Bright metal on ship models?

[Smile-n-Nod]

I often see ship models with metal fittings (such as gudgeons and pintles) made from copper or brass which has not been darkened (to make it look like iron).

 

Apart from a ship's copper bottom, is it ever appropriate to use bright copper and brass on a historically accurate ship model?

[Ulises Victoria]

No! It is MY opinion. To me there is not a faster and more effective way to spoil a historical ship model, than paint it with bright colors and then apply a coat of gloss varnish. The same goes for golden hinges, chains, or any metal fittings.

[ccoyle]

2 minutes ago, Ulises Victoria said:

No! It is MY opinion.

 

Exactly! I have seen many beautiful models with their metal work left bright. And if a modeler is going to make a fuss over finishing metal, then to be consistent he/she ought to fuss over accurately painted wood as well; so long, great-looking bare woodwork!

 

To each their own.

[Bob Cleek]

2 hours ago, Smile-n-Nod said:

Apart from a ship's copper bottom, is it ever appropriate to use bright copper and brass on a historically accurate ship model?

And whoever said it was ever appropriate to use bright copper and brass on an historically accurate ship model?  

 

It's a matter of style. To my mind, in MY opinion, as others have said, an historically accurate ship model should portray the historical features accurately. That said, some amazing builder's yard models of the "golden age" had all their metal parts gold plated! It was a style in vogue at the time to show off the quality of the craftsmanship and it yielded a spectacular artistic effect. These models were historically correct, but not visually correct. An alternate style is to leave all materials "bright," i.e. "unfinished" as is the style currently in vogue in European modeling of "Admiralty board" style models. (Not all of which were so built.) Finally, there is the style of modeling a "compelling impression of reality in miniature," which portrays the subject as the viewer would see the subject vessel from a "scale viewing distance" in real life. All of these classic styles are valid and can produce spectacular models. That said, mixing these styles up in the same model is often detrimental to the overall result, and sometimes catastrophically so. Needless to say, out of scale and misplaced  trunnels, deck planking butts, copper sheathing tacks, and a myriad of incorrect colors are not historically correct, and yield a crude result.

 

It should be noted that leaving uncoated copper unfinished will, as the copper naturally oxidizes, yields a very convincing appearance of naturally weathered bronze fittings. This is a good technique for portraying bronze railings and handholds, cleats, winches, and the like, particularly on models of yachts which carry quality metal fittings.

 

For those who may not be familiar with a bright metal builder's model (in apparent need of some restoration attention... note the faded paint on the stack, damaged rigging, and bent stern railing):

 

 

 

 

and, if you want to give your model-maker's ego a real beating, check out the builder's model of Mauretania! : 

 

And RMS Berengaria, with bright metal only where it would have appeared at "scale viewing distance." 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[wefalck]

Depending on type of ship and era, there may have been quite a bit of bright metal-work on real ships. Metal was left bright, where it would have been impractical to cover it in paint, because the paint would have been worn off by e.g. ropes. At other places the paint would impair the function, e.g. on breech-loading guns. And at other places it had purely decorative function, say on yachts. So it would be historically correct to show bright metal, where it was bright metal on the prototype. Keeping the metal bright was a way to keep crews occupied, particularly on navy ships.

 

Keeping metal bright on a model is not so easy, as brass and copper tarnish quickly. The classical way is to brush it with what is called zapon-varnish.

[Justin P.]

As said above, depends entirely on period.  Not every pintle and gudgeon was made of iron and I think it reasonable to say that new sheathing on a ship would have been shiny (for a time at least).   

 

Otherwise, my knowledge on the subject is not comprehensive, but based on the MANY HOURS of bright work duty I was assigned as a young naval serviceman I can tell you Naval officers invariably like their metal bright and polished   😏

 

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2016/11/18/new-copper-sheathing-2/

Edited March 22, 2021 by Justin P.

[Roger Pellett]

Once ships began to be copper sheathed, iron would no longer be used underwater due to galvanic corrosion.  Copper gudgeons, pintals and fastenings would be The norm.

 

Later in the Nineteenth Century composition (brass) fittings made an appearance on warships in non load bearing applications, the “birdcage guards over hatches being a prime example.

 

Brass chains, Never!

[popeye2sea]

I can tell you from personal experience that every piece of brass on my signal bridge was polished all the time.😧

 

Regards,

[Clark Griswold]

The challenge with our model ships is scale "brightness". High polish and shine from a distance is not the same as when viewed full scale... distance dulls it to a certain extent... even on Capt. Bligh's Bounty. Even something as large as 1:10 tends to look fake if it is too shiny.  To me, a certain level of dinge adds realism.

[Bob Cleek]

8 hours ago, Justin P. said:

I think it reasonable to say that new sheathing on a ship would have been shiny (for a time at least).   

 

Otherwise, my knowledge on the subject is not comprehensive, but based on the MANY HOURS of bright work duty I was assigned as a young naval serviceman I can tell you Naval officers invariably like their metal bright and polished   😏

 

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2016/11/18/new-copper-sheathing-2/

That copper wouldn't stay shiny bright like that for more than a few weeks, at most. 

 

Polished brass (not bronze) is standard procedure for naval ships, and most others that are kept "Bristol fashion," but that's going to be limited to binnacles, bells, bulkhead clock cases, signage plates, door knobs, railings and the like. Only brass is kept polished. Never bronze, which is left to weather gracefully to bronze brown.

 

BTW, those ham-fisted monkeys in the picture posted of them coppering Constitution are making a dog's breakfast of it. They are using regular carpenter's hammers and the denting of the plates sure shows it. There's a proper tool for the job called a "coppering hammer." Its face is convex and smooth. It drives the tack home and makes a smooth dimple in which the tack head sits and has a claw made to fit copper tacks.

 

 

 

Here's a photo of Cutty Sark's coppered bottom, which has never seen water. Done properly with a coppering hammer, she doesn't look like she's got the pox. She was sheathed with Muntz metal, a patent alloy used in her time which is 60% copper, 40% zinc, and a trace of iron, in essence, a brass. It has to be heated when worked, but it's about two-thirds the price of pure copper. Nobody polishes it, though. Muntz metal holds it color about the same as brass and the photograph was taken when the ship first went on display after her restoration.

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, wefalck said:

So it would be historically correct to show bright metal, where it was bright metal on the prototype.

But bright metal on the prototype will be less glaring at scale viewing distance on a model. It's reported that some gun crews kept their gunmetal (brass) guns polished as a matter of pride. Iron guns and all other ironwork was painted with a mixture of linseed oil, Stockholm tar, and lampblack to prevent rust. 

 

5 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

Once ships began to be copper sheathed, iron would no longer be used underwater due to galvanic corrosion.  Copper gudgeons, pintals and fastenings would be The norm.

...

Brass chains, Never!

 

And copper gudgeons and pintles, never. They were bronze, if not wrought iron. Copper was not sufficiently strong for heavy load-bearing. Brass was never used for chain for the same reason. Note the photo of Cutty Sark above. Here  rudder fittings are wrought iron, her yellow metal bottom notwithstanding.

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Dr PR]

Anyone ever hear of Captain Charles Noble?

 

The amount of brightwork (metal) on a ship depended upon the crew and the officers. I was Engineering Officer on a small minesweeper - the "flagship" of the squadron. The crew kept all the brass piping, engine valve covers, gauges and such in the engine room polished. It was their doing, not mine, because they took pride in their engine room. Of course, since we were bolted to the pier most of the time, polishing brass was about all the watch crew had to do.

 

When I went aboard the cruiser (another flagship) most brass was painted. The Captain was a no nonsense man who was commanding a ship of war. After 12 years on cruisers he could drive the 15,000 ton ship like a sports car! The awnings were gray and the metal was painted gray. We got a new XO who wanted to polish all the brass and paint the piping in a rainbow of colors (not the standard navy engineering colors). I was on the bridge when the XO was explaining his plans to the Captain. "Rodney," the Captain said, "you want to turn my ship into a circus boat!"

 

Then that Captain left and we got a new Captain who had spent most of his career commanding a LMD (large mahogany desk). I'm not sure he knew the difference between the pointy end and the blunt end. I don't think he ever took the conn. The XO talked him into making changes, and pretty soon our circus boat was decked out with white awnings, McNamara's lace, and polished brass. The XO went around with a pocket knife scraping paint off of everything looking for brass. Woe be it to the Division Officer who had painted brass!

 

So, to be "historically correct" you would have to model a particular year and know how the officers and crew wanted the brass to look.

 

PS: Ever been in port after a bunch of ships "blew stacks to clear out the soot? White awnings don't stay white very long. There is a reason they were usually gray.

 

PPS: Captain Charles Noble insisted that the brass galley stack on his 1850s English merchantman stay brightly polished. To this day the galley stack on ships is called the Charley Noble.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Dr PR

[wefalck]

Iron materials (cast iron, steel, wrought iron, etc.) had to be kept under paint for obvious reasons ...

 

In the Prussian/German navy muzzle-loading guns were scraped bright and then washed with vinegar resulting in a light surface rust consisting or iron-oxyhydroxides and iron-acetates. This 'rust' was solidified by rubbing the barrels with lineseed oil, effectively creating in situ a brownish oil-paint. The procedure was repeated from time to time and in between the barrels were washed and then rubbed again with lineseed oil. The inside of the barrel was kept bright.

When breech-loaders were adopted in the early 1860s this practice was discontinued, as the vinegar would deteriorate the machined surfaces on the barrel and the lock. The brownish colour of the muzzle-loaders then was mimicked by painting the barrels in brown oil-paint.

From the 1890s on, when warships became grey, it was paint over everything that did not need to be bright for mechanical reasons.

 

The mechanical machine guns, such as the Hotchkiss and Gatling revolving guns and mitraillieuses by Nordenfeldt and Palmcrantz were other examples of bright metal until the 1890s. In the case of e.g. Hotchkiss revolving gun the frame was cast bronze and left bright, the housing of the mechanism was cast-iron and painted, while the barrels were blued in good gun-smith tradition. Mounting brackets and other details were also bronze and kept bright. In the 1890s all that disappeared under paint.

 

 

[Bob Cleek]

14 minutes ago, wefalck said:

Mounting brackets and other details were also bronze and kept bright. In the 1890s all that disappeared under paint.

I think that was pretty much the same in all the militaries of the world around that time. For whatever reason, they all figured out that those shiny bits glistening in the sun made them better targets! 

[allanyed]

Every ship that I sailed on had brass fittings and every item that was not in a secure area was painted.   The reason was that when stevedores and other service personnel came aboard, be it Europe,  Africa, or South America, the brass fire hose nozzles and other brass items that could be removed and carried off would be gone in a heart beat.    This was not the navy, but rather, the merchant marine, so we did not have enough personnel to keep an eye on the dozens of people  that came aboard for unloading and loading cargo or supplies. The exception was Asia as we would pay off the sifu or bosu and he would keep his crew from stealing these things.    Fun times    

  

Edited March 23, 2021 by allanyed

[wefalck]

This is why warships were preferably moored at a buoy - easier to control who comes and goes and what they carry.

[Roger Pellett]

Re:  BobCleek’s Post #10

 

Copper sheathed ships did use copper and copper alloy gudgeons, pintals, and fastenings.  This topic is extensively covered in Ships’ Fastenings: From Sewn Boat to Steamship by Michael McCarthy.

 

When the Royal Navy began sheathing warships with copper they found serious wasting of  iron gudgeons,  pintles, and underwater fastenings.  This problem had earlier caused them to abandon underwater lead sheathing.

 

By the late Eighteenth Century they were using both “hardened copper” and copper alloy “rudder braces” and fastenings.  For example, a copper alloy pintle has been recovered from the wreck of HMS Pandora.  The composition of this alloy 87.3 percent copper, 6.9percent tin, .24 percent lead and 0.04 percent zinc.  There also exists correspondence regarding the difficulties experienced in procuring the copper fastenings, pintles, gudgeons, and various underwater splice plates for the American Frigate Essex.

 

Regarding the iron pintles and gudgeons on the Cutty Sark, she was a composite built ship; wooden planking on an iron structure.  These ships had corrosion problems all their own.  I cannot, therefore, comment on the iron rudder fittings abutting the copper sheathing.

 

 

 

[Bob Cleek]

1 hour ago, Roger Pellett said:

Re:  BobCleek’s Post #10

 

Copper sheathed ships did use copper and copper alloy gudgeons, pintals, and fastenings.  This topic is extensively covered in Ships’ Fastenings: From Sewn Boat to Steamship by Michael McCarthy.

 

When the Royal Navy began sheathing warships with copper they found serious wasting of  iron gudgeons,  pintles, and underwater fastenings.  This problem had earlier caused them to abandon underwater lead sheathing.

 

By the late Eighteenth Century they were using both “hardened copper” and copper alloy “rudder braces” and fastenings.  For example, a copper alloy pintle has been recovered from the wreck of HMS Pandora.  The composition of this alloy 87.3 percent copper, 6.9percent tin, .24 percent lead and 0.04 percent zinc.  There also exists correspondence regarding the difficulties experienced in procuring the copper fastenings, pintles, gudgeons, and various underwater splice plates for the American Frigate Essex.

 

Regarding the iron pintles and gudgeons on the Cutty Sark, she was a composite built ship; wooden planking on an iron structure.  These ships had corrosion problems all their own.  I cannot, therefore, comment on the iron rudder fittings abutting the copper sheathing.

 

 

 

The distinction appears to be a matter of semantics. Bronze is a copper alloy commonly used below the waterline. While I'm aware of the use of copper bolts, rivets, and drifts as construction fastenings, which are somewhat encapsulated in the wood and not in direct contact with the salt water electrolyte, I've never heard of copper, as opposed to bronze, underwater rudder fittings. Copper, alone, isn't all that strong.  Bronze is much easier to cast than copper, as well. I'm also aware of the corrosion issues realized with wrought iron in contact with a coppered bottom. In Cutty Sark's case, she was indeed a composite build with iron frames and sheathed with Muntz metal, another copper alloy that is considered a brass. The Muntz metal, which is very resistant to galvanic corrosion, may have been closer to wrought iron on the galvanic scale, or they simply considered the iron rudder fittings "sacrificial" and replaced them as needed, as they would have had plenty of "meat" to spare. I do know that when I was in her hold, decades ago before her total rebuild, when she was, shall we say, "less than fully restored," her iron frames showed no gross corrosion, but appearances can be deceiving, I suppose.

 

Your mention of HMS Pandora demonstrates the semantic confusion. An alloy of 87.3 percent copper and 6.9 percent tin, with trace amounts of lead and zinc (commonly added to improve machineability) is decidedly a bronze, which are alloys of copper and tin, albeit with a somewhat lower amount of tin than is seen modernly. (Copper-zinc alloys are brasses.) Clearly, the terms "hardened copper" and "copper alloy" were referencing a bronze. (The zinc in brass being, less noble than copper and iron, would deteriorate in short order, leaving something of a micro-crystaline copper "Swiss cheese" which would have little or no strength.) 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[BANYAN]

A lively discussion   WRT to underwater fittings, the gudgeons, pintles, water intakes etc in my vessel (1855) were gunmetal....

 

Back on track though , the question related to upper deck equipment.  In addition to the 'pretty work', such things as compass covers, especially the night covers, were usually brass and probably kept quite shiny - I know from experience that the 'morning watch' was brass work time, especially in the wheelhouse etc.  Other items that sometimes attracted the polishing rag were the brass work on the Captain's gig (especially the brass in the rubbing strips), the ship's bells (forward and watchkeeping), brass ornamentation on such things as the bitts, companions and other upperdeck furniture.  Some larger equipment in some 'period' ships also left the 'heads' and some fittings on such things as pumps etc brass simply as 'pretty work'  - depended on the skipper (and if a warship, on the operational circumstances).

 

As explained by John though, if it could be easily removed , it was stowed away in harbour if the public or other workers were embarking  

 

Just another pennies worth

 

Pat

Edited March 25, 2021 by BANYAN

[Bob Cleek]

1 hour ago, BANYAN said:

WRT to underwater fittings, the gudgeons, pintles, water intakes etc in my vessel (1855) were gunmetal....

 

 

"Gun metal, also known as red brass in the United States, is a type of bronze – an alloy of copper, tin, and zinc. Proportions vary but 88% copper, 8–10% tin, and 2–4% zinc is an approximation. Originally used chiefly for making guns, it has largely been replaced by steel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunmetal

 

Yet another example of imprecise nomenclature in common usage!