USS Constitution by The Bitter End - Model Shipways - 1:76

[GGibson]

39 minutes ago, JSGerson said:

I feel like I have built up an unwarranted reputation.

 

As long as you feel the reputation is unwarranted and not unwanted, we appreciate your input whenever there is a question, Jon!

 

39 minutes ago, JSGerson said:

...but the USS Constitution is an enigma and full of contradictions. I have yet to see a full set of plans for just one era. What I have reminds me of that old Johnny Cash song about building a car one piece at a time with parts from different years. That what I have, plans from different eras but not one complete set.

 

Which is why I continue to say that I will be striving for an "1812-ish" version of the Constitution... 🤷‍♂️👍

[Der Alte Rentner]

From Karl Heinz Marquardt's Anatomy of the Ship..

 

Note item 14 in the index - Wales.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:14 PM by Der Alte Rentner

[Marcus.K.]

Oh, Gentlemen, pls. be very careful with Karl-Heinz Marquardt´s Constitution. Marquardt did a lot of very interesting and excellent research in many fields of ancient sailing vessels. His AotS Constitution book is unfortunatly not a highlight - and I have the impression that its - unfortunatly - perfect presentation and the huge impact of the author´s name did damage a lot to the general view on the ship and caused a lot of errors to so many good model builders. 

 

Let me pls. try to help here. 

 

First of all: there is of course no doubt that the ship had wales - as I understood Haiko he is looking for how to shape the upper and lower edge of them: an invisible transition between the heavy wales and the thinner planking – achieved by gradually diminishing the thickness at the edges – or a sharp transition with a distinct arris or a chamfer. 

 

Second: that section cuts you showed, Haiko, are from one drawing - in which - in the gun deck level - two texts explain the content of each half:

Left side is "Port side - present construction and arrangement" - so this is what Lord found in 1925-26 from the 1906 renovation. 

Right side of the drawing: "Starboard side - proposed re-construction" ..

Above the header of that drawing #34535 is a text explaining that the drawing is based on "considerable research" and even if the text on gun deck says "Proposed reconstruction" we need to be careful - as the final result differed.

These are the two half section cuts to showed in your post, Haiko. And below you find the text right of that section cuts - above the drawings header. 

This next photo done in 1927 shows what Lord was finding from the 1906 renovation:

I believe we can not identify for sure which planks were the thicker wales - and which were just planks, can you?

 

But there is another drawing - #35208 - in which Lord seems to represent the "from Specifications .. Joshua Humphrey "as the note close to Lords signiture explains. 

Unfortunatly I can not read that text above the header. 

Does anyone of you have a copy of that drawing #35208 - with a readable "note" above the header?

 

This here is a copy of that drawing #35208 as it is represented in Magoun´s "Old Ironsides and other historic ships" - unfortunatly without that note and the header. 

And then there is this last section cut of the Lord Restaurtion (I know about)  #24472 - done in 1931 "as finished" - which represents what we would find in 1931 .. 

 

I did not (yet) find any represenation of the ship in which the wales would look like the britsh "puzzle" with these short "pentagon"-shaped pieces as Marquardt shows in his unfortunatly beautiful book. It is much more likely that the US Frigates had - from beginning until today - more simple but robust and long planks as wales as there never was lack of long wooden planks in the US - in contrary to their British cousins - which had to deal with shortage of wood in the 1800s. 

 

Looking through all the representation I collected of US Frigate Constitution or her sister ships I never could identify an "edge" of the wales. Either it was that tiny that it was not obvious enough - or it just wasn´t existing. Here an example for 1871:

The artist did show all kind of ugly things - like that ****-ramp on the bow or the tiny air vent in the quarter gallery. Many strange and ugly details. Would he miss distiguisable wales?

 

Or here: in 1857: 

No wales visible - which does not at all mean they were not existing.

Just: there is no edge notable. 

 

Another approach - from technical point of view:

an edge would make no sense - neither on top nor on bottom side of the wales.

On bottom side it would just increase friction in the water.

On top and on bottom side it also would be endangered to get damaged, while doint what wales have to do: being a bumper for any object floating against the ships hull. And if an edge was damaged, the wood would be in much more danger to start rotting. So high risk. 

And how to repair? You had to remove a plank out of the hull! 

 

What would be the benefit of a sharp edge? .. or even a chamfered edge? 

 

Technically it would make no sense to have the wales not smoothened to the planks. Any other feature to protect the hull from impacting objects like fender strakes for the loading or for the action with the boats - or billboards for protecting the hull from the ancres.. Those were added on top of the planks - and were easy to remove if demaged or rotten. 

 

In my opinion those planks being the wales were just thicker - but you would not be able to differentiate them - except maybe by a bit wider? - but I don´t see evidence for that either. I would not represent them in the ship as an extra layer or as thicker planks with a distinguishable edge. 

Edited Thursday at 03:39 PM by Marcus.K.

[JSGerson]

Here is what I have for 35208

 

Jon

[Marcus.K.]

GREAT ! THANKS !!!

 

Would you agree the note says:

Quote

 

This plan has been drawn as a matter of record and comparsion with Navy Yard Boston Midship Section Plan No 34526 BU ?? No 130241 which has been approved by that bureau subject to ???? and revision to bring it in accord with additional data as may come to the attention fo the commandant before any work is authorized and (?) started.

Plan A ?? per original specification is not to be strictly followed in recognstruction. 

Some features will however be incorporated viz (?) height of main hatch coamings, diagonal riders chamfering edges of wales and black strakes installation of thick strakes etc.

 

So .. does that help us?

 

@JSGerson

What´s the source of that black-white-copy? Which book is it from, do you know?

THANKS for this!

Edited Thursday at 07:01 PM by Marcus.K.

[JSGerson]

I read it the same way but made some minor corrections (typos, different interpretation of words, & omissions) in red. Note the term "viz." means "in other words" (I had to look that up).

 

This plan has been drawn as a matter of record and comparison with Navy Yard Boston Midship Section Plan No 34526 BU C.S.A No 130241 which has been approved by that bureau subject to checking and revision to bring it in accord with additional data as may come to the attention of the commandant before any work is authorized and or started.

 

Plan A ?? per original specification is not to be strictly followed in reconstruction. 

Some features will however be incorporated viz.: height of main hatch coamings, diagonal risers chamfering edges of wales and black strakes installation of third strakes etc.

 

Whether this helps or not, 🫤 I don't know.

[The Bitter End]

On 9/23/2025 at 5:19 PM, Der Alte Rentner said:

I feel certain that you will be hearing shortly from our in-house historian, Jon.  

 

I checked with the AI assistant I use most frequently, Grok.  I asked him if he knew definitively whether or not the 1797 version of The Constitution had wales.

 

Here's his response:

 

 

"Yes, the original 1797 USS Constitution definitively included wales as a key structural element in its hull construction.

Wales—thick, longitudinal strakes of heavy planking—were standard in 18th-century warship design to reinforce the hull against stresses from guns, rigging, and sea conditions. For Constitution specifically, contemporary records from her builder, George Claghorn, and Secretary of War James McHenry confirm their installation during final assembly at Edmund Hartt's Boston shipyard. In a January 1797 progress report to Congress, McHenry noted: "The whole of the frame is raised, and is ready for planking; the wales are prepared, and it is expected will be on and fastened this month."ca2519 This places the wales' fastening just before her October 1797 launch.

As launched, the hull featured a broad yellow ocher band painted from near the hawse holes down to the top of the main wales, with the bends (lower hull) tarred black below and the upper works black above.6e94d2 Gun ports were positioned at the gun deck level and above the wales, with the original gun streak (a reinforced strake for port sills) running from just above the wales to the upper gun port sills.

Disagreements in model plans or historian interpretations might stem from later refits (e.g., 1803–1804 or 1812) that altered planking details, simplified diagrams in some drafts, or debates over exact thicknesses/locations. However, primary sources leave no doubt about their presence in the 1797 build. If you're referencing a specific thread on Model Ship World, feel free to share the link for more tailored advice!"

 

 

Hello Peter!

Thank you very much for this and for your reference to the work of Marquardt. All very interesting and another opportunity to learn. 

I think I am with you and monsieurs Grok and Marquardt that there were certainly wales comprised of heavy strakes. The question is now becoming more and more, how visible are these wales, somewhere between a totally smooth curve and a total step above and below. From a practical perspective, I would say that there was probably a thickened section with heavy chamfering on the corners to prevent tearout, so essentially a sort of hybrid between a curve and a step. 

 

It is so hard to really determine what to follow, in reality when trying to make an approximation of what the vessel really looked like. For one, I wont be painting her, so that is certainly wrong, but the subtleties of the choices made by the ship builders on the day are sadly impossible to know, but make a great opportunity for discussion and interpretation. 

 

Cheers!

Haiko

 

[The Bitter End]

On 9/23/2025 at 5:57 PM, Burgundy said:

Fantastic log, I'm impressed by your level of research and attention to detail. I have no doubt it will produce a beautiful looking ship.

Thank you very much my good man!

I hope I don't disappoint. It has been a great journey so far. 

 

[The Bitter End]

On 9/23/2025 at 8:59 PM, GGibson said:

 

As long as you feel the reputation is unwarranted and not unwanted, we appreciate your input whenever there is a question, Jon!

 

 

Which is why I continue to say that I will be striving for an "1812-ish" version of the Constitution... 🤷‍♂️👍

If only we could all have the confidence of Ericsson who has the rigging of the constitution nailed down to its exact configuration down to the hour! 

Its hard for my very OCD brain to accept that I have to make hundreds of compromises for me 1797(ish) guess at what she might have looked like. Infact the only thing I know for a fact is that it definitely wasn't exactly as I am building her.

[The Bitter End]

12 hours ago, Marcus.K. said:

Oh, Gentlemen, pls. be very careful with Karl-Heinz Marquardt´s Constitution. Marquardt did a lot of very interesting and excellent research in many fields of ancient sailing vessels. His AotS Constitution book is unfortunatly not a highlight - and I have the impression that its - unfortunatly - perfect presentation and the huge impact of the author´s name did damage a lot to the general view on the ship and caused a lot of errors to so many good model builders. 

 

Let me pls. try to help here. 

 

First of all: there is of course no doubt that the ship had wales - as I understood Haiko he is looking for how to shape the upper and lower edge of them: an invisible transition between the heavy wales and the thinner planking – achieved by gradually diminishing the thickness at the edges – or a sharp transition with a distinct arris or a chamfer. 

 

Second: that section cuts you showed, Haiko, are from one drawing - in which - in the gun deck level - two texts explain the content of each half:

Left side is "Port side - present construction and arrangement" - so this is what Lord found in 1925-26 from the 1906 renovation. 

Right side of the drawing: "Starboard side - proposed re-construction" ..

Above the header of that drawing #34535 is a text explaining that the drawing is based on "considerable research" and even if the text on gun deck says "Proposed reconstruction" we need to be careful - as the final result differed.

These are the two half section cuts to showed in your post, Haiko. And below you find the text right of that section cuts - above the drawings header. 

This next photo done in 1927 shows what Lord was finding from the 1906 renovation:

I believe we can not identify for sure which planks were the thicker wales - and which were just planks, can you?

 

But there is another drawing - #35208 - in which Lord seems to represent the "from Specifications .. Joshua Humphrey "as the note close to Lords signiture explains. 

Unfortunatly I can not read that text above the header. 

Does anyone of you have a copy of that drawing #35208 - with a readable "note" above the header?

 

This here is a copy of that drawing #35208 as it is represented in Magoun´s "Old Ironsides and other historic ships" - unfortunatly without that note and the header. 

And then there is this last section cut of the Lord Restaurtion (I know about)  #24472 - done in 1931 "as finished" - which represents what we would find in 1931 .. 

 

I did not (yet) find any represenation of the ship in which the wales would look like the britsh "puzzle" with these short "pentagon"-shaped pieces as Marquardt shows in his unfortunatly beautiful book. It is much more likely that the US Frigates had - from beginning until today - more simple but robust and long planks as wales as there never was lack of long wooden planks in the US - in contrary to their British cousins - which had to deal with shortage of wood in the 1800s. 

 

Looking through all the representation I collected of US Frigate Constitution or her sister ships I never could identify an "edge" of the wales. Either it was that tiny that it was not obvious enough - or it just wasn´t existing. Here an example for 1871:

The artist did show all kind of ugly things - like that ****-ramp on the bow or the tiny air vent in the quarter gallery. Many strange and ugly details. Would he miss distiguisable wales?

 

Or here: in 1857: 

No wales visible - which does not at all mean they were not existing.

Just: there is no edge notable. 

 

Another approach - from technical point of view:

an edge would make no sense - neither on top nor on bottom side of the wales.

On bottom side it would just increase friction in the water.

On top and on bottom side it also would be endangered to get damaged, while doint what wales have to do: being a bumper for any object floating against the ships hull. And if an edge was damaged, the wood would be in much more danger to start rotting. So high risk. 

And how to repair? You had to remove a plank out of the hull! 

 

What would be the benefit of a sharp edge? .. or even a chamfered edge? 

 

Technically it would make no sense to have the wales not smoothened to the planks. Any other feature to protect the hull from impacting objects like fender strakes for the loading or for the action with the boats - or billboards for protecting the hull from the ancres.. Those were added on top of the planks - and were easy to remove if demaged or rotten. 

 

In my opinion those planks being the wales were just thicker - but you would not be able to differentiate them - except maybe by a bit wider? - but I don´t see evidence for that either. I would not represent them in the ship as an extra layer or as thicker planks with a distinguishable edge. 

 

Marcus my friend

A woderful and well thought out response as always, I have wavered considerably during this investigation and I must say I tend to lean toward your thinking around the mechanics of the ship and the act that any sort of edge would be a structural flaw. 
As you point out this feature is not visible anywhere on any contemporary representation of the ship and only really appears on technical drawings made much later. 
I was considering doing the chamfer but I lean now far more toward an essentially smooth transition. to be fair a chamfer on a 0.5mm thick plank is basically going to look like a taper. 

thank you for your effort and research. It is nothing short of a joy to me,

Cheers

 

Haiko

[The Bitter End]

11 hours ago, JSGerson said:

Here is what I have for 35208

 

Jon

Thank you for this Jon

This drawing has been a great addition and I have pored over it for ages. For what its worth, I agree with your transcription. I wonder what they mean by chamfering of black strakes. If it had just said Wale I would have been less confused. 

Keep these drawings coming whenever the urge hits you, I love them.

[Marcus.K.]

17 hours ago, JSGerson said:

This plan has been drawn as a matter of record and comparison with Navy Yard Boston Midship Section Plan No 34526 BU C.S.A No 130241 which has been approved by that bureau subject to checking and revision to bring it in accord with additional data as may come to the attention of the commandant before any work is authorized and or started.

 

Plan A ?? per original specification is not to be strictly followed in reconstruction. 

Some features will however be incorporated viz.: height of main hatch coamings, diagonal riders chamfering edges of wales and black strakes installation of third strakes etc.

Hey Jon, Gentlemen, Ladies (still hope there are some reading and participating in this)

 

thanks for the correction. I have to admit that my typos are based on my lack of precision and concentration. I am sorry for that. I should be much more careful when writing in public spaces. I know mistakes like that are often seen as lack of respect ( and I assure : that isn´t the issue here ! ) - and I wished my statement would not sound that much as a cheap excuse. But this was and still is my main issue: not being patient enough - not being precise enough. That too prevents me from doing modeling myself. I just can not be as good, as I want to be ! I am never satisfied with my result !

 

But the one thing I believed to have translated correct is the "diagonal riders" which Humphreys intended to get  - and got at least in Constitution. Diagonal stiffeners were known before - and later. Beside other inventiones and improvements (later Sir) Robert Sepping was using and improved them until he later even used iron knees to increase the stiffness and robustness of wooden ships for the Royal Navy:

see here: "longitudinal Binders & Iron Riders

https://warhistory.org/@msw/article/seppings-truss-system

 

But in general - to come back to Haiko´s need - it is hard to guestimate the right detail design for Old Ironsides in its earlier appearance. As we have only the verbal descriptions and main dimensions of most main components (and it is very likely that those dimensions were the "delivery dimensions") in Humphreys 1794 "specifications" and only rare and not very precise paintings in her earlier years. As Haiko pointed out already: the 1803 and 1804-05 Cornè paintings are too tiny to show a detail like edges on wales. The 1803 Roux paintings do not show distinguisalbe thicker planks. The earliest serious source is the Isaac Hull model which the crew did build for their beloved captain in 1812. And beside some odd details it turns out that someone tried hard to represent a lot of tiny little details which may not be too important - but caused for sure efforts for the builders. That they did NOT represent wales or black streaks with edges might have to tell something. 

 

Or course there is still a certain uncertainty - and I guess there still will be one for a very long time. 

 

I am not sure - as Royal or any other Navy is not my field - but I would not be surprised if the represenation of wales with "sharp egdes" in British Admirality Models or even drawings might be a way to point on an important feature - which in real life would be smoothened. As they were an important feature to stablize the framing and protect the hull I would not be surprised if Admirality wanted to be able to exactly see their position and shape. I think we are all used to "see" them .. and this may be misleading due to my above mentioned arguments. 

[JSGerson]

Marcus,K.: I took another look at 35208 and you are correct, it is "risers." I stand corrected.🤔

[The Bitter End]

A brief update on second planking progress.

I have decided to buy myself a little extra time before I have to make a final decision on the wales by planking down to where the Wale should begin and rough-sanding this back. This will give me the option to have a thicker squared, smooth or chamfered wale depending on what I decide. 
For those that care I am leaning in the direction of doing a chamfered wale mostly because I would like the colour scheme to match that of the admiralty models and the Antczak model. This can be done with a smooth wale but I believe the paint effect will be better if the paint is applied to a slightly raised wale as opposed to a smooth hull. Below a photo of the scheme for referenc e. I realise this is a strange deviation for this drive for historical accuracy but I cannot bring myself to paint over the hand-cut pear planks. 

 

Due to my lack of skill and the fact that I am cutting these planks on a 20-year-old 2kW table saw I really struggled to get consistent plank thicknesses. I therefore started very rough and over-thick and sanded back. The first planking allows for very effective pinning of the planks together to eliminate some of the smaller gaps. 

 

A very rough result:

 

Which was largely remedied by rough sanding with 80 grit sandpaper. The finish is still rough-sanded and will later be sanded down to a far finer grit and sealed.
Any defects will also be filled with a sawdust and glue filler and the imperfections in the upper edge of the bulwark painted over as in the antczak model above and hidden under the planksheer strip so I am not too concerned about minor defects in these areas, 

I hope to produce a far nicer result once this is all cleaned up properly so please don't judge too hard. 

 

For those interested in the minutiae of my decision making process my planking was chosen as follows. 

The average width was in the region of 10inches, there was some variation according to lords drawings but these are minor enough to not be worth replicating. This translated to a 3.3mm wide strip. 

 

As for planking pattern and length, I went with a 4 butt shift pattern with the additional element of not allowing and butt to fall directly above or below a gun port it it was within 2 strakes of a gunport. The offset between butts was 6ft which I achieved by marking out the butt lines on the first planking at 24mm intervals and having butts land on these marks. This is a planking style which I got from HMS victory reconstruction specifications, I appreciate that this is not necessarily what wouldhave been used across the pond but its good enough for me in the absence of other information.


The records show that average hull plank length was around 40ft(159mm). I used this length as my baseline but always went upwards in plank length not downwards when a deviation from the 4 butt pattern was required. I chose to do this as a minor nod to the fact that American ship builders had access to far better timber resources than their European counterparts so I guessed they would have access to longer planks. 

If anyone happens to want a copy of the planking spec I used feel free to give me a shout and ill send it over. 

T.B.E.

PS. I just realised that I messed up the 4 butt shift. The last plank is incorrect and its butt advances 2 beams to the bow instead of moving 3 beams back. Luckily it is only one incorrect strake before I can "reset" the pattern below the wale planking. but I don't think I can justify removing that strake. If anyone has a way to justify my mistake please let me know. i know this error, no matter how invisible to most views, will bother me forever.