U.S.S. Constitution refrence

The Anatomy of the Ship volume is pretty good, but the consensus among enthusiasts seems to be that it's not quite up to the standard of the best works in the series.  The author seems to have overlooked some major primary and secondary sources.  He apparently didn't consult, for example, the best modern history of the vessel, Capt. Tyrone Martin's A Most Fortunate Ship.  (Captain Martin was her commanding officer during the major restoration of the 1970s, and probably knows more about her than anybody else on the planet.)  The book also makes no reference to the famous "Isaac Hull model" of the ship in the Peabody-Essex Museum.  That model is generally regarded as the most reliable primary source regarding the ship's configuration during the War of 1812. 

The biggest errors that folks have found in the book, though, are hardly earth-shaking.  The author/draftsman shows split gunport lids - separate top and bottom halves, with semi-circular cutouts for the gun muzzles (in other words, the type of portlids the Constitution has today.  Captain Martin, the Hull model, and several contemporary illustrations suggest pretty strongly that during the War of 1812 she didn't have hinged gunport lids; the ports apparently were closed by removable shutters.  And the author repeats an oft-repeated mistake regarding the history of the ship's figureheads:  he says she had an eagle for a figurehead at one point.  She didn't. 

I suspect there may be some other errors in the book, but those are the ones that have come to my attention.

The Revell 1/96 kit actually is pretty good in terms of accuracy.  It was based on a set of plans by George M. Campbell, who drew them on commmission for the Smithsonian Institution.  Mr. Campbell knew what he was doing; it's clear that he did study the Hull model.  If I were building that kit I'd omit the gunports, and figure out something to do about the thickness of the bulwarks.  (They're too thin - due to the limitations of the styrene molding process.)  Various folks have questioned some other details of the kit, but I'm not aware of any other mistakes in it that can be said to be definitively identified.

The rigging diagrams that come with the kit are slightly simplified versions of Mr. Campbell's, which in turn are based on the Hull model.  For most people they'll work fine.  Their biggest concession is that they rely, of course, on the plastic blocks and deadeye/lanyard assemblies.  Some other rigging details - e.g., the securing of the lower stays - are also simplified a bit.  My guess is that the combination of the kit instructions, the Anatomy book, and maybe a photo or two of the Hull model would enable a modeler to do a pretty thorough and accurate rigging job.

Good luck.

Dick;

have you tried the U.S.S. Constitution museum website? they have the floor plans of the Constitution on the site and they are pretty good from what I've seen

Thanks for the information. It looks like I will get AOTS as a starting point and go from there to see how ambishious I wish to get. I will check out the thickness if teh kits bulkwarks, and see what solution I can come up with.

 

Dick Wood

 

I can offer one practical tip, based on a Revell Constitution that I built many years ago.  Your idea of using wood strips for the deck is an excellent one; in addition to the obvious advantage of having a deck made of individual planks, it solves the big problem of the awful joint lines between the plastic deck sections. 

Unless Revell has changed the kit since I built it (highly unlikely), the decks - both main deck and spar deck - sit on heavy-duty tabs molded, in pairs, on the inside of the hull halves.  In line with each of those tabs, on the underside of the appropriate deck section, is a plastic pad, with a vertical pin projecting from it.  The pads sit on top of the tabs molded to the hull halves, and the pins fit in the gaps between the pairs of tabs.

The pads molded to the bottom of the deck pieces are just about 1/32" thick.  If you shave the pads off, the entire deck drops by 1/32".  You can then glue the deck planks on top of the plastic deck to raise it back up to the proper level.  On my model, many years ago, I used 1/16"x1/32" basswood strips (available from any decent hobby shop - though a big enough bundle to plank both decks will cost a quite a few sheckles).  If I were doing it today I'd probably use holly veneer, but basswood is pretty good stuff and much easier to find.  Projections like hatch coamings will also need to be built up, so their height is correct, but that's easy.

Regarding plans - two wood kit companies, Bluejacket and Model Shipways, produce Consitution kits on which they've lavished quite a bit of effort.  The Bluejacket one, in particular, represents an extremely meticulous effort to establish the ship's War of 1812 configuration.  The Bluejacket catalog doesn't list the plans separately, but I think the company can be persuaded to sell them like that.  www.bluejacketinc.com. 

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.

Again thanks very much for the information.

I do know that a few years ago fron either Model Expo or Blue jacket models, you were able to order the planns seperately. Also at the The USS Constitution Mesume you can order a set of plans. But since I will be working on a predefined plastic hull, I think all I will need for now will be the AOTS Constitution.

As for Holly wood, I agree with you but as you stated it is very hard to obtain in the size strips I want. I really don't want to get some and produce my own strip, a very time consuming task. I will try using Bass wood, but bleaching it slightly to lighten it up. My fatther who was guitar maker did this, and it was quite effective.

I will keep you informed if you want on how this technique works if you want.

Again thanks for the input

 

Dick Wood

Dick:

Its probably too late to warn you off the new Constitution book, but I must say I wholeheartedly disagee with John's comments.

I have researched the Constitution for many years and have built a couple of models of her, one of which was the 1/96 scale Revell model back when I was in high school. I have looked deeply into nearly all of the available primary and secondary sources in my research and I was shocked at what was published in this new book. The book is plagued by an error of staggering proportion. It is earthshaking in that this error renders the entire work nearly worthless. In short, the research for this book was shoddy, to say the least. How can you trust the drawings or the writing if you know that this author totally bypassed several absolutely necessary primary and secondary resources and then, in turn used sources that hardly scholarly or even worthwhile? The book is part of a series of books titled "The Anatomy of the Ship" and yet this author has not even done any research upon which to base such a book. No word about the Hull model, no word about Tyrone Martin's groundbreaking voluminous research, and not a word about the best set of plans on her 1812 era appearance. But he does relate stories from an outdated book and uses a coffee table book as his source material. Hardly the kind of research technique one would expect if had he worked closely with Constitution experts as he claims. Research is the bedrock upon which scholarship is based. Every work of history must have a solid basis and this book stands upon the shifting sands of poor execution.

If you want some good resources upon which to base your model, there are plenty of good ones out there. This new book is not one of them. It is poorly researched, poorly written, and does not deserve serious attention. Once you realize how shoddy the research was, it calls the entire book into question. Get a set of the Arnot plans from Bluejacket. That is where you should spend some money if you want a good resource for your model's appearance.

Russ

 

 

Russ - I don't think there's any "wholehearted disagreement" here.  My initial post in this thread  identified exactly the same weaknesses in the research behind the Anatomy of the Ship volume that yours did:  the absence of the Martin book and the Hull model from the bibliography.  And I mentioned  - and recommended - the Bluejacket plans in a later post. I agree that the author's failure to consult those sources renders the whole book questionable.  The only (sort of) non-concurring point I made was that the actual concrete inaccuracies in the drawings are, to my knowledge, relatively small.  I repeat:  the only actual, firmly-identifiable mistake in the drawings that has come to my attention is the gunport lid configuration.  I have my doubts about whether the transom and bow decorations in the drawings are exactly right for the ship's 1812 configuration, but I'm not certain enough to pronounce them "wrong."  The goof in the text regarding the figurehead is a big, inexcusable one, but didn't make its way into the drawings.  In my first post I said there probably were some othe mistakes in the drawings, but that I didn't know what they were.  If you can nail down any more such mistakes, I'm sure other Constitution modelers will be as interested in knowing about them as I will.  I just mentioned the goofs I was aware of.

It's also worth noting that even the best sources can disagree with each other.  Captain Martin asserts pretty emphatically that she didn't have hinged gunport lids during the War of 1812.  When I read that statement initially I found it a little hard to swallow, but after looking at quite a few contemporary illustrations I think he's probably right.  I don't have a copy of the Arnot/Bluejacket plans, but I do have a Bluejacket catalog, which includes a photo of a model based on the company's Constitution kit - which, I assume, is based on those plans.  The model in the photo has hinged gunport lids, split top and bottom.  In the grand scheme of things, that's a pretty small detail - certainly not one on which I'd be inclined to condemn either source.

I agree completely that the Anatomy book does not come up to the standards we've been led to expect in that series.  But I don't yet see how a model based on it would be terribly inaccurate.  I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on the basis of further evidence, though.

jtilley wrote:

Russ - I don't think there's any "wholehearted disagreement" here.  My initial post in this thread  identified exactly the same weaknesses in the research behind the Anatomy of the Ship volume that yours did:  the absence of the Martin book and the Hull model from the bibliography.  And I mentioned  - and recommended - the Bluejacket plans in a later post. I agree that the author's failure to consult those sources renders the whole book questionable.  The only (sort of) non-concurring point I made was that the actual concrete inaccuracies in the drawings are, to my knowledge, relatively small.  I repeat:  the only actual, firmly-identifiable mistake in the drawings that has come to my attention is the gunport lid configuration.  I have my doubts about whether the transom and bow decorations in the drawings are exactly right for the ship's 1812 configuration, but I'm not certain enough to pronounce them "wrong."  The goof in the text regarding the figurehead is a big, inexcusable one, but didn't make its way into the drawings.  I agree completely that the book does not come up to the standards we've been led to expect in that series.  But I don't yet see how a model based on it would be terribly inaccurate.  If you've made a longer list of the actual, concrete errors in the drawings, I'm sure other modelers of the Constitution would benefit from reading it.

John:

We most likely agree on some points here, but I do not see how a model based on the author's drawings could be accurate. I do not know that the drawings are correct. Why? Because the author did not do the research in the best most reliable sources to find the evidence to prove to the reader that those drawings are correct. So, if I do not know if they are correct, then, given the poor, incomplete research upon which those drawings are based, I have to assume they are at least not trustworthy. How can I do otherwise? In that case, I certainly would not base my long hours of hard work on a model on any of the author's drawings, especially if I know I can get proven, good quality, well researched material elsewhere, ie Arnot's Bluejacket plans and instruction booklet.

The author's job was to prove to the reader, through his thorough, extensive, complete research and eloquent writing, that his drawings are correct. Why else did he write the book? Because of his poor research, his entire work, text and drawings, are all called into question. Because he failed to do his homework, nothing he wrote or drew can be trusted. Res ipsa loquitur.

Russ

 

Hello all,

I've looked closely at the Anatomy of the ship (AOTS) Constitution book and compared it with my other Constitution book that has some plans in it, specifically the Thomas Gillmer book, "Old Ironsides: the Rise, Decline, and Resurrection of the USS Constitution", as well as the descriptions of the ship in CMDR Tyrone Martin's "A Most Fortunate Ship". I have noticed some interesting differences in their representations of the ship as she appeared in 1812. Below are some notes and criticisms I have of the AOTS book.

1.  AOTS drawings put in a 16th port on the gun deck on each side. The text states that one of the building drafts include the forwardmost gunport/bridle port. The other two sources (Martin and Gillmer) state that the Constitution was launched with only 15 gunports per side, and that the 16th port was added by Captain William Bainbridge after the Constitution's fight with Guerriere and before her fight with the Java. If one disregards the historical text in AOTS, in which there are alreadyh some previously noted inaccuracies, the drawing itself is not tecnically wrong, since both the Guerriere and Java fights occurred in 1812.

2.  Gillmer's reconstruction drawings, as well as the reproductions of the original ship's plans by Doughty, Fox, and Humphreys in Gillmer's book, show the foremast located further back than do the AOTS drawings, which place the mast just after the #1 gunport (Not counting the bridle port); Gillmer's drawings have them just forward of gunport #2. The Revell 1/96 Constitution has the bridle ports, but instructs you to use them as gun ports (I modeled them shut). Looking at the Revell model, the foremast is placed close to the 2nd gunport (again, not counting the forwardmost bridle port), which  matches the Gillmer reconstruction and the original plans, not the AOTS drawings.

3.  There is only a little agreement on the appearance of the forecastle bulwarks and head rails between the Revell model, AOTS, and Gillmer's reconstruction drawings, although in the middle section of the Gillmer book there are paintings by noted marine artist William Gilkerson, which "look" as though Gillmer painted his Constitution paintings based on the Revell model.

4. One of the AOTS drawing details that is disconcerting to me is the assertion that the waist was lined by single waist rail stanchions, with rope rails covered by canvas -  rather than tall y-shaped crane irons and hammock netting covered by canvas that so many Constitution lovers are familiar with. I suppose either representation could be correct, but I haven't seen any primary evidence either way.

5.  I disagree with AOTS relying on Miguel Felice Corne's drawings for the depiction of the stern. Corne has two paintings allegedly representing the Constituion in 1812-one with 6 stern windows and one with 5. I don't think there was enough time to switch from one to the other in the span of time which separates the events depicted by the two paintings, the Guerriere and Java fights - the reconstruction required is somewhat indicated in AOTS when it shows the two different configurations of the stern timbers for 6 or 5 windows; IMHO the change from one to the other would require some major reconstruction to accomodate. The Revell stern representation (6 windows) is clearly a reproduction of the Smithsonian Institution's large model, which in turn is strongly based on the Isaac Hull model's stern (the Hull model is the most highly respected primary source for a depiction of the Constitution from the era); it does not closely match any of Corne's (AOTS's) depictions. Of the sterns to pick from, I like Revell's the best, accurate or no (and I have a feeling we'll never know).

6.  AOTS deck plan shows a main fiferail which is straight, and mizzen fiferail(this is the way she's set up today), whereas most other depictions (including Laurence Arnot's Bluejacket plans) show a curved main fiferail and no mizzen fiferail (a spider rail is directly on the mizzen mast instead); the Revell Constitution follows the latter..

7.  As for gunports, I was impressed by the drawings of J.J. Baugean presented in the Gillmer book. These drawings, along with the painting of Antoine Roux later in the book, showing a large American frigate "snugged down" (upper masts and yards lowered to lower the ship's center of gravity) have me nearly convinced that the US frigates had gunports with split removable lids that were not hinged to the hull. These artists made their drawings and paintings during the period, and their renderings (especially the Roux painting) are almost photographic in quality. The Roux painting shows the gunports covered, but with guns protruding through the lids, which means the ports had to be split (also, there is no sign of hinges), and the Baugean drawings show a few frigates with open gunports, guns run out and no gunport lids, i.e. they were removable.

8. The rigging depiction in AOTS has some interesting detail. e.g. The Fore and Main yards are supported by 2 slings each, a regular and a preventer sling. No jeers are depicted. I had never heard of this before, but I haven't completely discounted this depiction (those pesky Americans-leave it to them to find a different way to rig a ship). This one bugs me because the aforementioned Roux painting appears to have jeer tackles to raise/lower these big yards nearly to the deck. Also, from pictures I've seen of the Hull model, that model appears to be fitted with single slings and jeers.

9. Misc.: a. Triangular skysails look very strange to me. b. What's the evidence for skylights?

The book does have some beautiful drawings. I especially like the drawings of the fittings- they should be helpful especially to those who do some scratchbuilding. Also the ship's boat drawings should be very helpful. And no book will ever be guaranteed 100% accurate.

Well, I'm sleepy, and I've type too much. I'd like to know what others think of these points.

Jose Gonzales

Mr. Gonzales's post is most interesting and informative.  I've looked at the Anatomy volume fairly carefully myself; I think Mr. Gonzales and I have about the same opinion of it.  It looks to me like the author, Karl Heinz Marquardt, did a considerable amount of sound research in important primary sources.  He also managed to miss at least one important one:  the Hull model.  And he overlooked a major, easily-accessible secondary source:  Captain Martin's book.  I find those omissions inexplicable.  But I'm not going to condemn every page of the book because of them.  If I applied that standard to every book I read, I'd have to throw out most of my modest library.

The biggest discrepancy seems to be the one involving the location of the foremast.  It is, of course, entirely possible that the mast has been moved at least once during the ship's career.  I suspect Mr. Gilmer based his drawing on direct measurement of the real ship.  Where Mr. Marquardt got his location for it, I have no idea.  There may well be a mistake there.

Most of the other discrepancies mentioned by Mr. Gonzales hardly qualify as "major."  In most cases, as he points out, there's room for interpretation (e.g., the presence of the extra port in the bow).  Mr. Marquardt does provide a contemporary graphic source for those weird-looking triangular skysails - though I confess I wouldn't have much inclination to put such things on a model.

When the Conway Maritime Press published Anatomy of the Ship:  The 100-Gun Ship Victory, at least one critic found some errors in it.  The author/draftsman, John McKay, had erred in assuming that the ship's then-current restored configuration accurately showed what she had looked like in 1805.  (The biggest mistake:  he showed the wales as thin strips of wood fastened to the outside of the hull planking, rather than as heavy structural members attached to the frames.)  A couple of years later Conway published a revised edition, with the errors corrected.  Conway needs to do something similar with the Constitution volume.  Mr. Marquardt is perfectly capable of producing an excellent book on the subject.  I would describe the present one as very good, but significantly flawed.

Mr. Gonzales's post emphasizes another point.  As I've long suspected, those plans drawn for the Smithsonian back in the late fifties are pretty daggone good.  In recent years I've read several claims that people have dredged up "new, definitive," information about the ship's 1812 configuration.  But I can't recall every having seen any firm evidence that any major feature of Mr. Campbell's plans is absolutely, definitively wrong.  That 1/96 Revell kit, which of course was based on those plans, really is a remarkable piece of work.  It represented the state of the art in 1965; it obviously doesn't represent the state of the art in 2006.  But in terms of historical accuracy it holds up remarkably well.  If (heaven forbid) I were to tackle that kit again, I'd probably omit the gunport lids and do something about the too-skinny bulwarks.  (Some strip styrene framing around the insides of the maindeck ports would make quite a difference.) And obviously I'd do something about some of the cruder details (e.g., the belaying pins and deadeyes).  But I don't think I'd change anything else.

Later addendum:  I happened to run across a review, in Model Shipwright (No. 63, March, 1988, pp. 50-51) of the original Anatomy volume on H.M.S. Victory, by John McKay.  The reviewer was David White, of the National Maritime Museum.  He spent the better part of three columns shredding Mr. McKay's research and terminology, asserting that the sources consulted "incredibly do not include any primary ones."  The review concludes:  "Despite the foregoing, this is a very good book which with a bit more effort could have been excellent.  It fills a gap in the long list of books about Victory and not doubt it is destined to become very popular...."  That's a pretty fair summary of my personal opinion about the Constitution book.

Gentlemen:

I wish to thank you al for such a lively debate on the pro and cons of various refrence material. I will be making a hard copy of all the books and authors that you have mention in this thread for future refrence.  I will be purchasing the plans for the Constitution Shop and the AOTS book as well.

From my point of view and a fairly new sailing ship modeler, I have numerious WWII ships under my belt' I will be limiting myself to the following so far, which is subject to change:

• Wooden decks.
• Possibly a thicker bulkward.
• Correct colors, as far as it is humanaly posible.
• After-market line and tackle.
• Belaying pins with the possibility of replacing the pin rails for strength.
• Posibly replacing the deadeyes with aftermarket ones.
• Ratlines form scratch, should not be too bad in this scale
• Possibly replacing the yads with woden ones due to the possibility of bending the plastic ones.

Well this will take me a good deal of time to compleat, but I will be having a great time doing it. I will keep you posted on my progress with photos if you wish

 

I will be painting the hull in a few days. And I intend to mount her on brass pedistals, so I will be adding some resin to he lower hull so I will have a secure location to mount the pedistals. I have found out from past experiences it is best to plan ahead on ships.

Again thanks guys

I've been contemplating starting my kit recently, and have collected and saved some of the material discussed previously here on the list about colors and techniques. 

One item still has me stumped-- how to replace the belaying pins with something more sturdy?  The best I can think to do is to rpelace them with short pieces of wire- but real belaying pins have a defined shape- will straight wire pins be noticable in this scale?

I'd also add one upgrade to your list-- replace at least someof the plastic eyebolts with metal ones.

Regarding belaying pins - if you don't have the facilities to turn replacements yourself, Bluejacket offers excellent turne brass ones.  The  smallest are 1/4" long.  On 1/96 scale that's two feet - on the big side for a belaying pin, but not inconceivable.  And you can, if you like, snip off the ends.

Regarding eyebolts - you're right:  the plastic ones are an invitation to disaster.  But for heaven's sake don't spend good money on metal ones; they're ludicrously easy to make.  Get some brass wire of the appropriate diameter and heat it over a candle to soften it.  In other threads we've seen discussions of some clever jigs for making eyebolts, which look like they'd work fine.  I tend to go with a lazy, crude approach, which works perfectly well.  I use a set of #60 through #80 drill bits as mandrels.  Clamp the appropriate size drill bit in a vise, with the shank protruding.  Bend the wire around the bit, and twist the ends of the wire into a pigtail.  I generally form five or six eyebolts out of one piece of wire, for convenience.  Dunk the wire in chemical blackener, give it a shot of clear flat finish to ensure the black finish doesn't rub off, snip off the individual eyebolts, and glue them (with CA adhesive) into the appropriate holes.  Simple and cheap.

Gentlemen:

 

Replacing the eyebolts were a given, and I do intend to make my own.

I did a little experment the other day concering wood planking. I had a junk Constitution which I will use  for spair parts if need and I took a portion of thr deck and did some planing using 1/32 x 3/32" bass wood. I also used a black prisma color pencil for coloring the edges to replicate caulking, and to me it looked a lot better than using a soft pencil. Another plus is that the color pencil will not smudge like a graphite will.

This board has been really helpfull in pointing me in the right direction and with a lot of tips, Thanks guys

Dick Wood