Revell 1/96 Constitution "Old Ironsides"

John, you could type up some stuff on the computer, print it out on your office printer and stick in a three ring binder. I'd buy it!

Lee

Self-publishing is a time-consuming and expensive game - especially in the case of a book that has to contain lots of illustrations.  And there's no guarantee that the author/publisher won't lose his or her shirt financially.  (Self-published, heavily illustrated books generally have to be sold for extremely high prices - especially if the illustrations are in color.)  I'm not at all sure my fixed-income bankbook could handle such a project.  But maybe....

If I may interject here, there are several avenues for 'self publication' these days, (my understanding is that Amazon offers a viable means of doing this with a number of success stories to back it up) and I am sure that there are many of us here that would love to see you pursue something like this. Since you are about to 'semi-retire' you no doubt will have more time to make this a reality. Ergo... I second the motion.

And I also very much appreciate your sharing your knowledge and expertise, It has helped and enlightened me on many levels as well as piqued my interests enough to start building my own library on 'ships of the period'.

I deeply appreciate the sentiments, F8sader, but you give me way, way too much credit.  At least 99 percent of what I know (or think I know) about ships came from books that other people have already written.  The geometry of eighteenth-century sterns, for instance, is laid out in Peter Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of English Ships of War, published back in the eighties by the Conway Maritime Press (and distributed in the U.S. by the Naval Institute Press).  If I remember correctly, C.Nepean Longridge's The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships also covers the topic.

I should add a caveat to all my windbagging about stern construction.  It applies to British ships - and, I think, to American ones.  (I've only studied the plans of one American sailing warship, the Hancock of 1776 - in the form of the "Admiralty draught" made after her capture.  It clearly shows that her stern was built as I've described it.)  I have no idea whether the French, Spanish, or Dutch followed the same rules.  For French practice the various works of Jean Boudriot should clear it up.  I don't know anything about Spanish or Dutch sources.

I did publish a book back in 1985.  The title is The British Navy and the American Revolution, and the publisher was the University of South Carolina Press.  It's been out of print for at least twenty years, but copies do show up (sometimes for reasonable prices, sometimes for laughably outrageous ones) on used book websites.  I also wrote, on commission from the Coast Guard Historian's Office, a book about the history of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary.  I'm not particularly proud of that one - but it put my stepdaughter through a private middle school and high school.  (I'm normally not a fan of private schools, but in this particular neck of the woods a parent who has the means of getting a kid out of the public schools and doesn't do it is guilty of child abuse.  A speak as the husband of a public school teacher.) 

I'm starting what's called "phased retirement" from the UNC system next month (meaning I start collecting my pension and teach half-time).  I've toyed around with the idea of writing a book about ship modeling, but the key is finding a good publisher - one who understands the importance of good graphic reproduction, and doesn't mess around editorial with vocabulary in idioms he/she doesn't understand.  I've been burned a couple of times in that regard, and frankly the experience sort of soured me on the whole book publishing game.  I'm not at all sure I want to play it again.

Anyway, thanks very much for your post.

jtilley, I would be one who would read your book should you publish one; maybe, "Historical facts about ships and kits" or something.  As I have said it before, I enjoy your commentary (I can't think of a better word) and was somewhat thrilled when you answered this post.  Historical information is what draws me to scale modeling.  If we didn't have model kits or modeling media, and it were only possible that we had crayons and paper, I suppose I would color pictures about what I've heard or experienced when it comes to history much the same as my daughters did when they were young and something struck their fancy!  Thanks for posting Sir!

We've taken up the Constitution's stern windows before.  It's an interesting subject. 

To begin with, to my eye there's nothing wrong with the basic sizes and shapes of the windows in either the quarter galleries or the transom.  They seem consistent with the George Campbell design (for the Smithsonian's model) that Revell says it used when designing the kit.  I do think the window muntins are a little over-sized, but that's due to the limitations of the molding process (as it existed in the mid-sixties, when the kit was originally released).  And maybe - maybe - the window panes are a bit on the big side.  Big sheets of glass were extremely expensive in those days.  But I've certainly seen plenty of pieces of eighteenth-century glass (in buildings) that are bigger than that. 

The stern of a late-eighteenth-century warship is a complicated thing.  The basic shapes of the quarter galleries and transom have no straight lines, except the framework of the windows.  The "vertical" elements of the windows, in the highest quality work, aren't vertical.  They lean backwards, of course.  And the windows on the transom aren't rectangles.  The "vertical" lines in fact radiate from an imaginary point quite a few feet above the transom.  And the whole transom is arched in the horizontal plane - it isn't flat - it bulges out in the middle.  And the "horizontal" arcs forming the various moldings (and the tops and bottoms of the windows) are curved very gently upward.  (Revell got that part just right.)  Most people probably aren't conscious of it, but if that transom was flat, and the rails weren't curved, everybody would see that something was wrong.  As we established in an earlier post exchange, those old ship designers understood aesthetics and optical illusions on just about the same level as the Greek architects who designed the Parthenon.

We established earlier that the proportions of the Revell windows aren't far off - if at all.  The geometry of the quarter galleries is even more complicated.  (I'd have to look it up.)  To my eye, the Revell quarter galleries look beautiful (except, again, that the window muntins are a little oversized.) 

If (gawd forbid) I were working on that kit, my strong inclination would be to do something about the window muntins and leave everything else.  (I've built one eighteenth-century stern from scratch, on my little model of the frigate Hancock.  I'm satisfied with the result, but getting there was quite an exercise.)  I know for a fact that my fingers aren't capable of reproducing the various carved decorations to the standard of the artisans Revell had working for it in those days. 

I don't know if any of that actually helps or not.  But it's interesting stuff.

You've come to the right place to ask that question!  I can't provide the answer, hopefully you will be hearing from some historians that can!  I believe there is another Constitution thread that discusses that and just about every other issue with that kit and the real ship.  Have you been there yet?