US Frigate Constitution by Marcus.K. - Revell - 1:96 - PLASTIC

[Marcus.K.]

1. Constitution - Superfrigate of the many Faces - A tribute to the Basses

 

Years ago I got this nice book by William Bass and his wife in which they describe their findings and their reconstruction of US Frigate Constitutions "Second Phase" as they called it. The years after launch and Quasi War with France - and before the War 1812 - the times of Preble and the Barbary War.

 

 

 

Since I saw this beautiful book which was published privatly and therefor did not get the audience it deserves, I did fall in love with this beautiful ship!

 

The Basses based their reconstruction mainly on Felice Corné´s paintings done in 1803 (Side view) 1805 (?) and 1807 (Battle of Tripolis).

This one for shure you all know very well. Its - as far as we know by today - the very first visual description of Old Ironsides - done by Felice Corné in Summer 1803 most likely. The Basses did brief investigations even on which viewing angle the artist must have had for his sketches and they could prove that Corné did do really intensive studies of his object. 

 

But isn´t the ship a beauty here? Ochre gun strike, no bulkward on foredeck, single dolphin striker, open galion and - that impressive Hercules.
 

Nevertheless, as we will see later: this interpretation causes headaches (at least in my little brain).

 

Here now one of the Tripolis Paintings:

 

Source: https://www.mainememory.net/artifact/6155

 

You can increase the image if you click on the picture on the Maine Historical Societies Homepage (link).

 

Look at that beautiful lines, the two yellow stripes above the gun deck  - and note the position of the channels on the lower of those lines:

 

and here the beautiful Stern of the ship in its early phase:

 

She was a beauty in ochre and black, some white, yellow and maybe a bit gold? .. and a thrilling sight with all that guns!

 

In my eyes the ships earlier appearance is of much more grace and elegance than in her later designs. Fortunatly the real ship is getting closer and closer to that design again with the restorations since Tyrone Martin started that process. But maybe the most beautiful sight she must have been as she was planned: with complete open bulkwards - just as Humphrey intented her to be:

 

 

Nevertheless: my plan is to rework and pimp the beautiful Revell kit which is ment to show her 1812-15 configuration - but which has some "errors" in it and which does not totally fit to her 1803 appearance. And this 1803-4 appearance - before leaving to the Mediterean Sea - that is my goal. I imagine by now a situation in which the ship is about to be fitted out for sea - maybe some weeks before the above shown departure of the ship takes place. Still with only long guns on the quarder deck...

 

This build will be the very first for me since about 35 years. I was doing a Cutty Sark 1/144 (without proper rigging and bad painting) and a very nice Spanish Men of War in 1/72 - this time with Revell instructed but fully rigging (boy was I proud !) .. So I need to re-learn during the build all the needed techniques. Oh, I was mistaken: I started some years ago the build of the Revell Charles W. Morgan - but the "rush hour of life" did stop that efforts. Now, in times of Corona and possible loss of job I believe I need a time out for some hours a week from crazy daily hectic .. and "if not now, then when?"  shall I start with this beauty.

 

I hope you join me in my efforts and I am open for any advice and hint. Thanks for watching me.

[Marcus.K.]

Dear Ladies, Gentlemen,

 

I have a question to the community. Since I am too far away and will not (at least not in next future) be able to examinate the beautiful Corné-Paintings.. So to everyone who had a chance to see them:

Can you pls. tell me, if you look / had a look the real paintings:

ARE THERE MORE THAN 2 PERSONS/FIGURES on that Corné-Stern visible?

 

I know - there are 2 Paintings by Corné about that "siege of Tripolis": a wide one, painted in 1805 ordered and accepted by Cmd. Preble - who needed to show his action to the pubic since there was so much interest in the deeds of the new hero:

 

And there is the smaller one, done in 1807 - in which according to William Bass in his above mentioned book - the ships, being arranged much more close to each other - are painted in about 5:4 size compared to the very first picture.

 

 

I was trying to find out where which painting is right now represented to the public ... but I can right now not recollect my findings. Does someone of you know?

 

I tried to see in a zoomed copy of the 1807 painting - but its hard to tell:

 

William Bass saw there the 2 Figures - representing Justice and Freedom - as described by Secretary of War, James McHenry in a paper defining the intended Stern decoration of all six frigates "the stern of all six original frigates "should be all alike to show they belong to one family and represented by an Eagle in the center with constellations around him, suported on each Quarter by the figures of Liberty and Justice" - found in M. V. Brewingeons book: Shipcarvers of North America.

 

William Basses reconstuction is reprinted in K.-H. Marquardts AotS "Constitution": see the top right represenation

 

I guess, Bass arranged the two mentioned ladies between the cabins windows and the "windows" at the stern side of the galleries.. since that may best fit to the statement: ".. supported on each quarter ..". But I wondered: does that position really fit to the statement? Is with "quarter" really the area of the quartergalleries meant? I would think a "support" is much better done by that two ladies directly left and right of the center figure (the presumed eagle). ARE those two big ladies (which Bass did cut their arms) at "the quarter"?

And even if: who may then be the two ladies which are at the edge of the gallery looking outwards?

 

Tyrone Martin saw there crossed cannons and balls above the eagle.

Does anyone have seen evidence for such interpretation in the real painting?

 

The Eagle: I found the following description of the United States Seal - and I think one can see that scroll (in white) swung right and left side of the eagles head ...

 

Quote

 

Eagle: In the center of the seal is a bald eagle (our national bird). The eagle holds a scroll in its beak inscribed with our original national motto: "E Pluribus Unum," which is Latin for "one from many" or "one from many parts" (one nation created from 13 colonies). The eagle grasps an olive branch in its right talon and a bundle of thirteen arrows in its left. The olive branch and arrows are symbols for the power of peace and war.

Shield: A shield with thirteen red and white stripes covers the eagle's breast. The shield is supported solely by the American eagle as a symbol that Americans rely on their own virtue.

The red and white stripes of the shield represent the states united under and supporting the blue, which represents the President and Congress. The color white is a symbol of purity and innocence; red represents hardiness and valor; and blue signifies vigilance, perseverance, and justice.

Cloud: Above the eagle's head is a cloud surrounding a blue field containing thirteen stars which form a constellation. The constellation denotes that a new State is taking its place among other nations.

 

Source: https://statesymbolsusa.org/symbol-official-item/national-us/state-seal/united-states-seal

 

I think this seal of 1782 would represent pretty good, what I would expect on the ships stern:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States

 

I see in that round area in the center top that mentioned cloud .. so that the eagles head and the scroll must be below .. and that is where I see that white serpentine line ..

 

So to summarize:

Would you be able to help me understanding what is REALLY visible in the two paintings by Corné?

Anyone who had a chance to really SEE these drawings? I know that @Force9 had done pictures - but the copy he kindly did send to me is not as clear as that online-zoom you see in the beginning of this post.

So do you see the figures, where Bass saw them?

Are there cherubs outside of those two "minor" sitting ladies next to the eagle?

Are there sitting ladies next to that eagle?

Did someone see cannons and balls on top of the eagle?

Are the big blotches between the galleries stern windows REALLY figures ?

 

I am curious to hear your opinion and know-how in this.

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Marcus.K.

[Marcus.K.]

Concering the meaning of "quarters" .. I found this interesting little summary:

Quote

The word also refers to a compass point or direction other than north, south, east, or west or to one-fourth of the horizon or the area beneath it. ... Quarters, the plural form, pertains to one’s living accommodations, to an assigned post or station, or to assembly of a ship’s crew.

Speaking of ships, either side of the stern, or rear, of a ship is called a quarter, and the deck at the stern of a ship is called the quarterdeck. Another term pertaining to maritime vocabulary is quartermaster. One or more quartermasters traditionally assisted the master, or captain, of a ship (later an officer subordinate to the captain called the sailing master) in navigation; it remains a rating, or a designation delineating job responsibilities, in modern navies. (Among pirates during the Age of Sail, however, quartermaster was the title of a crew member second only to the captain in authority; often, both positions were filled by election.)

Source: https://www.dailywritingtips.com/the-many-meanings-of-quarter/

 

First idea:

does McHenry mean with Quarters : "left and right" .. in the meaning of "west and east" .. but that´s may too thin soup..

 

Second idea:

the therm "Quarter" seems in ships to be refered to the "sides of the stern".

 

... Well, why that? Why would the SIDE of the stern be a quarter? .. Maybe because this is the classical area where the officiers and captains had their "quarters", their cabins?

Then McHenry´s remark would really fit with Basses positioning of the two ladies. While I struggled with that postion - thinking the quarters are the stern side of the quarter galleries. By now I learned that - yes - there are quarter GALLERIES - but they are mounted to the Quarters as it seems!

 

So the ladies sketched so nice by Billy Bass are exactly where the cabins of the captain and the commodore (or first officer) would have been - left and right of the after cabin. Well not exactly maybe in the case of our big frigates. The deck plan of US Frigate United States shows the cabins being at the sides - but not being connected to the stern. That was remaining only for the after cabin which was the common cabin for captain and squadrons commodore - if on board - or first officer if no commodore was on board.

 

If someone wonders why I do such thinking: I learned by now that very often we misinterpret things because we "think" we know the meaning. But very often - especially in historical or in special fields the modern understanding of things may differ - and even in old time, meaning did change sometimes and we are not aware of all possible meanings.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Marcus.K.

[Marcus.K.]

Today I want to present you a historical excurse which has nothing to do with my model build - except its about another story in my subject Old Ironsides history:

 

U.S. Frigate Constitution was in Annapolis when 1861 the war was starting. I just found an image which immetiatly caught my attention - mainly because of a technical feature I noticed before I recognized the story told in that picture:

 

 

The title is: "The Eighth Massachusetts Regiment taking possession of U.S. ship Constitution at Annapolis"

The picture is from "Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, vol. 11, no. 285 (1861 May 4), p. 385" and its done after a description by "our special artist". 

source: https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3b15950/

 

There are 2 problems with this picture:

 

1. the ship visible in this scene can not really be US Frigate Constitution. We see an extra deck - quarter- or foredeck - but Old Ironsides never had any extra deck. She always had a flush Spar- or Weather Deck. Also the size / width of that deck seems to be much wider than what we would expect from the - I admit: big - frigate.

 

2. This event seems to be not real. Some days later the officiers of Old Ironsides seemed to see the need of clarification which they did by an article in the New York Times:

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/1861/05/06/archives/the-constitution-at-annapolis-official-statement-of-facts-in-regard.html

 

Here the relevant quote:

Quote

UNITED STATES FRIGATE CONSTITUTION, BROOKLYN NAVY-YARD, May 6, 1861.

To the Editor of the New-York Times:

 

There having appeared many contradictory reports in the papers regarding this ship while at An napolis some of them doing great injustice to the officers, midshipmen and crew, by stating that she bad been captured by the Secessionists and recaptured by the Massachusetts Volunteers, the officers deem it their duty to make the following statement: The Constitution was never in the hands of the Secessionists, nor was any attack made upon her by them, nor were they at any time on board except while behaving in an orderly and respectful manner. Some time previous to the passage of the Ordinance of Secession by Virginia, it became the opinion of many that, upon the passage of that act, the same state of affairs would be inaugurated in Maryland by the capture of the Constitution. Feeling convinced of this, the greatest vigilance was exercised by the officers and midshipmen of the Academy, which was, if possible, redoubled upon seeing the excitement and applause created throughout Maryland by the action of the Virginia Convention -- the officers, midshipmen and crew remaining at their quarters during several nights, with guns loaded with shot or shell. Large parties of Secessionists were round the ship every day, noting her [???] points, The militia of the county were being drilled in sight of the ship in the daytime, during the night signals were being exchanged along the banks and across the river, but the character of the preparation, and the danger to the town in case of an attack, as one of the batteries of the ship was pointed directly upon it, deterred them from carrying out their plans. During this time the Constitution had a crew of about twenty-five men, and seventy-six of the youngest class of midshipmen, on board. The ship drawing more water than there was on the bar, the Secessionists thoughts she would be in their power whenever they would be in sufficient force to take her. This state of affairs continued until the morning of the 21st April, when Gen. BUTLER, who had arrived from Havre de Grace in the Maryland, (the only steamer then in the neighborhood,) Kindly consented to tow us out, at the same time placing on board some eighty or a hundred men to assist the crew in working the ship, part of them unarmed. At 7 A.M. the order was received to get the ship outside; the chains were slipped, the anchor was raised, and at 9 A.M. the ship was under way, in tow of the steamb [???]. After the most persistent efforts the ship was forced nearly over the bar by [???] down. The steamer at this time went ahead to tow and after having intentionally parted our [???] seriously injuring one of the crew, and run the ship [???] the captain backed his own vessel ashore, that he might not be of any further service. During the night information was received that obstructions were to be placed in the channel outside of the ship. All hands were called, and we commenced to kedge out. While this was going on, a squall came up and drove the ship ashore again. At early daylight a towboat have in sight, bringing a bearer of dispatches from [???] de Grace. This boat was taken to tow the ship out. Anchoring in the Roads at 9 A.M., the [???] remained outside for several days, keeping surveilance upon all vessels approaching the harbor; after which an order was received to proceed to New-York, which she did in tow of the R.R. Cuyler, Gen. BUTLER kindly consenting to allow his men to remain on board, to assist in working the ship in case we should have to cast off from the steamer.

 

To Gen. BUTLER, whose gallantry in pushing on to Annapolis with the troops under his command, is well known to the country, we are much indebted for the assistance he rendered us in towing the ship out, lending us men to assist in working her, and if it had been necessary, to assist in defending her. The officers and men lending prompt and cheerful assistance in all the work that was to be done.

 

THE OFFICERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

 

I have no idea by now who invented this thrilling story about a capture and re-capture - but what I noticed was another interesting detail - and that was, what was caught my eye in the beginning:

 

On deck fixed to the rigging is a strange "feature" I once saw in models I observed in Lissabon´s (Portugal) marine museum years ago. There some models showed this "chimney" done out of sails - a technology obviously used to force air movement in the lower decks and by that cooling them. A simple "air conditioning"-system. So here it is again: known and used in US Navy. 

 

Does anyone has any information about that steamer "General Butler" mentioned by the ships crew? It is not the one which sank in the great lakes (since that General Butler isn´t a steamer 🙂 ). Just curious.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Marcus.K.

[Marcus.K.]

Today I have a question for you:

in the Humphreys Papers JH specified many of Old Ironsides items. I am interested in this one today:

 

Quote

Cable bitts

2 pair of good tough strong white oak 22 inch square and to taper below the lower deck beams to 16 inch crosspieces to be 22 inch fore and aft and 20 inch deep to have a standard knee against each bitt sided 14 inches to run forward over 3 beams and scored down over each 2 inches the arm to run to the upper side of the crosspiece

My interpretation 

d = 22"

l = 22"

D = 16"

h = 20"

which makes 

H = D + h + 2" - 2" ("scored down?") = 34"

a = 14"

Do you think that is a correct interpretation?

 

How much would the crosspiece ends and the bitts "head" be wider than the distance of the beams / stand above the crosspiece?? 

 

Edit: I did change that height of the standard knew due to the statement says "scored DOWN" and since it would make sense that the knees "arm" is a bit lower than the upper edge of the crosspiece to provide a bit room for the cable wrapped around that bitts.  But I admit: I do not really understand that last statement 

Quote

... and scored down over each 2 inches the arm to run to the upper side of the crosspiece

Am I right?

Edited February 25 by Marcus.K.

[Marcus.K.]

Next question to think about:

 

Humphreys did specify the thickness of the deck planks .. I am right now on the gun deck:

Quote

"Plank--Four inches thick, six feet from the side, of the best white oak, clear of all sap and other defects whatever, the rest e laid of the best heart pitch pine, clear of all sap and other defects whatever.

also the thick strakes are described like that:

Quote

Thick strakes on the gun deck, two strakes of white oak plank six inches thick, and not less than ten inches wide, bolted and joggled into each other, and over and into the beams and leges two inches, running all fore and aft alsong side of the hatches

Two other strakes on each side, fite as above, midway between the water way and hatch stake.

John Lord did collect all that in one of his section cuts.

I did ask you already what you think about that step between the deck and the decks mid section - in between the hatches - in which the drawing indicates a thickness of 6".

That step would be

On 2/18/2024 at 1:03 PM, Marcus.K. said:

.. making that step 2 1/2" thick. That´s more than 6 cm !

On Berth Deck this drawing shows also another dimension: it says " White Stuff 6" x 10" ". From optical point of view I would guess that this dimensions would also fit to the thick stuff on Gun Deck level.

 

That is interesting because: if you take the width of the hutches in the Waldo Deck Plan of 1819 and divide it by 7 planks as Lord seems to indicate here - then each planks width is 10.28". Bingo!

 

That would lead me to believe that those planks in between the hatches - and in between the two inner "thick strakes" (also of at least 10" width) had the same width - while the yellow pine planks - and maybe also the outer white oak planks below the guns (for a widht of 6 feet from the hull inwards) may have had a slightly smaller width. 

 

The length now.. ? 

Modern restorations seem to work with 40 feet long planks - as this paper indicates:

Materials on USS Constitution in 1992 - 1995 Restoration

 

But even older Material found on the USS Constitution Museums blog helps us:

This paper from Peter Guillet’s Timber Merchant’s Guide. [USS Constitution Museum Collection, 1742.1] allows planks between 35 and up to 60 feet.

Thats between 10 and 18 m!

 

Since the end of the planks would need to be exactly on the center of a decks beam the span of 10 m would cover - depending on the position - about 6 to 7 deck beams. And with a bit more length even more beams can be covered with one plank - providing more stability.

 

Here a picture of how the Waldo Deck beams would be postitioned in our Revell hull:

6 beams per plank - thats reminds me on this picture:

Coming from HERE (thanks Gentlemen).

 

Of course that pattern will be possible only beside the hatches - since in the center of the deck there is always interuptions - like the hatches or the masts etc.

 

But in general I think I can work with about 10 - 15 m (in my case then 10 - 15 cm) long planks - and trying to match the deck beams by that pattern.

Edited March 7 by Marcus.K.

[Marcus.K.]

On 3/8/2024 at 3:25 AM, Roger Pellett said:

Of course, Constitution has had a very long life during which she has been rebuilt and repaired several times.  For a considerable part of this time she sailed as an active unit of the US Navy so until recent times, her refits did not necessarily involve ensuring historical accuracy.  Even today, she is a hodgepodge of different periods.

 

Constitution underwent a major repair in the 1920’s.  There are photos of her during this repair in drydock with all exterior planking removed.  Apparently, during this repair a series of as built drawings were prepared.  In the 1990’s these drawings, on a DVD disc, were offered to the public.  I believe that the drawing that you have posted is one from the 1920’s.  To be useful to the level that you want you would have to be able to determine when different structural elements were added during which historic period.   

 

Roger

You are absolutly right, Roger. And that´s part of the fun for me here. Its a bit like a "murder mistery" .. Cluedo in history. "who´s done it?" .. "who´s done what!?"

 

I am copying your remark to this thread - since I here think about the topic for my actual build.

 

 

We can only "guesstimate" about detail questions based on availble sources. The Lord drawings done in 1925-1930 are a reference for what they thought is right in that times. The section cut I showed here was prepared to show what his research result is indicating. But of course - it is also a lot of interpretation in that already. And as a matter of fact: he did his restoration based on modfied designs by the way - for which we also have section cuts.

 

 

I am about to re-think that thick stuff / king plank concept for my build. Until yesterday I intended to represent that step. But ..

 

There may be 2 reasons why Humphreys may not mention that "thick stuff":

 

1. he did not talk about it, since anyone would have known: this is how it had to be. That´s the tricky part with original sources: they often describe the "not-expected", the "unusal", the things worth to describe. Very often they don´t talk about things which are "common sense" / "common practice" for those in the time the paper was written. So "thick stuff" or "king planks" could have been a feature which every shipyard whould know how to do! Not worth talking about. As for example also the length or width of most of the deck planks.

 

2. he did not talk about it, since in his design it was not intended to be there.

That possiblity leaves us with two new options.

2a. there was no thick stuff in the early frigate

2b. there was thick stuff in the real ship: the shipyard did add in the best practical way - which is in a way the same as option 1. "common sense" / "common practice" - at least for them in Boston. .. Is there evidence for this? At least: I don´t have any.

Does anyone of you have evidence for the practice of "thick strakes" in Boston / Charlestown in that time period?

 

What do we have to consider than to find the best assumption here?

 

1. Humphreys degree of details in his specifications

Humphreys mentions the detail of width of his "thick strakes", the "sheer strake" beside the hatches - and also that there should be an additional one "half way" between this "classical" sheer strake and the sides.

He specified the type of wood (stronger white oak for areas with high stress and "cheaper" yellow pine everywhere else) he wants to have in different area of the deck.

He did NOT mention any "thick stuff" or "king plank" in between the hatches.

 

2. common practice?

It seems to me that the practice of thicker kingplank - or "thick stuff" as Lord is calling this - was not used in ALL ships ALL the time. Yes, it seems to be a practice in ship building before Old Ironsides was launched - and it seems to be practice up to today.

But there are ships and models (weaker arguement !!) without them.

In Chapmans "Architectural Navals" he shows ships WITH and WITHOUT a that step. If he does show in one drawing - why would he miss it in drawings of other ships? My conclusion: it must have been in some - and wasn´t in others.

 

3. need to strengthen the ship

The argument it would strengthen the ship in longitundinal direction is not fully true - since the hatches interrupt that strengthening "stripe".

I would understand if that thick stuff is used in area the decks are under higher load during working on the hatches, storing stuff below the decks, You may have to put there a barrel or a box .. Those area around the hatches may even experience falling stuff.. So yes, in that sense thick planks would strengthen the deck.

 

4. personal bias

I loved that idea of having a deck planking which "differs" from what one ususally sees in forums like here. Of course I would love to show you all something new, never seen before but having good arguments to convince you all. I guess everyone posting information here does it, because it pleases to show to a community something entertaining or educational. It was a thrilling idea having here a detail, which wasn´t well understood before. But.. 

 

 

Thinking about all that without emotion and just rationally I would judge like

Pro:

• thicker king plank was a well known and appearing feature in some ships and models before and after
• thick stuff would improve the robustness of the "logistical" area around the hatches
• thick stuff is shown in John Lords "investigation"-section cut. Seems he saw some evidence for it.

Contra:

• Humphreys tried to describe the important features he wanted to have 
  • he described the material to be used - and where.
  • he described the thickness and in one occation (for deckplanking) the width of the material he wants to be used.
  • he did no where describe "thick stuff" / king planks
• There is no evidence for "thick stuff" before the 1926 section cut drawing of John Lord.
• king plank as a feature is sometimes visible - but wasn´t exisiting in all vessels of that type

Summary

I guess I will not show white oak nor a step in between the hatches.. and deviate from John Lords 1926 interpretation.

Of course there may have been a step and white oak planks in the real ship from the beginning - but .. for today I guess I stick with what I read from Humphreys.

Edited March 10 by Marcus.K.

[Marcus.K.]

Gentlemen,

 

found an interesting feature - and I am not sure what to make with it.

Beside the Gangway of US Frigate President (painted by Antoine Roux "entering Marseille" - I think it was 1803) we see 6 additional horizontal "barrs" or "steps" 3 per side (rear bottom one is in the shadow of a gun).

Also in this copy of Antoine Roux´s President riding a gale from 1802 ..

And here: for me most important:

the Charles Ware Sail Plan from 1817 of Old Ironside - showing the same pattern beside the gangway steps - 6 additional "steps"? - 3 per side.

What would this be? Are this Skids for any possible cargo which is brought along the gangway?

Is it just side steps to allow the passing of an officer while a sailor is on the opposite direction?

 

Any idea?

[Force9]

Ahoy Marcus!

 

That is a very interesting observation - a wonderful detail that I'll need to add to my model.

 

Not sure I can add any meaningful speculation regarding the purpose... Perhaps as you suggest it would help to roll barrels or cargo up the side?

 

Hope all is well.

 

Cheers

Evan

[schooner]

One possible explanation for the small side steps - O'Brian's books mention in several places that when senior (i.e. rotund) officers or civilian (i.e. landlubber)VIP's came aboard sideboys would hold manropes on each side of the steps to help the visitor negotiate the steps so maybe that is what the small ones are for.

[Marcus.K.]

On 10/17/2024 at 2:26 PM, schooner said:

One possible explanation for the small side steps - O'Brian's books mention in several places that when senior (i.e. rotund) officers or civilian (i.e. landlubber)VIP's came aboard sideboys would hold manropes on each side of the steps to help the visitor negotiate the steps so maybe that is what the small ones are for.

Thanks for that suggestion! It fits with comparable answers I got in other forums.

 

If that´s the case - would then these extra steps be only on one side? Was the "official" gangway for VIPs only on one side of the ship?

In a way it fits to the big frigates - being frequently flagships of a commodor´s squadrone, right? And that would explain, why this feature is so rarely seen in other frigates.

 

We all know that "Admirals Port" on HMS Victory - being too a flagship.

 

So two questions I have for you all:

 

a) did you ever seen anything comparable on other ships?

 

b) would this feature be only on one side? Was there a traditional "right" side of a ship for VIPs?

 

 

 

Ahoooy there, what´s up, Doc?

.. Evan, thanks for the kind words.

Its fun and crazy how much one still can find although having studied this topic that much ..  there is still that much information..   

 

Maybe I have another interesting feature for your build:

            Did you finish your stern yet? I am chasing another detail.

 

Revell offered us a stern which was designed by a Mr. Campbell for the other well known Mr. Chapelle - and this design is visible in that museums model in the Smithonian Museum in Washington D.C. (.. well I don´t know .. is it still visible there?).

You can see - all the features we see in the Isaac-Hull Model for the 1812 design. Pls. note the two stars on the sterns back - on the galleries back side.

 

Campbell based his design on the Isaac-Hull-Model - in PEM in Salem.

Here too we see the 2 stars..

 

Interestingly:

in the center just above is a marking - and I learned that here in former times there was another big start on that model.

 

In nearly all representation of the 1812 - Guerrier-Battle Old Ironsides is represented with these 2 big stars on each back side of the gallery:

Details in one of Felice Corné´s painting

 

Here a detail done by George Ropes, Jr. - beautiful and huge stars!

 

We also know, that the ship got 2 stars on her stern - added by John Rodgers in 1808 (not personally of course 😁) .. We know it due to a still existing bill:

Quote

“To Daniel N. Train Dr.

To Carving a Billet Head, with figures – quarter pieces with Bust etc upper and

lower finishings for Gallery, one pair trusses for Stern [pair] Bracketts for

Quarters, six pieces Quarters, six pieces of Garnishings for front of Gallery and

two Stars for Stern of U.S. Ship Constitution $650.00.”

M.V. Brewington. Shipcarvers of North America, M.V. Brewington, 126

 

Now recently I stepped over an article dealing with the US Frigate Chesapeake - and the history of a model made from bones being in a museum in Hamburg, Germany.

That article was written by a J. Huntington Lewis - HRNM Docent & Contributing Writer

 

The title is Chesapeake, to the Bone

 

In this artikel, the author mentioned his finding about 2 stars on the stern of USF Chesapeake - in a book from 1866. The American frigate had - as we know - been taken by the British HMS Shannon in one of the most bloody encounters in which the also famous (but unsuccessful) phrase "don´t give up the ship" was stated .. The ship stayed in British waters, until it was scrapped 1820. And some of its decoration found its ways into local buildings.

This graphic shows one of the two stars from the frigates stern:

Quote

According to the 1866 book Admiral Sir P.V.B. Broke: A Memoir, edited by John George Brighton, the "S" within the star above the figurehead, seen here on display at Broke Hall (home to the man who commanded HMS Shannon to victory over USF Chesapeake), was the only survivor of the two stars (the "U" having been shot away during the battle) that once graced the transom of USF Chesapeake. 

 

 

Now ..

 

- knowing that the 1813 lost frigate had two stars indicating the origine of the ship from U.S. - United States .. and

- noticing that the 1812 US Frigate Constitution also got 2 stars on her stern .. and

- seeing that those two stars are visible in almost any graphical reproduction in which the ships stern is visible ..

 

I begin to wonder: why is only this feature of her decoration so prominent in all paintings and etchings?

 

 

                 was this, because the two stars were a good indentifier for the public to recognize which is the American frigate?

                         was US Frigate Constitution also marked as a ship belonging to the "U." "S." ?

                                             have those two stars being a "signiture" of the US ships in those days?

 

HISMODEL is selling a stern, which can replace the - beautiful but doubtful Revell-represenation on the 1/96 kit.

 

There are features I like about this representation. But there are features, which seem to be odd and wrong. Corné showed in non of his "Guerriere" paintings the ships name on the stern .. while it is visible in the 1804 Tripolis paintings - although the ship was very, very tiny in those battle scenes off North Africa. So I doubt that the ship had its name written in 1812.

 

The two stars - typical 5-pointed-stars - seems to be plausible on first view.. But compared to the paintings .. and that USF Chesapeake stars it seems wrong. I believe that stern is more comparable to todays stern - just more decoration. But that anyhow fits with my thinking that the 5-windows here and todays stern with only 3 windows is in fact closer to each other than one may think. If you imagine the 2 outer windows of that 5-window pattern to be "fake-windows" .. blind windows which have been painted in 1812  and which are not painted and faked as windows later .. the rest of that proportion would fit pretty good, wouldn´t it?

 

So this Hismodel-representation may have its value .. hm.. the price, though  .. well..

 

 

What will you do Evan? @Force9

 

For my 1803-04 representation I anyhow have to chose a different approach. I guess I need to find a good way to represent much more decoration - and an open taffrail. 

Edited October 19 by Marcus.K.

[Marcus.K.]

Gentlemen, Ladies, 

 

I need your help, please !  

 

there is a description about the rework of decorations in 1808 ..

 

Quote

In 1808, when Constitution returned from the Mediterranean Sea, Commodore John Rodgers oversaw a nearly $100,000 rebuild of the ship which included the following carved and decorative work:

“To Daniel N. Train Dr.

To Carving a Billet Head, with figures – quarter pieces with Bust etc upper and

lower finishings for Gallery, one pair trusses for Stern [pair] Bracketts for

Quarters, six pieces Quarters, six pieces of Garnishings for front of Gallery and

two Stars for Stern of U.S. Ship Constitution $650.00.”

This is from US Constitution Museum Blog

and it refers again to M.V. Brewington. Shipcarvers of North America, M.V. Brewington, 126 

 

 

I think I understand this: 

Carving a Billet Head, with figures

which gives us the hint that the 1804 needed Billet Head (Hercules was lost to the US Frigate President - a collision of the two sister ships destroyed the original figure head - our strong popular hero holding the roll of papers with the Constitution high above the waves.. 

 

Also this makes sense to me:

quarter pieces with Bust etc

Since I think that the "bust" refers to that little heads on top of the quarter pieces visible in the Isaac-Hull-Model

see here:

... the two little guys left and right in that blue circles on top of the quarter pieces .. 

 

see also here...

 

I also get these two items:

upper and lower finishings for Gallery

I would think these are the upper and lower horizontal decoration rims of the Galleries windows - or what do you think "finishings" refers to?

 

 

But what is meant with THIS here?

one pair trusses for Stern [pair] Bracketts for Quarters

 

What are trusses in this?

And what are stern Bracketts for Quarters.

Does anyone understand the structure of the timbers of a wooden ships gallery?

 

The

six pieces Quarters, six pieces of Garnishings for front of Gallery

I would think are the stonger wooden frames in between the windows - including their decoration. Although I admit that the number 6 would mean that todays representation with 4 per side would either not be valid or the carver did find one per side still functionable enough. 

Here we see - as I think - 4 quarters in between and in front and behind the 3 windows. 

 

If I compare the actual design with whats presented in the Issac Hull model:

 

I would think that the rear wooden quarter piece is quite small - maybe they were not count?

But if my understanding would be correct, then in this representation the "six pieces of garnishing" does not fit - since if that would be just the decoration of that beams between the windows, we just see 2 per side - not 3 .. 

 

 

The two stars we discussed above already.

 

 

Let me know if my interpretation is wrong pls.. And I would appreciate to read yours ..  

Edited Monday at 03:14 PM by Marcus.K.

[Marcus.K.]

Having studied the one or other book - I have to notice:

details of galleries internal structure is not very well documented in most of the books I have.

Hull, Galion, Pumps, etc.. everything is described in details - but the inner structure, the internal pieces of a gallery, .. al that is rarely described in drawings and sketches. Even in Boudriots 74-gun ship book (Vol. 2 plate XVIII) it´s hard to identify details.

 

And having also re-read my yesterdays post I need to apologize ..

 

First of all:

I did miss the difference between "Quarters" and "Gallery" .. 

Quarters being the rear side of the ship - while the Gallery of course refers to that structure beside and outside the hull at the rear end of the ships sides.

 

So let´s restart with that approved bill and the description of what has been done by that Daniel Trains :

 

Quote

To Carving a Billet Head, with figures – quarter pieces with Bust etc upper and

lower finishings for Gallery, one pair trusses for Stern [pair] Bracketts for

Quarters, six pieces Quarters, six pieces of Garnishings for front of Gallery and

two Stars for Stern of U.S. Ship Constitution $650.00

 

• "Billet Head, with figures" - clear: thats the decoration at the bow of the ship
• "Quarter Pieces with Bust" - that´s the outmost wood at the edge of the quarters to the galleries - in early days of Old Ironsides maybe decorated with figures (as described  and still the blue circled heads in aboves picture of the Isaac-Hull-Models stern may be that busts the auther talks abaout.
• "upper and lower finishings for Gallery" - well here looking into my AotS books (and others) showed me, that here obviously are roof and the lower planking of the galeries are meant. This bill may describe the change from a previously ornamntal decorated hollow but flat surface to that shingle covered "roof" we see in the Issac-Hull-model and in the Ware Drawing.
• "one pair trusses for stern [pair] Bracketts for Quarters" - well this is not for the Galleries as I was thinking yesterday - its for the ships stern.

Now here I need help:

in the beautiful AotS book about HMS Bellona Brian Lavery shows on page 54 and 55 "brackets" as two decorating pieces on the rear side of the Gallery visible only from behind the ship - beside the blind (?) rear window of the gallery.

 

Our Isaac Hull Model also shows "brackets" in that position - at least one per side between the quarters windows and that gallery back sides.

Here are two "brackets" which are those purple marked "things" below the blue marked busts on left and right side.

 

But:

"Trusses" are usually structual pieces providing stability and strenght.. why would one need a special mechanical support for such a decoration?
Is this really what that bills approval is describing?

 

 

Wikipedia provides as explanation for a "bracket" an interesting alternative:

 

Quote

A bracket is a structural or decorative architectural element that projects from a wall, usually to carry weight and sometimes to "strengthen an angle".^[1][2] It can be made of wood, stone, plaster, metal, or other media. A corbel or console are types of brackets.

Example Wikipdia provides:

Quote

A classically detailed bracket at the chapel of Greenwich Hospital, London

 

Even better:

Quote

Brackets are used in traditional timber framing, including the support of a jettied floor which can be carved. Magdalene Street, Cambridge, England. Sixteenth century

 

My wild guess:

the "bracket" they talk about is that lowest final element below the galleries - also visible from the back ("quarters") - and is part of the structure "holding" the lower finishing in place.

 

Fun fact:

in some books this lowest end is called "drop", Boudroit describes this segment on Panel XVIII as "lower finish" ..

 

I have to admit:

my books either have no describtion or controversal description of that lower end of the galleries and other elements of the structure of a gallery.

 

What do you think about that guess??

 

 

But there are still other elements:

• "Six pieces Quarter" - well .. what might be described here?
  Hm.. were do we find 6 elements on the Quarters? 
  If my understanding is correct and "quarter" describes the back side of the ships hull - then there are only those 6 windows ..
  the posts in between the windows would be seven ..
  Did Train use the expression "pieces" for a total window-"panel" - maybe including the mullions?
• "six pieces of garnishing for front of galleries" .. that makes 3 per side - and its clear not the rear side but the front.

  Where do we find 3 elements per galleries front?

  If we´d assume that the windows are blind windows (with the expeption of a small opening within the center "window" - and if we do the same assumption as above: a "piece" may be more than one single post or mullion - we might identify that "garnishing" as the total "window"-"panel" with decoration which "simulates" those 3 window panes and the frames per side for them - including the decoration of the pieces in between them (Boudriout calls them "munions forming the framework" .. others describe them as Mullions .. again: my literature at least is not distinctive).

That interpretation would allow to fit the numbers with the expressions used and the elements we see in the stern ...

 

Is all that imporant?

Naaa !! .. not really.

 

I just like to have a certain understanding and aligning the known desciptions with what we see - it is just fun.   And ..

I believe some of the myths and mysteries of her previous design and shape can be  sorted out by a more precise view into the existing information.

Re-thinking the wording (like what´s a "bracket", how to understand the expression "piece") may help here.

 

And:

I would love to hear your expertise in this - as such an enterprise is always much better with teamwork and "swarm intelligence" ( o.k. - one may drop that actual global developments in many fields seem to imply: there is no such thing as a "swarm intelligence" - but at least there is a wider chance of finding the needed know-how amongst the audience here)

• does anyone of you have a better describition of how galleries are really done?
• the internal Structure of that thing?
• .. and descriptions fitting with above mentioned ones?

Edited Tuesday at 01:50 PM by Marcus.K.