convenient,next time you make a sail could you post a picture of all the components laid out ready for assembly. I can take it from there. Thanks for your reply. Gary

Do you have a tutorial on your technique for making these sails from paper.They are really nice looking,and I have wanted to add a few to the C.W. Morgan I'm starting to rig.

It appears to have been from the old M.S. kit of the topsail schooner "Eagle". Not 100% sure on that,but it sure looks like it.

The main thing to consider about all of this is that it is more of an art form than anything else. We are our own worst critics,and it is ourselves whom we must first satisfy. Some while back one of the other Morgan builders was contemplating a means of representing the cabin and dining area that would be visible from deck looking down through the skylight.At first,that seemed an awful lot of effort for something that would not be seen,especially once in a display case,and could only be viewed from the side.But the more I thought about the idea,the more I realized that he would always see it every time he looked at his creation,and that is the most important consideration of all. I will be looking forward to seeing your results when you are ready to show it to us. I think I have about single- handedly worn out John's website looking at the Morgan pictures.I also think I will have built mine about three times as I spend more time redoing stuff than actually making real headway,not to mention getting diverted to other stuff for long periods. Gary

David In looking in on your struggles with the skylight ,I thought I would explain my own take on it.First thing,there was a build log on the Morgan a few years ago under the name Dragon 65.As I remember ,he managed to get all the rods in the top of his skylight.Just how he did that remains a huge mystery.When I came to it I could not imagine anything less than a cnc micro-mil and most definitely something other than basswood for the framework.At any rate my final approach was to just make concessions to the brevity of life and be content with the frame with a clear plastic backing for the lights.Now that it is on the ship down among the hurricane house ,the little cabin,the boat deck,and with the mizzen in place,it is hard for me to see that the frustration of trying to credibly fat-finger that little dude with the rods would have been worthwhile.But,that said,---to each his own. If you aren't already acquainted with it,there is an excellent website with about 400 pictures of the Morgan nearby.Go to the Proxxon website on the right side of this website.At the lower right of the home page is a tab for" back to the CW Morgan".On the far right of that page is a tab for "more" which opens a drop-down menu which includes John Fleming's complete build log,among other things.The entries under gallery includes "the Morgan as of August of 2015"containing a host of useful pictures.If I had that available when I first started I could have avoided a myriad of mistakes on mine. I think it will help you if it hasn't already. Your work looks just fine---keep on keeping on. Gary

David Do yourself a favor and establish the davits and boat bearers early in your build and let them guide the positioning of other things,I am just now affixing them and having a time of it because I waited until very late to do so.Of course the addition of a forward shelter deck, as shown in the drawings in Leavitt's book ,didn't help with that. The principal difficulty that I've found is trying to establish a common reference point from which to measure the actual position of various other points. Altogether I have concluded that the Morgan ranks high in the difficulty scale of all the model kits available out there,simply because of all the stuff that has to be placed without interfering with something else.Fortunately I have a good command of Coal Mine Creole with which to coax things along. Gary

Some years past I built a clipper model from A.J.Fisher plans.It was at 1:96 scale and I had the same problem with footrope stirrups until I made them from fine wire.Before that I could not get them to hang at all right.If I were to do it at a larger scale I might try hanging a small weight from them and saturate them with dilute PVA or perhaps thin CA.None of this is ever easy is it?

My father went in the navy in 1937,just out of school,at the age of 17.The first ship he was on was an old WW1 four-piper destroyer enroute across the Atlantic to join the USS Trenton.He had to climb the mast to pull lookout duty up in the "crow's nest". He said that old ship rolled like a pencil,and that the lookout was expected to carry a bucket up the mast as it was considered poor form to just heave over the side. At least the ladder was a rigid steel affair instead of a swaying rope contrivance like those guys had to deal with.Also he was lucky in that it was a time of year such that he didn't have to chip ice on the way up.

Picture yourself having to climb that in even moderately heavy weather,let alone a gale driven sleet storm.

This is one of my favorite build logs to follow.The Connie is next,and I will probably start preliminary work on the hull soon,as a diversion from rigging the Morgan during those times when I need a break from it.I plan to do my Connie as near to the 1927 restoration as I can.There are quite a few differences from the MS kit,which reflects some of the alterations made in recent years as they are trying to work their way back to the actual war of 1812 configuration.The reason I have chosen to do it that way is because I believe the 1927 rebuild may be one of the more important historical periods in the life of this ship.Of the total cost of this restoration,($921,108.49) only some $271,023.01 was provided by the congress.The remainder came from public donations,and the sale of souvenirs.some of the donations coming from school children.Had all this not come about when it did,the onset of the depression years,followed by WW2,MIGHT well have delayed the work until she was just too far gone to save.As it was ,90% of the structure had to be replaced. The Boston Public Library has a collection of, photos viewable online which offer some very detailed images of the ship before,during, and after this restoration.They are well worth having a look.

I tried a couple of things to see if I could apply a fixative to arrest and preserve the green effect,satin poly,and clear dope in the form of clear fingernail polish.Both had the same wetting effect,turning the verdigris dark brown,almost black.This is basically what happens to ornamental copper with verdigris patina when it gets wet.When it dries,the green patina is evident again.As I understand it ,this is because the wetting interferes with the refractive nature of verdigris until it evaporates.In the case of a fixative application.this interference is permanent.thereby ruining your efforts at patination.This is why I think that experimenting with various green pigmented washes,wet or dry,followed by a dull clear topcoat will prove more rewarding in the end.

After some experimentation I can say that you can turn the copper tape green using the Miracle-Gro technique.However,whether you would really want to employ this on your model is another matter altogether.In the first place the results are quite delicate and easily ruined by a careless touch,the natural skin oil being the culprit here,at least in my case.For the same reason I don't know of any way to apply a fixative that doesn't have a wetting effect which also ruins your results.While this can be used to accelerate the aging of your copper sheathing,I really think you would be better served to resort to some of the wash techniques employed by the guys doing plastic models.Some incredibly realistic finishes have resulted from their applications.Maybe the best possible solution would be to age the copper with the miracle gro mix applied in a weaker solution,followed by a green tinted wash with a dull clear coat over that.Give it a try and see what you think.I am looking forward to watching your Morgan develop.Mine is approaching the rigging stage,relieved by a whaleboat now and then.Happy experimenting! Gary