American sailing warships with no plans or records

[CharlieZardoz]

Ok Frolick here is the image from Chatham's pictoral history of 1812 stern detail for United States.  While it's a tad -er cartoony I see what you mean that yes this appears as if someone is copied the details in an attempt to make them look accurate. The Macedonian looks pretty much as it should.  The United States has 7 windows and 2 weird looking half windows, with a lot of plant like wreath-y material as decorations and two stern guns with square cutouts, which I have seen in other depictions of her stern.  I am not sure what you mean by quarterdeck roundhouses though so I included the spar deck plan as well.  I am very curious if this stern would have remained all the way up to the civil war.  I am going to assume that she was likely altered same time Constitution was with a more regular stern and fewer windows however many of the Potomac class ships appear in period paintings with stern images to also have that kinda "M" shape in the mouldings just like the Constitution class ships so maybe she stayed like this up to the end minus a few details?

[uss frolick]

Awesome, that's it Charley!

 

The curved partitions (labeled "Z") in the corners, where the quarterdeck meets the taffrail, are port and starboard water closets for the officers, the last cramped remnant of when the Frigate United States had a poop deck and a complete quarterdeck cabin. Even then, there was barely room to sit. The post-1809-rebuild era officers were surely reluctant to give up that amenity. This feature is shown on no other frigate's deck plan.

[CharlieZardoz]

Ok great and yes I thought that's what you meant, though I am having a hard time picturing would it would look like if I was standing right next to it.  I am assuming what's inside is a room that is connected to the quarter galleries or are they possibly not connected and placed higher.  Hard to tell when looking over it vertically in 2D I wonder if there are other examples of this elsewhere but either way fascinating stuff.

[Talos]

They're completely unconnected. The quarter galleries are a deck below, on the gun deck, with a fairing on top that extends about halfway up the spar deck bulwarks. United State's were double-level, but I don't think they penetrated the spar deck bulkwarks. The WCs on the quarterdeck aren't structural parts, they're just scabbed onto the inside of the side timbers. Basically like sitting a pair of porta potties on the deck and wedged into the corners of the quarterdeck.

 

Chapelle has other plans that show them, mostly in smaller sloops and brigs. Similarly, and this isn't in Chapelle, but HMS Guerriere (the captured French/British frigate, not the US-built replacement) had a pair of non-structural but permanent WCs installed at the front of her gun deck, between the bridle and the first gunport (which I realize frolick posted a year ago). Looking up that post, there's a couple good shots of a gundeck roundhouse in the bow of United States that should help with you picturing it on her quarterdeck. Just imagine something like this, but curved and faired-in. http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/6470-martingale-dolphin-stricker-uss-united-states-44/?p=191584

Edited September 1, 2015 by Talos

[CharlieZardoz]

Yep that makes perfect sense now thanks!  Still trying to think out the internal structure of the quarter galleries though if it had two levels how do the half windows factor into that. I'm going to have to place that order to Maryland silver when I get the extra funds.  He has those inboard and outboard plans from Gosport dated 1846 which is likely from her last refit and hopefully they will show the double level quarter galleries and should rest a few questions I have about the look of the vessel. 

Edited September 1, 2015 by CharlieZardoz

[uss frolick]

The only probable connection between the lower and upper roundhouse "facilities' was a lead pipe which ran through the bulwarks and down through the gun-deck quarter-gallery to drop "Admiral Brown" into the sea. The flushing facilities was certainly only a bucket of salt water kept filled by the Captain's servant (failure to maintain a ready supply at his peril!). Detail-oriented modelers might also want to add a small basket of tow, oakum or, the nineteenth century equivalent of Charmin Tissues, corn cobs. Ewww ...

 

The half windows are at the gun-deck level. 

 

But perhaps you might only need one roundhouse for the quarterdeck watch officers. Perhaps one side was a storage or signal flag locker?

Edited September 1, 2015 by uss frolick

[CharlieZardoz]

Bwahaha!!! Indeed you are correct. Id like to think we all watched/read the book Cross sections manowar by Biesty a few times to much amusement. Dont really want to know what they did with the cobs though

[CharlieZardoz]

In all seriousness though would that mean there were 3 latrines per side, 2 in each quarter gallery and 1 in each roundhouse? My understanding was that thered be one per floor in the quarter gallery. I suppose the half windows are confusing me. If they are indicative of a floor level or if the window is simply partially boarded up. I suppose only the captains servent knows for sure

Edited September 1, 2015 by CharlieZardoz

[uss frolick]

I think there was only one in each gallery for a frigate.

[CharlieZardoz]

Probably the best thing for me to do is order that inboard/outboard profile of United States and see if the quarter galleries are really 2 story w windows like a ship of the line or if they just look like Constitution or President. When i find out ill post it here

[Talos]

While United States probably had single-story quartergalleries, Chapelle does attempt a reconstruction of two-level ones for it. They would just be an extension of the top of the gallery with false windows just like the lower level. HMS President, the replacement for the captured US frigate built on roughly the same lines, did have one though. While the rest of the stern is completely different, it can give a decent idea of what those kind of quartergalleries could look like. http://s017.radikal.ru/i428/1212/a2/78007cc6952c.jpg

 

Returning to Chapelle again, his as-built draught for the Constitution and her sisters have a strange stern. The galleries and stern itself are really high up compared to the deck. The as-captured USS President draught the British took off has a lower gallery, as does the Java-class and other related frigates. I dropped in a pair of ~6 foot tall figures, one on the gun deck and one on the spar deck to illustrate. The dashed lines are his attempt at reconstructing United States' poop deck and extended quartergalleries.

 

[uss frolick]

There are two contemporary images of the Frigate United States made shortly after her launch. One is a painting, and the other a woodcut print. Both show not only a poop deck, but stern galleries, but the painting shows windows at gun-deck level only of the quarter-galleries. The wood cut shows the poop railings and a double decked quarter-gallery. The wood cut is certainly where Chapelle found his inspiration.

 

The color painting can be found in "The Frigates", The Sea Farers Series, Time/Life Books, 1979, page 6-7.

 

The woodcut can be found in "The Picture History of the U. S. Navy", 1956, Theodore Roscoe and Fred Freeman , Image 262. There is a small BW version of the painting on the same page as well.

 

I highly recommend picking up both books used if you can find them.

[CharlieZardoz]

Frolick: Ok, just picked them both up for a few bucks on Amazon.  I love the Seafarer series    

 

Talos: That image I'm familiar with from the Chapelle book (though I do appreciate the figures for sizing).  I imagine both images (the HMS President as well) look like a good explanation of what the quarter galleries would probably look like assuming they remained double leveled past the war of 1812 and weren't converted to smaller ones like other frigates.  I'm hoping the inboard and outboard profiles from 1849 show a good level of detail.

 

On a sidenote here is a nice image of USS Adams from the Coker book.  Only painting of her i've ever see not sure how accurate she is,

 

  

[CaptArmstrong]

That painting seems to show the right features-number of gunports, low bulwarks yet not flush decked, a particularly high length:breadth ratio. I believe the artist is Irwin bevan, he made a number of water colors depicting the smaller actions of the war of 1812-many of which were in Caxton pictoral histories naval war of 1812.

A few are here:

http://www.humanitie...rd-june-21-1807

http://www.artnet.co...auction-results

At least in terms of his 1812 works I've found him to pay good attention to rigs, size, and armaments-but his transoms and headrails all tend to be generic for frigates and sloops of war-so I doubt it is anything more than a representation in that respect. He did do a painting of the Adams being burnt which is in that book, though the transom looks little different from that of the uss United States he painted linked above.

 

Also, has anyone looked through the works of JJ baugean when studying the Adams and John Adams? He did a number of unidentified small us frigates while they were stationed in the Mediterranean. I've never found them all in one spot, but here are the 2 most easily found as an example.

http://www.daveblackman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/USS_Boston_1799.jpg

http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/nmm/supersize/pu7378.jpg

As a contemporary with an eye for detail and seemingly good accuracy in well known ships, they could be insightful

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N0VJyiHCd4Y/UhyeiiLsTVI/AAAAAAAAAYM/cE8pxHtx9kQ/s1600/President+frigate.jpg

Edited September 13, 2015 by CaptArmstrong

[CharlieZardoz]

I know of a book "ships and Seamanship: The Maritime Prints of J.J. Baugean"  That could be the 'all in one spot" place though haven't looked at the book myself. But very astute observations I agree about the wartercolor artist looks right 

[jbshan]

While one hesitates to say 'always', almost 'always' it is better to rely on contemporary, primary sources than on secondary or tertiary sources.  Baugean or Antoine Roux, also painting around 1800, are primary sources; Bevan, painting in the 20th century with no access to his subjects, is not.  Even Chapelle is not totally reliable as he 'reconstructed' his drawings and we do not know what he reconstructed nor what his justifications were for them.

Artists, however, have been known to use 'stock' images in their paintings, so, even though Baugean and Roux painted very believable ships, there may be inaccuracies which we will never be able to refute.  It's just one of those things we have to deal with when trying to research these vessels.

[CharlieZardoz]

Very well put jbshan.  While I am happy to consult a secondary source if it is well researched, it is in the end a contemporary interpretation and not nearly as useful as a primary source from the time. The Adams painting above is not really historical and looks in my eyes like a generic small frigate/corvette from the time with nothing much to distinguish it, however I imagine this is sort of what she looked like the artist did a reasonably good job and was nice to find either way.

[jbshan]

If you're looking for something to hang on the wall, 'sort of what she looked like' is probably good enough.  If you're intending to build a scratch model (and this thread is 'no plans or records'), you'll need a bit more than 'sort of'.

The NRG had and maybe still has an article on their website, 'Ship Models that Should Never be Built' or similar.  Required reading.

[CharlieZardoz]

Yes yes I just read over Chapelle's article. As a history major myself I understand how frustrating it can be when history gets diluted by those wishing to fill in the missing facts with inference and then having that plausible history be considered factual by those who don't look too closely.  Was Braveheart a good film? Essentially yes.  Was it butchering history for the sake of a mans ego? Absolutely and aggravating that even till this day people still believe that the story in the film was accurate.  I just watched the John Adam's HBO miniseries which may be somewhat accurate but obviously a lot of creative license was taken to make the story interesting for TV.  Still I enjoyed it for what it was.

 

This question is really a matter of taste in my opinion and I refuse to believe there is a definitive right or wrong answer to this.  When it comes to "historically accurate ship models" that are 100% accurate there are very few examples.  Obviously ship models based on ships which survive today Constitution, Victory etc are accurate if you build them the way they look today but build them in their heyday and now maybe you have 75-90% accuracy. Even ships with very detailed admiralty plans like Essex, Syren or President have a certain margin for error. Then you take a step further and look into ships with certain surviving information like United States, John Adams and (plausibly) Enterprize now maybe you've hit the 40-50% mark and the question of accuracy becomes more a concern.  But it's really a matter of comfort level in my opinion. Are you building a model to be touted as a true historical representation that you plan on making an argument to historians (which one will undoubtedly lose), or are you building something for yourself simply because you enjoy the process of conjecture and accept that is all that you are doing. I suppose for me when I was a kid my pop built a Santa Maria based on various sources and we've no idea what it looked like for sure but he had a general idea of what a Spanish carrack looked like and obviously many conjectural models built everywhere to work with.  Did he fill the blanks with a few educated guesses?  Of course he did but are they offensive or merely flourishes of ones own imagination for the sake of personal joy. There is in my opinion no clear cut line as to where historical inference goes from being an acceptable estimate to where it's just too much guess work.  Again it's a matter of taste.

 

I've no idea what the NRG's thoughts are of Dr Feldman's Lexington though I believe she looks far more like a continental privateer should look like rather than the Neal Parker model. I know he had fun researching/building her and I think he did a good job.  Might a moldy plan of her surface one day?  Perhaps but we'll both likely be dead by then ;D I'd like to do something similar with Enterprize and United States one day though I suppose that makes me -er "obstinate" and the replica is of "less value" but ones own personal enjoyment should be taken into account, no?

 

That said I wouldn't try to build a model of something like Adams with where 0-1% historical information exists as I'm not that "obstinate"

 

BTW great job on the Lexington!!

Edited September 15, 2015 by CharlieZardoz

[jbshan]

Thanks, Charlie.  I added a few more pics to my Lexington thread:

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/9953-lexington-by-jbshan-dlumberyard-164-from-the-seaways-practicum-by-clay-feldman/?p=348185

The model is based on a sketch/painting done after her capture and Clay's basic good sense as a designer.  Parts I have deliberately made big changes from Clay's design are the mast heights, the quarter lights and the companionway to the stern cabin.  Smaller changes are a fore deck to work the swivel guns, I changed the windlass/bitts and probably did the framing differently in way of the ports.

This is an example where you have some basic information, the painting, put that with a high degree of 'shippy' knowledge and proceed with an eye on practicality and what was normal and customary combined with some period information.  It probably would come under the 'should not' category, but it's a nice looking hull I'm trying to finish off in an attractive manner as a 'generic' ship resembling the painting.

[CharlieZardoz]

Just curious about the length of the full Lexington model.  I'm assuming it's somewhere between 24-27" stem to jib fully rigged?

[jbshan]

Very close, Charlie.  24" with jibboom, add two inches if you use a boom for the gaff mainsail.  I'm still up in the air about that, it could go either way, though Clay uses a boom, and the sail could be loose or laced to the boom or loose with no boom.  Rigs were in flux at this time.

[CaptArmstrong]

Artists, however, have been known to use 'stock' images in their paintings, so, even though Baugean and Roux painted very believable ships, there may be inaccuracies which we will never be able to refute.  It's just one of those things we have to deal with when trying to research these vessels.

fair enough for small details and certainly other artists, and I think there might be one instance where one of the later roux painters copied Antoine's Constellation for use as a British frigate-but overall Antoine roux and JJ baugean are benchmarks of reliability, and shouldn't be lumped in with the likes of bevan for having generic ships-if even for the simple reason that no two ships are the same in their paintings.

[CharlieZardoz]

While I wouldnt go so far as Chapelle's article in stating that every ship model built needs to be a representative tombe of historically accurate data to be vaunted by the historical community, I do enjoy the process of data gathering and the process of becoming learned in a certain period or process of ship design and construction. The gathering of sources is a lifelong endeavour and I do think being able to separate the reliable source material only helps us in our own journey in being better model builders not to mention students of history. Personally Ive been getting so much joy this year buying books, going to research archives and discussing thoughts with fellow builders and looking forward to what else ive left to discover.

Edited September 19, 2015 by CharlieZardoz

[jbshan]

I'm not lumping Roux and Baugean with Bevan, far from it.  I would put them in the class with the van de Velds pére et fils.

Bevan lived 1852-1940, so had no access to the original subject matter.  Besides sailing ships he painted WWI warships in battle.

I don't necessarily require 100% historical accuracy, but we should do our best, and if plans are absent we have to go to other sources.  Even plans can mislead; if you find that your example was a bit of a misfit in one of more features from the available plans it would not be unusual.  Even ships of a 'class' had small differences.  Your research is to identify those small changes so you can stay faithful to your particular example.

The other option is 'Captain's choice' or 'good enough', the end of that particular scale being folk art.  I don't want to do folk art either out of ignorance or laziness.

[CharlieZardoz]

Me neither however if someone out there wishes to make a hobby out of building fantasy pirate ships from films or their imagination I say go for it as long as they are not being misleading. That said a little history knowledge and research can only help make your work convincing in my opinion. Even a basic understanding of what fittings went with what era in ship building, one can easily make a model of better quality than quite a few kits on the market today.

[jbshan]

Correct in all respects, Charlie.  A generic ship labeled as such is not a problem.  A generic ship labeled as 'Blackbeard's Ship' or 'Columbus' Ship' is objectionable.  Better would be 'Ship of 1700, as a Pirate Ship' or 'Ship of the Age of Exploration c. 1492'.  Lexington will have to be labeled generically, probably with a copy of the painting as part of the presentation.

A big bug bear is when a company puts forth a kit of Blackbeard or Columbus as accurate historically.  There is one kit purporting to be a ship that fought at Trafalgar when not only was there no ship of that name at the battle, there was no ship of that name even in the navy at that time.  There were over fifty ships of the line present; pick one of those and do a little homework to get the details somewhat right.

[CharlieZardoz]

I personally do like titles on boats and have no problem with naming the Lexington model or a Santa Maria though Id probably want to place a description on the plaque which states the model is conjectural and what sources were used. Again a matter of taste but for me if your intent is to make an interpretation of a ship you may as well state what ship you were striving to recreate if at the very least to lend oneself to the ridicule of their peers

[jbshan]

As to one or two tiers of galleries on United States, somewhere I have a report on an anecdote,  A merchantman was stopped by one of the RN's two-tiered frigates.  He came aboard, chatted a while and it wasn't until the Captain came on deck in full uniform that he realized he wasn't on United States, because he expected to see two tiers.  If I come across that I'll put it in this thread.

 

IGNORE!!!

 

I found the story.  I got it backwards.  Please ignore.

Edited September 20, 2015 by jbshan

[CharlieZardoz]

Uh what did you get backwards exactly? lol