juhu

This is very important info. It is very good that as the base Chapelle's work was used. Because up until now the "revenue cutter" was offered by several model kit companies (under various fictitious names like Alert or Ranger), but hese kits are all the same i.e. innacurate design based on old plans originated in Italy. Just a note to the author of this thread: Then however, this is definitely not an Alabama class, as these cutters were based on larger Doughty's plans, not 31ton. I have spent some time trying to find any refrence to the real vessel built from these smallest 31 ton plans, but was not successful - there is of course a mention in one of Chapelle's book, but studying newer resources revealed this is a mistake.... More info upon request.... Anyway, it is good to hear we should have now faithfull Doughty's revenue cutter kit! I am eager to see more photos of the build or plans that comes with the kit. Not much vailable online yet....

... and I guess you know this - very nice representation of Alabama class revenue cutter made by Prof. Tilley - pics available freele on the web, I am happy to have the original one at home purchased from some antique shop years ago, I believe originally prepared and printed upon request from Historical department of USCG?... It may have few things that are not like 100% to be realle there (small carronades aside), but it is still the best overall representation I know EDIT: actually, if we speek of Alabama class, the whole class consists of only two vessels AFAIK, so there is not much room for any generalization, it shall be only Alabama or Louisiana. The principal question really is what shall the kit represent.

I will be watching this thread, I used to be very interested in this type of vessel and some research, If truly Alabama class, it shall then follow the middle of those three Doughty's design (differenciated mainly by size, but otherwise very similar). Would be nice to know more on what plans is the kit based. Looking good though!

Hi Gregor, thanks for explanation. I would need to get more detailed plan and study it carefully. Still, there is something, but I cannot explain it now, I am not fully convinced, but being abroad , cannot make a good plan copy from the book and point out, what I mean. What is available online is too small to discuss (see pics), so I will post better drawn explanation on the weekend. Cheers Juraj

Thanks a lot Gregor, very valuable post. As said I will see, possibly I will try to get the plans you are mentioning or to read as much as I can with spyglass from the Jacinthe book. I know my technical wording is not perfect, but still I do not understand how you get the correct profiles for the bulwarks above the deck. I studied your pictures and saw the wooden blocks that would help to make a shape, but ho shall be these wooden block precisely made, what length, angle and curves it should have. I believe it is not just enough to prolong the bulkheads lines to get it right. While stanchions are just straight poles, the planked bulkwarks would have more sophisticated profile... But true, I must check the Topaze build more in details. As I am planning to keep 1/48 scale, any misshape or error would me more evident. One thing: even from the small plans it is IMHO visible that the La Mutine deck is not as flat as Jacithes's. I do not have a plan right now here, but there are two views, aft and fore from the deck. Aft you see the rudder wheel with an axle going through the elevated platform and fore also there is a small "step" just below the catheads. It is visible also from the deck view. Jacithe has the straight and simplier deck from stem to stern Regards Juraj

Hello Gregor, just yesterday I have received the original monography "La Jacinthe" from Ancre - wonderfull book, looking forward to going through it. I am considering a chance to build La Mutine based on the plans. Not sure I will grab the courage, i have too much respect to scratch building and still see it as something beyond my abilities. Nevertheless, I do have some questions even now, may be you could help: 1. In the book there is just one plate of La Mutine and it is rather small - do you have some other sets of plan or use just this one published? 2. How did you design the bullwarks above the deck? I mean, I can use the La Jacinthe plans, but the level above the deck is different, rails vs full planking - I am missing the plans how to raise it correctly above the deck. 3. There are many things I can read from descriptions but cannot see them properly in the plans: "lavatories" fore and aft of the ship, hinged scuppers alongside, stove (?) on the desk amidships. The these small steps on the deck fore and aft too - Jacinthe does not have them, Mutine does....... etc etc.... Although La Jacinthe plan is very detailed, am afraid whether it is possible to build Mutine without further resources :-/ 4. We have discussed here the anchor and its raising. In La Mutine plan the anchor is clearly shown stored under deck in the main hatch. What I do not understand is: Is this the main anchor? If yes, where is the second one? There is shown only one and I would expect two here, but no space there anyhow to store the second! And, does it mean that during the regular sailing the anchor/s were unbound from the chains and stored under instead of normal "hanging" on catheads? I know, two many questions, still, if possible to answer, would be glad Regards Juraj

Hey, look what I have found, could it be of some help? http://maritime.org/doc/luce/part4.htm Particularly check the figure: or http://www.hnsa.org/resources/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/textbook-of-seamanship/ground-tackle/

Very interesting topic, also I was following the discussion in George's thread regarding the anchors and how they were operated. Just two cents: 1. The drawing above shows HMS Mosquidobit fitted with capstan - however this capstan was according to my references fitted only during her refit, when taken by Brittish, as the original American privateer she did not have any, so another ship with "anchor mystery" 2. I have learnt some interesting idea: there was a practise to use the set of tackles laid on the deck to handle anchors. So no fixed device, just a tackle/s fixed to the point on the deck and easily removed after the job is done - spares space and suits the needs. However I cannot find any drawing or tell whether this is also the case of LaJacinthe type...

Hm, what a pitty I do not understand French, would be nice to ask there....

Hi George in the meantime I have also contacted one very experienced guy for his opinion. Independently from what is written in the other thread you mentioned, he also replied that on the Haddock preview some pencil drawing resembling a windlass is shown.... I believe it is also mentioned in the other thread you are mentioning... so it may be not so easy. If I were you, I guess I would put the windlass there as you draw. But that Jacinthe really makes me uncertain about the only one universal truth Juraj

...and one more thing: check the publication of La Jacinthe. Thi book is considered as a true research, not a commercial simplified model kit, so we can consider it very accurate. Still, there is no windlass on the deck and this is two masted topsail schooner! http://ancre.fr/en/monographies-en/52-monographie-de-la-jacinthe-goelette-1823.html Is it possible, adding how many admiralty plans do not show fore windlass, that really on smaller ships the anchor could have been hoisted just manually by pulling the ropes?

Hi George, thanks for explanation. I was not able to clearly recognise the deck step, particularly fore one from the available pics. Well, it is quite common that Jotika, while most of their kits is truly based on Admiralty plans, tends to omitt some of their features - sometimes even much more distinctive than in this case... Regarding the windlass I do not know, I have some other plans from NMM and in that case also one can only guess where it was positioned and if they would really skip it from drawings. I still think if it was possible on such a small vessels the anchor was handled just by pure arm work? j

Hi George - regarding the windlass, would it be possible it was stored (as quite heavy piece of furniture) below the deck? And the anchor ropes were leading to it as said above via the holes in the main hatch grating? The windlass would not need to be so big- the anchors in the kit seem to be of a "generic" manufacturer type and quite over sized for this particular vessel -at least my impression. -regarding the deck - could you please mark where do you see the "step"? from the prints (unfortunatelly I do not have printed papers from RMM) it seems to be all the same level from stem to stern? http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/nmmplans/supersize/j1010.jpg Juraj

I guess, this topic is already old, yet I have found it only today, so just my two cents: let's not be too strict about the naming conventions: "Baltimore clipper" is more nowadays term, they did not call them so in 1812. Now you can find them named as Baltimore clippers or Baltimore schooners, generally speaking of very fast and sharp built ships - originally built in Baltimore shipyards. But as said, many other vessels built on Eastern coast inherits their lines, among them also so called revenue cutters. Here just beware, the term "cutter" is more related to the ship's duties (comes probably from English, where they have used famous cutters - one masted vessels to protect Isles against smugglers and piracy). Strictly speaking, cutter is one masted vessel, american "revenue cutters" like for example Doughty's designt are also topsail schooners, just like Baltimore clippers. You will find their description also in Chapelle's book "Baltimore clipper - orifgin and development" . So it is all the same family Regarding the scale question: not sure about Albatros, but I have finally got original full size plans of Lynx from Greenwich Maritime museum. The kit of Lynx, when compared to them is some 60x smaller in length and some 57x smaller in breight. Not speaking of other dimmensions. That means, Panart's kit is not 100% proportionally correct and for sure it is not in (anyway quite unusual) modelled in a given 1:62 scale

Fun to read :) ... nevertheless, did not know the kit is dated back to 80ties....

Well, as you are saying, if seeking a historical aacuracy, there are ways to go and ways better to be avoided... Yes, I have got somewhere the paper with my measurements, with Lynx kit there is a problem with the hull proportions and shape particularly aft - it was more difficult than I expected all those comparisons and measuring. Everything is correctable, one just needs to know it is worth for him

Albatros and Harvey are totally ficticious. No reason to think about those dates etc. Still they are nice looking models when finished. When historically accurate schooner is desired, as said earlier, check Model Shipways / BlueJacket... Ratio: if you measure the Panart plans and compare it to the dimensions of real ship, you will find that while the length of the kit may be in let's say 1/61 scale, the beam is in 1/58. Just an example. That means not only the scale but the kit proportions are not OK. The most problematic part of the kit is the aft hull, that overhang above the rudder - totally out compared to the real plans in shape. That would mean you need to modify aft sections. That would require to check whether bulkheads shape is on par with plans etc. etc... and suddenly we are talking about full scratch build instead of the kit :) . Of course, this is just a talk, the kit can be build as it is, just when discussing the accuracy, should be mentioned.

If interested in these revenue vessels of "Baltimore look" check also BlueJacket "Jefferson Davis" kit - I would suppose this is an excellent kit, although may be a bit pricy and more challenging? Yet, much more accurate than European counterparts... In general, for these vessels Us based companies are much more reliable producing better kits - my opinion. If had a choice and funds, would probably go this way... http://www.bluejacketinc.com/kits/jeffersondavis.htm

Unfortunately yes, Baltimore built schooners, being probably the most beautiful sail ships ever, are somehow overlooked by kit makers. We have dozens of Victories, Bountys etc, but just a few of these.... But sure you will find something more: Albatros by Constructo for example, but these are totally ficticious.... PoB by Model Shipways is superb, if being from US, I would be considering her - although nowadays vessel, the kit is of very high quality. Lynx is very appealing but as said, it lacks more in terms of accuracy.... and some of the things like the wrong hull shape, length/beam ratio etc are quite challenging (if possible at all ) to be fixed. Will create some build log, but probably only after New Year....

That has nothing to do with a trust. Just a fact. Remember that Chapelle's work is quite old, in some of his books you can find some innacuracies simply because byt he time there were written current knowledge and research was not known. I am not sayin this is that case, just stating, planking is not what has been preserved on the real plans. Yes, I do have this Chgapelle's book, and if you have more of them, you will find another and more detailed plan of "Lynx" made by Mr. Chapelle, this time without planking. Just one question: do you think plank joggling as shown on the drawing from "The Baltimore clipper - its origin and development" is on par with the period practise? I do not think so. Concerning the kit: I bought it, am going to modify it slightly. The length is not the only concern, there is also beam and other dimmensions, positions of the deck openings and many others... According to my measurement, the ratio length/beam does not really match the plans and if you will try to find a true scale, it would be somewhere around 1:58- 1:60 .... Check the plans of the kit, you will see.

Do not take into account the planks number on Chapelle's plan - this is just a possible reconstruction I think. The only preserved faithful source is the historical plan preserved in Greenwich museum - and these admiralty plan does not show any planking (spent some time over these plans ) The model hull, although being presented as 1/62 scale, it does not match. The hull length is somewhat less than 50cm (I am too lazy now to open the box, but was measuring this many times to determine the scale of the kit which definitely is not given 1/62, but this is another story)

That is an interesting info. I would be interested in reading more details, could you provide some more info? To be honest, after my experience, I am very skeptic regarding any Artesania Latina research regarding the historical ship. On the kit box they are selling 38 gun frigate of 1798, which is definitely not true. I have found this interesting article on Connie, may be somebody would be interested: http://www.baltimoremd.com/monuments/sea02.html Somehow I have doubts when reading of all these changes and uncertainties AL's has got some special access to plans or materials in order to create some accurate model particularly in this case, considering level of other their products... But will gladly learn more and correct my thoughts! Thanks in advance.

Check Mamoli's "Newport" kit. Looks like the same model, just reboxed and at best slightly modified. Mamoli's common nasty practise. In my opinion, no real ship, just someone's invention?

Hi, the plans for the links are preserved in NMM in Greenwich, London. These are the plans as taken of and depicts the HM schooner Mosquidobit (under this name was Lynx taken ino RN service). Beware! As in many cases, these plans shows the ship with alternations made by RN. This is common in many cases and often overlooked: Plans of captured vessels may show them AFTER refit, not how they actually looked originally. For example, it is stated that the original Lynx dod not have a capstan on the deck. But there are many more thinks missing in anyway... As far as planking size is considered, this is not the part of any plan, I would suggest you to use general size of planks appropriate of this model scale. I would say (am using metric system) some 5mm width and 100mm in length would make some 310 mm x 620mm on the real ship. That could be quite reasonable? I would take the real plank length around 20-24' . But I think, if you use slightly modified size, (reasonable, not like 200mm long plank ), nobody can blame you for innacuracy. I have seen the original plans of Mosquidobit mentioned above. The listed Length on the deck is given as 94' 7" There are also other data, but this one may be very easy to check on you model. Could you do that? You will see how it is with the scale. 1:62 is quite odd, I read somewhere it is more like 1:60, you will see. Something for inspiration: veri nic model of Lynx http://amhistory.si.edu/onthewater/assets/object/full/2007-13914.jpg and the one built from the kit. I must say I do not like the chosen color finish, but added details make the model more realistic. What catches my eye immediatelly is the transom shape, different from the plans and also the rudder angle and the aft hull section. I mentioned that earlier: http://shipsofscale.com/gallery/mmacdonald/lynx/lynx04.jpg

I spent literally years searching information for the period ship kit, commercially available. It is very interesting. Those knowing the world of plastic model kits (aircraft) know very well the discussion about exact number of the rivets on the pilot's seat, measuring the kit to tens of millimeters and arguing about the best one. Here we are quite lucky, if the kit at least represents something "real". What I found is not 100% accurate - please correct and add whatever needed, just my opinion: 1. By far I consider the best producer I know in terms of quality and accuracy American Model Shipways. Not the perfect - surely many minuses will be found by more experienced, but the best available in general. (And being from Europe, where these kits are hard to get, must be sorry for that). 2. Victory Models - offers currently only limited number of kits, but of great quality. Apart from Lady Nelson cutter (which if not the real name, is very nice representation of a British period cutter), all other are historically documented, Russian brig Mercury may be one of the best kits available at all (how many kit producers offers you a deck with correct, bent planks instead of incorrect straight planking seen on 99% of the models??) comparable to the very popular MS brig Syren. What to say - former designer of famous Jotika kits is behind this - since he moved to Amati / Victory Models, in my opinion Jotika is going little bit down and Victory Models shines... 3. Here in Europe very good reputation has Jotika/Caldercraft. One big plus is that most of its models are based on Admiralty plans of the real vessels. This sounds great! Unless you get one of those plans and realize, that plans may not be complete or show the vessels in general lines and many details on the kits are missing or too simplified. But at least you have here no "fictive" ship. Ok, may be apart from HM schooner Pickle, that represents modern ship , not the historical Pickle to which no plans are preserved as far as I know. Still you may found some interesting stories: Try to search something about the HM Mars / Orestes - you can see there are some "problems"with this beautifully looking kit anyway. Then very popular HM brig Badger - by no means Nelson's first command as advertised!! (I spent much time till I got the final confirmation for that), but what sells, that helps obviously.... etc. etc. For sure, vessels like Victory, Bounty, Endeavor, although produced by many others are the best offer, where the competition is in terms of accuracy many miles behind. 4. Then other European kit manufacturers producing all sort of fictitious / semi-ficticious or real ships: Some of them are said to be quite nice and said to be quite accurate (Mantua/ Panart Royal Caroline). Some of them bears the name of the real ships, but has nothing in common with them (Mamoli "Beagle"). Most of others them are just more or less good "general type" of the vessel (Most of the Artesania Latina, Occre etc. etc). What I consider to be the nastiest things are the kits with not only fictitious ship name but also totally fairytale story behind it. Like Mamoli's Black Prince. I am not saying it is wrong to have a kit of the ship that never existed. Some manufacturers produce ships that are referred as "typical representation of <vessel type>" which is perfectly ok I think, but trying to sell something wrapped in fictive story, well, no, thanks. So, as mentioned here somewhere, it is not the question, whether Artesania Latina Constellation was "mistaken", by error mixed frigate of 18ct with later vessel. The question is whether AL really CARES about that. I would say, while we are buying the kits first and only then desperately try to pair it with some real vessel, convincing ourselves that it must be "that ship" (alas, for all those money paid!), till that time we will have many kits that represents nothing but somebody's fiction in the market. 5. One last thing mentioned already somewhere above: One thing I do not like here in Europe (please let me know how it is with US kit makers) is so called "common jewellery". Even the best producers like Victory models offer for example cannons, anchors, blocks of one type for more than one / all models. One is than surprised, why are those anchors so unrealistically big for my yacht? Or what type of strange gun barrel shape is this? But nothing is perfect, who wants perfection builds from scratch. What I think we can do is either resign on historical accuracy and just enjoy the build of the ship we like or make proper research BEFORE purchase and pick something that ,if not up to our expectation, at least resembles closely what we want and can be bashed to our joy. Have a nice day.