Questions about the U.S.S. Constellation wooden ship (Not CVA-64)

In taking on this subject you're tackling one of the more controversial topics in the history of ship preservation. There's quite a bit of published literature about it; I'll try to summarize it.

The original U.S.S. Constellation was one of the first vessels of the newly-created U.S. Navy. She was a 36-gun frigate, launched in 1797. Her biggest moments of glory came during the Quasi-War with France, in which she defeated a couple of larger French vessels. The rest of her career was, largely by luck, unremarkable.

By the 1850s the Constellation was getting long in the tooth, and congress appropriated a considerable amount of money to repair her. She was hauled out of the water at the Portsmouth, Virginia, Navy Yard and surveyed. The surveyors concluded that her hull was beyond repair. They thereupon scrapped her, and used the money to build a new ship - a modern corvette. The new Constellation, launched in 1856 (I may be a little off regarding the dates), turned out to be the last sailing warship built for the U.S. Navy. That's the ship that's currently on exhibit in Baltimore.

Unfortunately she became the subject of a long, misguided argument about her provenance. Certain well-meaning Baltimorites spent several decades trying desperately to prove that the ship in their possession was in fact the frigate of 1797; that what had happened in the 1850s was just a major repair job. Howard I. Chapelle, the great historian of naval architecture and curator of transportation at the Smithsonian, blew the whistle. The Smithsonian published a book, entitled The Constellation Question, in which Chapelle put forth the completely convincing (in my opinion) case that the ship was an 1850s corvette. The Smithsonian allowed one of the Baltimorites, Leon Polland, to contribute a rebuttal in the same volume.

The controversy continued for a good many years, in which the Baltimorites mustered every argument they could think of (up to an including hiring a psychic to talk to a bunch of 1797 ghosts who supposedly were inhabiting the ship's lower decks) to prove they had a 1797 frigate on their hands. Things got downright emotional; I made the mistake of uttering the name "Chapelle" one day on board the ship, and practically got thrown overboard on suspicion of being a Communist. The "restorers" made a series of modifications to her bow, stern, and decks in an attempt to make her look like a 1797 frigate. Even as she became the centerpiece of the Baltimore Inner Harbor redevelopment, she also became the target of much grumpy criticism from naval historians and preservationists. She also was deteriorating at a frightening rate. I remember paying annual visits to the balcony of a nearby building and watching as, over several years, her bow and stern gradually but perceptibly sagged further and further.

Some time in the 1980s two of the Navy Department's historians, Dana Wegner and Colin Ratliffe (I hope I have the names right; I'm working from memory) published an even more convincing book called Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered. This one not only reiterated the case for the ship's being an 1850s corvette but went some distance toward explaining just how the argument got started. It seems that somebody affiliated with the Baltimore project literally forged some Constellation-related documents and inserted them in various repositories around the country. It's one of the more bizarre stories I've ever heard of.

A few years ago the ship's administrators realized that she was in imminent danger of sinking. A considerable amount of money got donated and appropriated to give her a really thorough repair job. She was hauled out of the water and her hull planking was replaced with a sophisticated conglomeration of wood and fiberglass. The last I heard she'd been placed back on public exhibition, but I haven't been to Baltimore since then.

One fortunate by-product of the latest restoration effort was that the administrators who'd claimed she was built in 1797 were persuaded to (as Wooden Boat magazine put it) fall on their swords. As I understand it the old "1797 frigate" fiction has now been officially abandoned, and the Constellation is being interpreted as an 1856 corvette - which, in the opinion of just about every reputable naval historian, is what she is. (A few months ago the Naval Institute Press published a new book whose author, as I understand it, tries again to make the "1797 frigate" case. I haven't read the book; frankly I'm so sick of this argument that I have no inclination to do so.)

The bottom line in all this is that, in the process of a well-intentioned "restoration" effort, the people responsible for preserving the ship practically wrecked her. Her appearance has undergone so many changes over the years that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain what's authentic and what isn't. As I mentioned, I haven't visited her recently; my guess, though, is that the glass-and-laticework over the waist is a modern addition for the purpose of keeping the rain off the maindeck - and the tourists.

So far as I know the only plastic Constellation kit is a small one that was released by Pyro quite a few years ago. It's quite crude, and hardly worth seeking out. The Artesania Latina kit is one of those hugely expensive continental European monstrosities that bear little resemblance to scale models. (I've expounded on this topic at irritating length elsewhere in this forum; I won't do so again now.)

Both the 1797 and 1856 Constellations are worthy, interesting, and attractive model subjects. I saw an excellent model of the 1797 frigate in the competition at the Mariners' Museum (where I used to work) back in (I think) 1985. There's a book in print about how to build a model of the ship as she looked in the 1970s, but it's something of a curiosity; she doesn't look like that now, and probably never did while she was in active service.

Sorry to be rather discouraging about all this, but building a reasonably accurate model of either Constellation would be quite a project. The best place to start probably would be the plans of both ships. Howard Chapelle published re-drawn versions of both in his famous book, The History of the American Sailing Navy, in 1949. I believe a reprint version of that volume is still in print; if not, most good libraries have copies.

Drew:
Not specific to Constellation, but on many ships the hatch was covered with a grating to let light into the lower deck as well as being removed for access to the hold. It could be tarped over in heavy weather.

Bruce

QUOTE: Originally posted by B. LeCren Drew: Not specific to Constellation, but on many ships the hatch was covered with a grating to let light into the lower deck as well as being removed for access to the hold. It could be tarped over in heavy weather. Bruce

Bruce, thanks for that bit of info. I guess the grating could be removed completely too. I saw "Master & Commander" for the first time last night and saw what you describe in that movie. Maybe I should watch more movies like that. (It was a great flick, by the way.)

Regards,

jtilley,

Thanks for all the great information. I was aware of the confusion regarding the Constellation's origin, but not of the whole controversey swirling around it.

I live about an hour and a half from Baltimore (go Orioles!), so my wife and I go down there fairly frequently. Last year, however, was the first time that I'd toured the Constellation in about 15 years, and I was shocked to find out that she was no longer a ship built in the mid 1700s.

I've read with interest your other posts about wooden ships. The two Artesania Latina ship models I have links to in my first post look pretty good to my untrained eye. Is your objection more about the value of the kits versus their cost, or is there something really wrong with the kits that I'm not seeing? Just curious.

Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.

Regards,

Regarding Artesania Latina kits - I should start by emphasizing that I haven't examined the two that Lufbery has mentioned. I did review a couple of AL kits for a British magazine, Model Shipwright, some years back; I hope the firm's products have improved since then. Reviews of its newer releases do not, however, make me optimistic.

I also want to emphasize that my opinions about continental European plank-on-bulkhead ship model kits are shared by lots of other modelers. In serious scale ship modeling circles these things have about the same status as 1950s-vintage Aurora plastic kits have among aircraft modelers. (An even better analogy perhaps would be the serious flying aircraft modeling community's views on the balsa "flying model" kits sold by Guillows and Sterling. It's a well-kept secret that most of those things, even if built precisely according to the instructions, won't fly. Few people know that, because so few of the kits ever get built.) I used to work in a museum that held a rather prestigious ship model contest every five years. The word in the competition was "don't bother entering European plank-on-frame kits. The judges won't look at them."

The general complaints about these kits are that the materials are either inferior or inappropriate, the fittings are crude and/or out of scale, the plans are lousy, and the research behind the kits is poor or non-existent. Again, I can't specifically address those two kits, but the firm's general reputation among serious ship modelers is pretty bad. That "double plank on frame" system, for instance, is generally symptomatic of bad kit design. "Double planking" has nothing to do with prototype shipbuilding practice. It's a gimmick by which the manufacturer compensates (sort of) for the fact that the "frames" ("bulkheads" is a better term) are spaced much too far apart, and the wood supplied for the planking is less than ideal for the purpose.

My all-time favorite example of how these firms operate is the U.S.S. Constitution that one of the Italian firms released some years back, for (if I remember right) something over $500.00. It was on the scale of 1/98. I found that scale puzzling until I looked at the glossy, full-color catalog pictures of the cast-brass figurehead, quarter galleries, and transom decorations. They looked exactly like those in the Revell plastic kit (price at that time: $25.00). The Revell kit is on the scale of 1/96. Brass castings shrink by 2% as they cool.

I'm afraid I sound like a curmudgeon in this forum; regular readers undoubtedly are sick of reading my views on this topic. It is, however, one about which I feel pretty strongly. This is a forum about scale modeling, and those kits, unless modified beyond recognition, don't produce scale models. They do, however, produce considerable numbers of discouraged, disenchanted modelers who, having spent considerable amounts of money on inferior merchandise, usually give up and pick another hobby. Anybody who's worked in a hobby shop can tell you that purchasers of those kits rarely come back.

In the unlikely event that anybody's interested in my further rantings on this topic, a lengthy example of such can be found in this forum in the thread that's labeled "First wooden ship kit." Therein a couple of folks solicited input about kits from Constructo and Corel. (I suspect both individuals wish they hadn't asked.) Another essay on the topic, by a writer with stronger opinions than mine, can be found on the website of the Nautical Research Guild. It contains an article by Charles MacDonald called "Piracy on the High C's: Those (Much Too) Expensive European Ship Model Kits."

I continue to endorse the kits produced by the American manufacturers Bluejacket and Model Shipways, both of which produce genuine scale models. I believe the British firm CalderCraft also produces some nice kits. I haven't examined any of them first-hand, but on the basis of the photos in the ads they certainly seem to be several levels above the continental kits. The latest issue of Ships In Scale magazine contains a short review of CalderCraft's new H.M.S. Victory. The text of the review doesn't say much, but the included pictures suggest that this is quite a kit.

Thanks for the response. The author of the San Juan Nepomuceno page has this to say about the kit:

QUOTE: The kit was supplied by Galaxy Models of Ipswich, Suffolk. Their continuing support was valuable because the kit was not the finest, either in quality or quantity. On several occasions Galaxy supplied replacement parts for ones that were poorly made (especially the metal castings) and other parts were simply insufficient to complete the model. However, we persevered and the extra effort, as always with these things, proved worthwhile in the long run. ---snip--- Although some parts in this particular kit were sub-standard, Artesania Latina kits are usually much better and come with a useful book of step-by-step photographs. So if you're a first-timer, try a smaller model from their range. It is much better to complete a small model and emerge victorious, than be too ambitious and grind to a halt in despair!

Ah well.

This has been an interesting discussion, and I'd like to turn it slightly. I saw a build-up on-line of the Revell Constitution and it was a very impressive model when finished. The Airfix H.M.S. Victory gets pretty good reviews too.

Are the plastic models a better value than the wooden models?

Regards,

Lufbery poses a fundamental question. The answer, in my opinion, is (drum roll, please)...it depends.

The worst wood kits and the worst plastic kits are all pretty bad, and the best in each category are excellent. Some of a given manufacturer's products are well-researched and remarkably accurate; others from the same firm bear little if any resemblance to reality. I'm a fan of both the Revell Constitution and the Heller Victory. In my opinion either of them is at least as good a basis for a scale model as any wood kit I've encountered. (Caveat: I haven't examined the Model Shipways Constitution, the Bluejacket Constitution, or the CalderCraft Victory. All of them look pretty good - maybe better than the Revell and Heller kits.)

On the other hand, Revell has turned out some hideous junk over the years. About twenty years ago the company perpetrated something it called a "Spanish Galleon," which was about three feet long and cost about $25.00 (a lot in those days). The promotional literature distributed to hobby shops (including the one where I worked) emphasized that Revell had "zeroed in on the market: young married couples and interior decorators." Note the lack of reference to scale modelers. The thing bears no resemblance to anything that ever floated.

The same goes for Heller. That firm's Soleil Royal features some beautiful detail work and an underwater hull so badly out of proportion that I don't think it would float.

Plastic and wood manufacturers alike are in the habit of recycling their kits with different names. Contrary to what Revell would have you believe, the Thermopylae didn't look much like the Cutty Sark, nor did H.M.S. Beagle bear any more than a superficial resemblance to H.M.S. Bounty. (One of the continental wood firms did the same thing: its Beagle is a slightly modified Bounty.) Heller is notorious for recycling hulls, frequently with elaborate (and completely fictitious) "carvings" that try to hide the resemblance.

The bottom line: the standards of accuracy routinely taken for granted by aircraft, armor, car, and even warship modelers haven't reached the sailing ship kit market. Let the buyer beware - and do some research before laying out the cash.

Drew:
I am afraid I can echo what jtilley has written, but don't be put off because if you can score a good set of plans from somewhere then you are half way to a great model. All these kits are, are plans and parts, mostly bits of wood from which you make bulkheads or frames, planks, and whatnot.

Fittings can be purchased from reputable suppliers, leaving only items peculiar to your ship of interest such as the figurehead or quarter carvings. Even these are not impossible to carve, build up on an armature or cast in resin, for example.

In the recent "Ships in Scale" review of Victory, by the way that was the Constructo kit, not Caldercraft, the reviewer extolled the quality of the plans but slagged the quality of materials.

So before you lay out big bucks for a kit you may well end up disappointed in, if you finish it at all, see if you can get a set of plans from the Smithsonian or Taubman's plan Service ... then you can lay out money as you build for the materials.

for your consideration,
Bruce

Many thanks as usual to Mr. LeCren - with whom I agree completely.

The H.M.S. Victory kit review to which I was referring is in the new (May/June) issue of Ships in Scale. (I have it in front of me.) The kit in question is indeed by CalderCraft (at least that's what the title of the review says - and the photos certainly seem to show a better product than any Constructo kit I've encountered). The reviewer does say lots of good things about the plans, and virtually every other aspect of the kit.

On the basis of the photos it seems to be a remarkable product. The plans appear to be a serious effort to show the Victory in her Trafalgar configuration - as, to my knowledge, no other kit has ever done. They seem, for example, to show the rails of the forecastle and poop deck in the raised configuration that (I think) they got in the ship's 1802 overhaul. The photo-etched brass parts also look impressive. The kit is on 1/72 scale; I shudder to think what it must cost, but it looks like a good basis for a scale model.

The Caldercraft victory costs about $1000 if you can find it in the US. I have several other Caldercraft kits (HM Cutter Sherbourne, HMS Jalouse, HMS Diana, HMS Snake, HMS Supply and HMS Bounty). The kits are exceptional, and I certainly don't want to bother with the other kits in my collection with these waiting to be built. I also have a built AL Constellation which is a nice piece of furniture but pales in comparison to the real kits by Caldercraft. All of their kits were designed using original admiralty plans. Unfortunately they are very expensive. Diana is at least $500

Zounds ... seems FSM is not the only magazine late in the mails ... I was quoting a "Victory" review in the March/April issue of "Ships in Scale".

Let us know what you end up deciding on Drew.
Regards,
Bruce

As soon as I started to read the post about the wooden ships, I became aware of a familiarity in sentence structure. When I read the part about the Mariners Museum I looked up and saw the name JTilley. I knew at once that this had to be the John I knew. I would like to asure everyone that he knows of what he speaks. He is a master modeler and very knowledgeable on all ships.

Andy

My good friend Andy gives me too much credit - as usual. He and I belong to the same ship model club, operating out of the North Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort. Andy, for the benefit of anybody who hasn't bumped into his name before, is a master auto modeler and one of the best airbrush painters I've ever encountered. Fancy meeting you here, Andy!

QUOTE: Originally posted by B. LeCren Let us know what you end up deciding on Drew. Regards, Bruce

Bruce,

I've decided to eventually seek out one of the good plastic ship kits (Victory or Constitution) and get my feet wet that way.

Given the excellent advice is this particular forum, I'll know exactly where to get my questions answered.

Thanks, everyone, for the responses.

Regards,

Here's the thread regarding the frigate/corvette Constellation that we started back in May. I'm adding to it today for the benefit of the forum participant who just raised the issue.