As I mentioned in my first reply to this thread, I have a copy of this
book as well. I think it is a nice book, and certainly is fun to
look through.
However, keep in mind that it does have some errors-- for example, the
belaying diagram has a entry in the legend for the for for braces, but
the number doesn't appear in the drawing.
This book was discussed on the Seaways modeling list back in
October. Jim Krauzlis, a knowledgable Constitution Modeler,
IMO, posted the following evaluation of the book:
Well, I have to be honest, I have found quite a few problems with the
research and conclusions made by the author. Now, I know how difficult it
is to research such a subject, there are so many holes and sources to
consider before making any determination of the proper configuration of the
vessel. What I am finding, however, is the author has made very little
reference to primary sources and very good secondary sources that are well
know to those who have spent some time researching this vessel. There are
very good, historically accurate books by Ty Martin and Bass, and a
fantastic and accurate book as part of the Bluejacket kit which are not
referred to; in fact, some of the author's conclusions are in direct
conflict with the findings of these naval historians, as well as my own
research. I fear he has placed too much reliance on secondary and third
hand sources whose historical accuracy has been shown by subsequent research
to be wrong.
I could go into many instances, but one that really struck me was the
apparent resurrection of the lore that she had a figurehead of Neptune upon
her return from the Mediterranean following the Barbary Wars. The author
claims she was fitted with a Neptune figurehead (no apparent reference for
that statement) when it is pretty well settled now that there is no
historical basis for that concept.
The narrative and history section have many such errors which really casts
doubt on the basis upon which the author approached this project. There is
reliance on sources which are well beyond the period in question, that is,
1812, and actually reflect later modifications that did not exist in 1812.
It actually seems the author took most of his information from the 1929
restoration and books written about that time, which is not an accurate
representation of what we now know to be historic fact. The thing that
bothers me the most is the complete failure to consider the Hull model built
by the crew in 1812, and shown to be an accurate 1/48 scale model of the
ship as she appeared at that time, and a questionable analysis of the four
contemporary paintings by Corne of her encounter with Guerriere under Hull.
Another example: the waist area is shown by the author as having a single
line of stanchions and a single canvas waist cloth, which does not match the
Hull model's configuration. His drawings of the fife rails are wrong,
showing squared rails where she actually had rounded ones, and having a fife
rail at the mizzen when she actually had a spider bridle on the mast. He
also shows a sky light on the quarterdeck which there is no support for
during 1812 and his list of guns ignores a contemporaneous memorandum by a
crew member from 1812. There are others, but I trust you get the idea.
I am currently studying his rigging plans but the first thing I noticed is
the utter lack of reference to any Bentinck shrouds, which we know she had
and which are shown on the Hull model. I don't mean to rain on the parade,
but these mistakes should be kept in mind when referring to this book.
These are all my personal opinions based on my research over the years
including contemporaneous, primary sources and research from others based on
the same type of historical support. I fully appreciate the amount of time
and effort the author must have invested in this book, and the difficulties
of trying to pull together accurate information about this ship, since she
has evolved quite a bit other the years, and the potential pitfalls of
relying upon earlier books which seem to embrace ideas that have no
historical basis in fact. It's not easy, but my feeling is the author would
have done better to find out more about what was available from primary
sources from the relevant period he was writing about (1812), not second and
third hand sources which are out of date and inaccurate. He really should
have been aware of not only the Hull model but also the work done by Ty
Martin, Bass and others who have spent a good deal of their lives
researching this ship, and upon whose work we can build upon with
confidence.
Again, the above comments are Jim's , not mine, but I think they are
valid criticisms of the book. Still, I think there is lots of
usefull info in the book- I just wouldn't use it as my sole reference.
-Bill