Whale ship Wanderer

Pete, she looks beautiful, and the boat is excellent. Does the kit come as 1:87 or did you do some selective compression to get there? Would the figurehead have been picked out in a color or was this not done on whalers? Keep up the good work - I like what youve done with the Hamilton and Skipjack, and I really like the mallet, a real Baldwin look to her, almost like "Old Maud" combined with "Skookum."

   Thanks Jim, The Aurora kit, whether by accident, or design, was 1:87. The hull measurements, with an HO scale ruler, match the dimensions of the prototype. The figurehead was, as best as I can tell from B&W photos, black like the hull. If the mallet you reference is the narrow gauge, I used the Little River Baldwin as a guide for appurtenance placement.

I believe the arrangements of the copper plates are not entirely realistic.  The top strake of copper plates would not have followed the wooden planking.  Instead it would have followed the waterline so that the top edge of the coppering would have been horizontal.   Also, a thin strake of wood would have been nailed to the top edge of the top run of copper plates to keep the edge of the top most copper from being accidentally peeled back by such actions as boats rubbing along the side of the ship.

 

If you look back to the photo's the original posted put up, the line for the copper plates seems to have been masked off in a straight line instead of following the copper plate line. That was my comment, it didn't look accurate to my eye, but I might be wrong about it.

Mike T.

I see you have some great models on your website. Do you know that scale most closely resembels the HO train scale ?

You folks are probably right about the dimensions of the "copper" plates on the Revell Cutty Sark and Constitution.  It's been so long since I've had either of them in front of me that I couldn't say for sure.  I'd also be interested to check the dimensions of the "plates" on the Imai Cutty Sark, which generally sticks extremely closely to the dimensions and details of the beautiful plans drawn by George Campbell.

The Wanderer has the classic shape and configuration of a mid-nineteenth-century (or slightly later) American whaling barque.  I can't recall having bumped into a set of plans for a European one of any earlier period.  (I think there may be one in Chapman's Architectura Navalis, but if so it would predate the Napoleonic period.)  There are lots of yawning gaps in modern knowledge of sailing merchant ships; this may well be one of them.  At any rate, such features as the double topsail rig, the hull shape, the tryworks with their two big pots, the cutting-in stage, and the five whaleboats hanging in their big wood davits are characteristic of an American whaler. 

I was primarily wondering if this kit can form the basis of a Napoleonic whaler.  The British had extensive whaling interests in the South Pacific during that war.   The frigate USS Essex was sent on an unsuccessful mission to disrupt British whaling during the war of 1812.   But I think Napoleonic whalers would probably look more primitive than this one.  It might have a beakhead, for example.

 

 

CapnMac82 wrote:

jtilley wrote: To my eye the "falsely-overlapping" sheets provided by Heller and Revell also look good; their appearance certainly can be enhanced by a good, careful job of weathering. The thing that always annoyed me with the Revel Cutty Sary, and the Constitution in 1/96, was the "squareness" of the plates--not nearly long enough for their width (if slightly better on C.S.) Both, to my eye, were improved with some vigorous sanding of the raised detail to almost make it invisible.  But, as you sagely point out, that is a subjective opinion.

 

I always had the same feeling about the plates on these models.

Scott 

jtilley wrote:

To my eye the "falsely-overlapping" sheets provided by Heller and Revell also look good; their appearance certainly can be enhanced by a good, careful job of weathering.

The thing that always annoyed me with the Revel Cutty Sary, and the Constitution in 1/96, was the "squareness" of the plates--not nearly long enough for their width (if slightly better on C.S.)

Both, to my eye, were improved with some vigorous sanding of the raised detail to almost make it invisible.  But, as you sagely point out, that is a subjective opinion.

Copper sheathing was introduced at about the time of the American Revolution.  (The first experiments with it seem to have taken place about 1750; during the War of American Independence, British warships got coppered as they went into drydock for refits.)  By the time of the French Revolution virtually all major warships of the major navies had copper bottoms.

Prior to the introduction of copper sheathing a number of treatments were used that (it was hoped) retarded marine growth and boring worms on ships' bottoms.  The materials used included horsehair, tar, pitch, sulphur, rosin, tallow, white lead paint, and "train oil" (whatever that is).  The treatments were generally categorized as "white stuff," "black stuff," and "brown stuff," with "black stuff" probably being the most common.  (My source on this is the section on hull sheathing in the relevant volume of the Conway's History of the Ship series, The Line of Battle:  The Sailing Warship, 1650-1840.)  I can't recall having bumped into a reference to lime being used in such a concoction, but I guess it's possible.

I've also never heard the pieces of copper used in metal sheathing referred to as "tiles," but they were indeed applied (generally speaking) in tile fashion.  In fact they were extremely thin sheets of copper (later with tin and/or zinc mixed in), usually measuring about 14" x 48" (the size varying from nation to nation and from time to time).  The thickness varied according to the part of the ship to which the sheathing was applied, with the bow and waterline areas getting the thickest.  According to George Campbell's China Tea Clippers, the thickness of the sheets in the early nineteenth century varied from .025" to .044".  On a model of any but the largest scale, the difference is negligible.

The sheets were put on with nails (about sixty nails per plate, according to Mr. Campbell), and overlapped each other by about an inch.  (Whether each row overlapped the one above or the one below is a matter of some discussion; in practice, it probably wasn't consistent, especially when an older ship got re-coppered.)

Scratchbuilders often represent copper sheathing with sheets of .001" thickness or less - still too thick for exact scale, but not conspicuously so.  Plastic sailing ship kit manufacturers trying to represent copper sheathing have a decision to make.  Revell and Heller usually made a valiant attempt to represent the overlap at the edges of the plates, by depicting them in relief.  Strictly speaking that was overdone, but to many eyes (including mine) pretty effective.  (Revell also did a remarkably good job of representing the nail heads.  Heller didn't - even in its big H.M.S. Victory.)  In at least one of its kits, the yacht America (released in 1969, as one of the company's last genuinely new sailing ship kits - when the firm was having some big financial problems) Revell represented the edges of the copper sheets with raised lines.  And a couple of companies, Airfix (in its H.M.S. Bounty) and Aurora, represented them with countersunk lines.  If I remember correctly, that's how the sheathing on the Wanderer kit is represented.

In strict scale terms, all of those techniques are wrong.  In a 1/96-scale model of a ship sheathed with, say, .044" copper sheets, the scale thickness of the overlap would be .0004583".  (That's less than five ten-thousandths of an inch. The typical human eye would have a hard time detecting it.)  It could be argued that the most accurate way to represent a copper-hulled ship is to give it a smooth bottom.  Many modelers (including me) argue, though, that the impression of the copper sheathing is more important than the precise scale dimensions.  I personally wouldn't regard a smooth-bottom on a model of a copper-sheathed ship (except on a very small scale) as very convincing. 

Since any of the alternatives is technically wrong, the choice between them really boils down to personal taste.  Donald McNarry, whose models on very small scales are generally regarded as being among the best in the world, lays his copper sheets edge-to-edge, with no overlap.  To my eye the results look terrrific (if more than slightly humiliating).  To my eye the "falsely-overlapping" sheets provided by Heller and Revell also look good; their appearance certainly can be enhanced by a good, careful job of weathering.  And the approach taken by Aurora on that old whaler kit (scribed lines representing the plate edges) certainly strikes me as being just as legitimate as any other.

Modelers sometimes forget (or try to ignore) the extent to which they are in fact presenting a visual impression of reality rather than reproducing it precisely to scale.  (How many modelers have ever bothered to consider how thick the plating of a 40mm gun tub really should be on 1/700 scale battleship?  Or how thick a landing gear door should be on a 1/72 scale airplane?)  It's fairly safe to assert, I think, that almost no ship model is 100 percent to scale.  (About the only exception I can think of is the model of the whaler Lagoda in the New Bedford Whaling Museum.  It's on 1/2 scale.  Not 1/2" = 1' - one-half actual size.)  The representation of copper sheathing is just one of many examples.

Copper sheets were applied in many ways, and the Aurora kit looks to be within known traditions. But any alternate placement would be stymied by the fact that the "copper" is molded on the plastic hull.

Pete, she looks beautiful, and the boat is excellent. Does the kit come as 1:87 or did you do some selective compression to get there? Would the figurehead have been picked out in a color or was this not done on whalers?

Keep up the good work - I like what youve done with the Hamilton and Skipjack, and I really like the mallet, a real Baldwin look to her, almost like "Old Maud" combined with "Skookum."

Jim

I am not trying to be critical, but weren't the copper plating applied as tiles on the hull? It looks from your photo's like copper paint was just painted over the area without regard to the true nature of the application. Below is a photo of a wooden model with the tiles being applied (whaler circa 1850). The picture of your ship model indicates the tiles by a raised area of the lower hull planking to the waterline. Copper tiles were used to stop ship worms and wood borers from attacking the hulls although they did become fouled with kelp and other debris requiring cleaning.That is just how it appears to my eyes.

JTilley may correct me on this, but Napoleonic vessels and before had lime painted hulls to prevent the same problems prior to the use of copper tiles. This would not follow the hull plank lines as it was painted on. 

  http://img.clubphoto.com/jerboa/25249021/hi/null/image.jpg

  Not being a "student of the Napoleonic era", I can only offer that Wanderer was built in 1878. While whaling is recognized as a fishery from the late 1500's, ships of this size didn't appear until the industry had to cover greater distances to find whales. American whaling is credited as having started in the mid 1600's. The colonists who settled South Hampton, on the south shore of Long Island, around 1640, were among the first whalers. Sloops and schooners were used, up to 1770, when brigs were becoming more popular. Whaling barks began to appear in the early 1800's. Some schooners and brigs were still in use when Wanderer was built. The design of the "modern whaleboat", that we are most familiar with, began to standardize in the mid 1800's. 

What would be the earliest period when a whaling ship like this might be seen?   Would this ship make a suitable candidate for a Napoleonic war diarama?

 

 

It's nearly unbelievable that the islanders rowed even further out to sea in these tiny whale boats.

   Typically, these boats had a six man crew. Like most work boats, they were designed, and, over the years, modified, to best handle the working conditions. Nice pictures!

Pete

Here are two photo's I took of an Azorean whaleboat last summer. The boat now lives in a shopping mall in Ponta Delgada on Sao Miguel:

I fell in love with it's sleek shape the moment I saw it. While on holiday there I went on a whale watching trip, far away from the island on a big Zodiac with two very hefty outboard motors going out eventualy about 5 nautical miles from the coastline. It's nearly unbelievable that the islanders rowed even further out to sea in these tiny whale boats.

Julian

   Seeing a listing for plans of Wanderer on A.J. Fisher's website, I ordered a set. They came yesterday. There is no name on the plan sheets, so I don't know who drew them up. What I do now know, is that Aurora's model, matches the Fisher plans. Neither the Aurora model, nor the Fisher plans, match the photos I have of the Wanderer. All the photos I have show, course, lower and upper topsails, and t'galant, fore and main. Both the Aurora kit, and the Fisher plans, include royals, fore and main. Also in both, the figurehead is the same, and incorrect. There is also a hatch, aft the mainmast, with a boobyhatch over it, and what appears to be a "livestock"/ "chicken coop" just forward of the cabin. The Fisher plans show a hatch just aft the triworks (as in the aurora kit), photos show that hatch close to the main fiferail, making more room for the coopers bench, aft the triworks.  I am now back at square one, and will use the photos as my building guide. Having a "scale" drawing, ( if the ship had 14" deadeyes on the lower shrouds, the plans are scale) I can ratio the size, and placement of details, and draw them in on the plan (1/72 scale). The whaleboats, as drawn, measure 28'-6" which is "close enough for government work". I also have some issues with the rigging plan as drawn. There are some discrepancies when compared to photos. Ahhh, the joys of research. 

I wish that, in Revell Germany's continued quest to reissue old Revell USA sailing ship kits, it would get around to the Charles W. Morgan.

   I concur wholeheartedly with that. The Morgan is a good looking whaler! I was pleased to see she was back in the water again, having been dryberthed for a long time at Mystic Seaport.

Pete

Now that my memory's been jogged, I recall Michel's having mentioned that the old Revell Golden Hind is available in at least two Heller boxes - including a bizarre one that (presumably with a different figurehead and stern decorations) tries to pass her off as some sort of pirate ship or privateer.  I haven't seen either of those packagings myself - but that doesn't mean much.  Eastern North Carolina is scarcely a fertile market for imported sailing ship kits.

I do recall seeing the Revell Flying Cloud in a Heller box, but that was quite a long time ago.

jtilley wrote:

If I could pick any Revell sailing ships for modern resurrection, they'd be the Morgan, the Flying Cloud, the Mayflower, and the Golden Hind - all good, sound bases for serious scale models.  Instead of those, Revell Germany gives us that infernal, spurious "H.M.S. Beagle," and a Kearsarge whose quality control is such that at least one experienced member of this Forum seems to be on the verge of giving up on it.  These aren't good days for plastic sailing ship enthusiasts.

Professor, Golden Hind is currently being produced by heller, Flying Cloud was also in production by the same company until a few years ago.

regards

The only problem with veneer as a planking material is that the manufacturers usually don't pay much attention to the thickness.  (To the typical cabinet maker, a variation in thickness of a few thousandths doesn't matter much.)  But in most modeling applications it's fairly easy to work around that - if by no other means than scraping and/or sanding the stuff down to the right thickness.

To my knowledge there's no way an Azorean whaleboat would be found on board any American whaleship.  (I suppose there may have been an exception somewhere that proves the rule, but as I understand it there was little if any connection between the New England ship-based whaling trade and the shore-based activities of the Azorean Islanders.)  I'm inclined to suspect, in fact, that the resemblance between those awful Aurora hulls and the traditional Azorean shape is pure coincidence.

I wish that, in Revell Germany's continued quest to reissue old Revell USA sailing ship kits, it would get around to the Charles W. Morgan.  That was a beautiful kit - though on the small side.  The whaleboat hulls in it, if my senile memory serves, were beautiful.  The only problem was that only two of them had interior detail; the others either were to be stowed upside down or were equipped with hokey vac-formed "covers."  That kit was one of the very last sailing ships Revell issued.  (Dr. Graham's history of Revell dates it 1968.)  If I could pick any Revell sailing ships for modern resurrection, they'd be the Morgan, the Flying Cloud, the Mayflower, and the Golden Hind - all good, sound bases for serious scale models.  Instead of those, Revell Germany gives us that infernal, spurious "H.M.S. Beagle," and a Kearsarge whose quality control is such that at least one experienced member of this Forum seems to be on the verge of giving up on it.  These aren't good days for plastic sailing ship enthusiasts.

   I'll have to look into veneer, as a planking material. I am use to working with basswood, so chose it as a conveneince. Thanks for the source reference.

   The Azorean whaleboat is inappropriate for this ship, I have photos of Wanderer, foundered on the rock, and still carrying the New Bedford style boats. The reference for building the boats is the Mystic Seaport museum, "The Whaleboat-a study of construction and use from 1850 to 1970". For this particular purpose it is an excellent book, with photos, and lines drawings.

Pete

Looks great so far.  The method of building the whaleboats looks fundamentally sound, and the finished shape looks right - far better than the caricatures in the kit.  (Actually some whaleboats used in later years by the Azorean islanders do look almost like that.  For some nice shots of Azorean whaleboats in action, check out the old Gregory Peck version of Moby Dick.)

I think the problems you've had with the planking may be due to the wood species.  Basswood is mighty soft and fuzzy for this sort of work.  My favorite planking material is holly veneer - extremely fine-grained and hard-surfaced, yet more than flexible enough to take the necessary curvature.  Another virtue of holly:  the grain is so fine that, with a touch of stain, it literally looks like scale miniature wood - but the surface is so smooth that, in most cases, a thin coat of acrylic or enamel paint, with no primer, will give it a satisfactory finish.  A good source for holly veneer (and dozens of other species) is Constantine's (long known as Constantine's of the Bronx, now Constantine's of Ft. Lauderdale):  www.constantines.com .  A few square feet of veneer will do lots of models.

Another book I strongly recommend is Ewert Freeston's Modeling Open Boats.  Freeston's boat models are superb - though admittedly most of them are on larger scales than this.  He started out by carving the hull, in halves, from the solid, being careful to arrange the cross-sections along the growth rings of the stock.  He shaved the solid hull down to the point that light shined through it - less than 1/32" thick.  Then he planked it on both the inside and outside with (drum roll, please) high-quality paper.  The results were outstanding.  I tried a variation on that theme for the boats of my little Hancock model, carving the hulls in halves from blocks of holly.  (Since they were carvel-built, I didn't bother planking them.)  I was pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to thin the hull halves down almost to nothing - and how much strength was left in them, due to the orientation of the growth rings.The book was published quite a few years ago by the Conway Maritime Press.  I think it's out of prints, but used copies probably can be found on the web.