Revell USS Constitution - color of "rings around the masts"

Although originally they were rope, later when iron became cheaper and easier to use, they were wrought iron.  I have seen them depicted far more often black than white.  I believe the Constitution was late enough that they would be iron rather than rope.  I'd guess they were likely to be black.

Every photo of the ship shows that they are painted white.  I also recently visited her in Boston and they were painted white.  I just checked photos I took of her in 1984; I reenlisted in the Navy onboard her before her major refit. Again, they were painted white.

None of this means they were white earlier in her long career. They may very well have been black.  I would look at early paintings of her as a start.

Bill Morrison

warshipguy

Every photo of the ship shows that they are painted white.  I also recently visited her in Boston and they were painted white.  I just checked photos I took of her in 1984; I reenlisted in the Navy onboard her before her major refit. Again, they were painted white.

None of this means they were white earlier in her long career. They may very well have been black.  I would look at early paintings of her as a start.

Bill Morrison

I agree. I should have been more detailed in my post. If you want to depict it as currently displayed, paint them white.  Otherwise, look for period paintings.  Lower mast sections white with black bands were a popular scheme, but no guarantee the Connie was that scheme.  Try a google image search and look for paintings.

I had a couple of minutes, so I did what Mr. Stauffer suggested. Google images is a very good source.I don't recall the exact site (sorry), but if you "Google" "USS Constitution pictures" you find a bunch of both contemporary and historic paintings and etchings. I looked at a few reproductions of period paintings and etchings, and it looks to me that the lower masts were indeed painted white with black bands.IMHO.

Regards,

Stenscience

FWIW, both the Hull model and the Smithsonian model show the bands as white.

The 1803 painting of USS Constitution in the Constitution Museum shows her with an ocher band on the hull. ocher masts all the way to the trucks, and black mast bands.

Constitution's colors can often be perplexing and incite some spirited disagreements... Generally I think it is safe to represent her pre-War of 1812 years with yellow ochre masts and hull stripes - with the mast bands painted black.  If she is represented in her Tripolitan war period the iron bands were probably not yet fitted and would instead be rope wouldings.  Up until the battle of Trafalgar in 1805 it was common practice to paint the bands black in most navies.  Nelson had his mast bands painted out prior to the battle as an IFF measure - it made his fleet distinct amidst the fog of war.  After the battle the British navy generally began adapting that schema until it became pretty standard by the War of 1812.  Most other navies followed suit, including the American navy.

If representing Old Ironsides in her glory period (War of 1812) I would certainly paint the mast bands the same color as the lower masts.  What color that would be can be controversial... Most modelers paint the hull stripe white as well as the lower masts - similar to her restored state and what is shown on the famous "Hull" model in the Peabody-Essex museum.  Captain Hull himself, however, commissioned the noted marine artist Michel Felice Corne to paint a series of scenes from her battle with HMS Guerriere and presumably he guided the details.  These scenes clearly show yellow ochre stripes and lower masts - at least to my eye.  It was likely that Captain Hull put Constitution on a war footing by painting over the white american schema to make her look more British as a ruse de guerre... Later records suggest Captain Charles Stewart did something similar on his cruise later in the war when he defeated Cyane and Levant.

I would cast my vote for NOT painting the mast bands black if you've chosen the white hull stripe and white lower masts...

Thanks everybody for their opinions. I agree with all you said, which is, basically, that the masts are all-white today, that black mast bands are a possibility (depending on the time period), and that for the 1812 period the odds are a bit in favor of all-white masts, although black mast bands cannot be completely ruled out.

So I'm currently leaning towards white masts with white bands. Saves me a lot of masking tape :-)

SirDrake

You haven't said which model. The bigger one; you could do worse than copy the Hull model. But then you'd leave off the port lids, right?

For early period black.  They were coated in a waterproofing material.  Rope was made with hemp in those days. "Hemp fibers had to be soaked in pine tar to resist deterioration in the tough environment at sea."

"The USS Constitution in its recent major refit got synthetic standing rigging, black of course. Part of the maintenance routine on ships with hemp was tarring the rigging. Tar dripping out of the rigging on hot days was one of the less romantic aspects of life before the mast. On the other hand, the look of black synthetic standing rigging on a 210-year-old ship with the place the Constitution holds, tied up within view of the ropewalk that for so long made its rigging, is a little less....."

http://www.fishermensvoice.com/0410TonsOfRope.html

Hope that helps

Constitution's colors are always a question. According to most accounts, The 1812 (Isaac Hull) configuration was Black hoops on white masts. Having said that, you might just do what looks good to you. You have a good chance of matching some configuration of her that suited her captain's fancy at sometime in her history.

According to James Lee’s The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, the transition from rope woldings to iron bands on the masts of Royal Navy ships took place around 1800.  Assuming American practice followed a similar, or perhaps slightly later, timeline, by 1812 Constitution would likely have had iron bands on her masts.  To my knowledge, there are no commercially available kits of Constitution which depict her earlier than 1812, so unless someone is performing the (considerable) work to back-date a kit, any discussion of rope woldings is probably not relevant.

There is a very nice hi-res image of one of the four Corne paintings of the Constitution/Guerriere battle available here:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/hi-res/KN%2000001/KN-2781.jpg

Examination of the painting reveals several interesting details.  The masts and hull band do appear to be yellow ochre, especially when compared to the trim at the head and stern which is clearly white.  Note that the hull band does not terminate at the head rails, but ends short of them in a semi-circle.  This is similar to the way she appeared when painted by Corne in 1803. There are clearly no black stripes on the lower masts, probably indicating painted iron banding. (The 1803 painting shows that there were dark woldings on the masts at that time.)  I could even argue that the yards may be ochre, they certainly do not appear to be black.

Isaac Hull commissioned the four paintings to commemorate the battle, and one would assume he would want his ship depicted accurately.  While not exclusively a marine artist, Corne painted many ships and had painted Constitution earlier at the request of Edward Preble.  He may be the only artist who has depicted Constitution that actually saw the ship in the periods his paintings portray.  If I was building Constitution in her 1812 guise, which is what the 1/96 Revell kit represents, I would very seriously consider building her to match the Corne paintings as closely as I could.

There are several other paintings that depict Constitution in yellow ochre. One shows her bombarding Tripoli (in company leading USS Enterprise), showing yellow ochre band along the gundeck with yellow ochre masts. However, she shows black bands on her masts. The yardarms also appear black.

Another shows her racing HMS Santa Margarita. It appears that she has yellow ochre masts and gunport band, but the background is a very bright sunset. The colors of the ship might simply reflect the colors of the painting background.

I have built her to the colors used in Corne's painting, including the white gingerbread of the quarter gallery and bow, as well as the red in the quarter gallery.  It makes for a very striking model!

Bill

The Tripoli painting is probably one of Corne's earlier paintings of the ship and shows her as she was in 1803.  This was when she would probably have had rope woldings, so the mast bands would be black.  At that time her yardarms, tops and doublings were apparently all painted black.

Lots of people over the years have drawn, painted and modeled Constitution, particularly as she was thought to have looked in the War of 1812.  Very few of them actually saw the ship during that  period,  but Corne was one who did.   The person, or persons, who built the Hull model are also thought to have seen, and perhaps even served on, the ship during this period.  Since there are some some definite differences between Corne's 1812 paintings and the Hull model, although they are thought to show the ship during the same time frame, that presents a bit of a conundrum.  One thing they do agree on, however, is that she did not have black mast bands at this time.

sumter III

For early period black.  They were coated in a waterproofing material.  Rope was made with hemp in those days. "Hemp fibers had to be soaked in pine tar to resist deterioration in the tough environment at sea."

"The USS Constitution in its recent major refit got synthetic standing rigging, black of course. Part of the maintenance routine on ships with hemp was tarring the rigging. Tar dripping out of the rigging on hot days was one of the less romantic aspects of life before the mast. On the other hand, the look of black synthetic standing rigging on a 210-year-old ship with the place the Constitution holds, tied up within view of the ropewalk that for so long made its rigging, is a little less....."

http://www.fishermensvoice.com/0410TonsOfRope.html

 

Hope that helps

completely off-topic, but a few years ago I was commissioned to write a brief history of a British ropeworks which had closed after 200 years continuous family ownership. One of the last things they did on their 200- year old rope walk (most ropes made by machinery by then) was produce several synthetic lines for both HMS Victory and HMS Warrior. The company spent a great deal of time sampling archangel tarred rope to make sure they didn't supply them a 'black' rope, as requested, but something that really did look like tarred hemp.

anyway- sorry to interject

Will

I'm in complete agreement with the approach taken by Bill and suggested by Steve... Using the Hull model or the Corne paintings as a guide would ensure your build reflects credible contemporary sources.

I'll paste in a copy of my response to a topic a few months back (essentially my thoughts on how to resolve the Hull model vs Corne paintings to my own satisfaction):

I think the best 1/96 Constitution build out on the web is the following:

http://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=181&t=11091&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=revell+constitution

The pictures are good enough that you won't need to brush up on your Czech (although you can translate using Google).

Her 1812 configuration is a bit dicey and can lead to some acrimonious debate. It comes down to two camps - white stripe or yellow? I think it is generally accepted that Charles Stewart painted a yellow stripe on his cruise late in the war. How she looked when she first burst into glory against Guerriere is where it gets interesting. The famous "Hull" model is the best place to start. This model was created by the crew and presented to captain Isaac Hull as a parting gift when he gracefully resigned to allow the more senior William Bainbridge to assume command (and to attend to family matters). The model shows green bulwarks and a white stripe, white lower masts with rings painted matching white. One would assume this is definitive. One would probably be wrong... Turns out captain Hull himself commissioned the noted marine artist Michel Felice Corne to paint a series of scenes from the battle. Presumably Hull guided the details...

Two of the scenes in high definition (use the zoom functionality):

http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/exhibition/zoomify.asp?id=14&type=g&width=640&height=480&hideAlt=1

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/hi-res/KN%2000001/KN-2781.jpg

Clearly a yellow stripe with yellow lower masts - at least to my eye...

My personal theory is that the "Hull" model represents her post-refit state as she left on her cruise with the threat of war looming.  Isacc Hull had recently assumed command after her previous captain thought her a dull sailor and transferred to President.  Hull had the bottom scraped and a general refit conducted within the limited budget allowed.  Constitution probably looked like the model during her famous escape into Boston from Broke's squadron at the outset of the war. While he was in Boston, I think captain Hull put her on a war footing by painting yellow over the white stripe (probably at his own expense) - a common ruse de guerre - and quickly put back to sea before he could get orders for him to hand the ship to Bainbridge. The paintings show the ends of the ship still trimmed in white with the stripe and lower masts painted yellow ochre. The stern cabin window frames are red (a common enough British practice - note the Guerriere stern in the painting) as is the "shutter" trim on the quarter galleries. The boat dangling from the stern davit is green. If I were painting a model I'd follow this scheme with the green bulwarks and coamings of the Hull model incorporated. Also note the flags/ensigns/jacks.

(By the way - Interestingly it would appear that Corne shows her rigged with crows feet)

I'd be in the minority - most folks would go with the white stripe.