USS Constitution Overhaul

I don't have the kit in front of me, so I can't compare the thickness of the plastic hull sides to reality.  I do, however, have a copy of the Anatomy of the Ship volume on the Constitution (which, though it isn't reliable in certain important respects, can, I think, be trusted on this particular point).  The detailed cross-sections on pp. 74 and 75 show that the bulwarks on the level of the gundeck (i.e., just above and below the gunports) are about 21" thick.  (That includes the frame and the inboard and outboard planking.)  On 1/96 scale that's 7/32" - quite a bit more than what Revell provides. 

Above the spar deck, the thickness (including the frame and both layers of planking) is about 16", which translates into about 5/32" on 1/96 scale.

If (heaven forbid) I were building that model again, I'd look into the possibility of framing up a little "box" inside each of the gunports, using plastic strip, to give the edges of the ports the appropriate thickness.  (I don't think such "boxes" would be visible through the hatches.)  There actually isn't a noticeable amount of taper in the frames between the tops and bottoms of the gunports; what little there is could be dealt with by means of scraping and sanding.  Above the spar deck, I'd think long and hard before deciding whether it was worth the trouble to thicken the whole bulwark.  As I said, I'm not sure just how thick the plastic actually is at that point; I suspect it isn't far from the correct dimension.  If I decided I couldn't live with it, I'd consider adding a layer of "ceiling planks" made of styrene strip.  That shouldn't be too difficult - though it would create additional problems at the top and bottom, where the caprails and waterways come into the picture.

We shouldn't be too hard on Revell.  The hull halves of that kit really are, in almost every respect, spectacular castings.  There are limits to what the injection-molding process can do; if Revell had tried to make those things the right thickness there would have been a horrible problem with shrinkage and warping.  Quite a few years later, Imai produced some large-scale sailing ship kits with nice, thick hull halves made of some odd, slightly metallic-looking styrene.  I don't know whether that material was even available in the early sixties, when the Revell Constitution was being designed.

Hope that helps a little.

Shipwreck wrote:

Dr. Tilley, you have mentioned the bulwarks problem before. How have you determined that it is too thin and how would you suggest fixing it?

Not to put words in the Professor's mouth, but to share my own here.  The hull sides on the 1/96 Constitution are but a single thickness of styrene--which really shows at the gunports.  The edges at the ports probably ought to be about triple the thickness they are, but with a finicky taper, if we want a protypical appearance.

The last 1/96 I built sat a long time with only the gun deck in it as I could not come up with a satisfactory method of getting to ports "right" without then committing myself to all sorts of never-ending kitbashing.  Especially since I'd managed to not notice this until after I had the hull halves glued up (ain't that always the case?<sigh>) 

Were I to do it again, I'd likely take an add in ribs to each hull half, and build up from spirketting & waterline right up with new ceiling.  The knees and riding beams would then go over that.  Which would all work out nicely since at that point of OCD I would have committed to new deck beams too . . .

jtilley wrote:

We' Its biggest weakness, perhaps, is that its bulwarks are too thin - an almost inevitable consequence of the injection molding process.

We've discussed the distinctions between these kits several times on the Forum.  It's a rather interesting story.  (My source, as usual, is Dr. Thomas Graham's excellent book, Remembering Revell Model Kits.)  Revell has actually sold at least five versions of the Constitution on different scales.

The first was a tiny kit that actually was made by a company called Gowland Creations, beginning in 1952.  Gowland made a series of nine little plastic sailing ships, each of them offered in two forms:  with and without a two-piece plastic bottle.  Gowland (which also was the original source of most of Revell's famous "Highway Pioneers" antique car kits) had some financial problems, and Revell took over the distribution of the company's kits in 1954.  According to Dr. Graham, the little Constitution kit never actually appeared in a box with a Revell label on it, but he includes it in the long list of Revell kits in his book's appendix:  "H-412 Frigate Constitution.  1953-55.  Ivory plastic.  Paper flag sheet, rope ladders printed on clear plastic sheet."  He estimates its current market value at $20-25.

The next one initially appeared in 1956, and was the product of Revell's own staff.  It was originally numbered H-319.  There seems to be some argument over the scale of it; I've seen it referred to quite a few times as 1/196, but Dr. Graham lists it as 1/192.  (The difference probably isn't significant.  My guess, though, is that 1/192 is what the designers intended; 1/192 is the equivalent of 1/16"=1', which is a fairly standard ship model scale.)  I think the designers worked from the set of plans that the Navy was selling at that time (in the gift shop on board the ship, among other places).  Those drawings had been prepared at the time of the 1920s restoration, and showed the ship pretty much as she still appeared in 1956 - with one big exception.  For some reason the Revell people decided to include a remarkably well-rendered miniature version of the Andrew Jackson figurehead.  I wonder if, in that early golden age of the plastic kit, those fine artisans just wanted to demonstrate that they could do it.)

That kit created something of a sensation when it appeared on the ship modeling scene, for good reason.  Its only competitors in those days were the solid-hull wood kits from companies like Marine Models and A.J. Fisher (both of whom offered Constitution kits) and Model Shipways (which had two versions of the Essex, on different scales).  Modelers working from those wood kits were used to having the guns on the gundeck represented by "dummies" - stub barrels plugged into holes drilled in the hull.  Revell - on a smaller scale than any of the competition - included full-length gun barrels with beatiful little carriages, which sat on shelves cast integrally with the hull halves.  And the Revell kit, with a pricetag of $3.00, was cheap.  (I don't remember how much those wood frigates cost in the fifties, but I think it was between $10.00 and $20.00.  Maybe more.)  The kit obviously was a labor of love on the part of the people who designed it, and it still holds up pretty well.  Its most obvious weakness is the fact that the main hatch in the middle of the spar deck is solid.  (Well, that's how it was on the wood kits, too.  A competent modeler can solve that problem pretty quickly.)

I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that 1/192 (or 1/196) kit was responsible for setting the standard size of a long range of Revell sailing ship kits that appeared over the next decade or so.  The Constitution was followed quickly by H.M.S. Bounty, the Santa Maria, the Flying Cloud, the U.S.C.G.C. Eagle, and H.M.S. Victory.  They sold originally for $3.00 apiece, and all came in the same sized box.  Eventually Revell added quite a few more kits to the "three-dollar range," as people like me thought of them.  Most of them were, in my opinion, excellent kits (the exceptions being things like "H.M.S. Beagle" and the "Stag Hound," which were ludicrously inaccurate modifications of earlier kits).  Those were great days in the plastic kit business.  Each kit was a little better than the last.  The Victory (1959) featured an open space between the forecastle and quarterdeck, through which the upper gundeck was visible.

The biggest Revell Constitution first appeared in 1965, with the kit number H-368.  Dr. Graham gives its scale as 1/108, but I think it's on 1/96 - or mighty close to it.  I'd have to take some measurements to be sure, but 1/96 is a standard modeling scale, and the one Revell used for its other big sailing ships, the Cutty Sark (and its clones, the Thermopylae and Pedro Nunes) and Kearsarge (and its semi-clone Alabama).  It was, as we've already noted, based on the plans commissioned from George Campbell by the Smithsonian.  (The original box and instruction sheet proudly announced the Smithsonian connection, and that the kit represented the ship in her 1814 configuration.  In those days Revell assumed its customers cared about things like that.)  Among the sources Mr. Campbell consulted was the Isaac Hull model.  There is, as RedCorvette noted, scarcely any similarity between the 1/192 and 1/96-scale kits.

The new kit really represented the mid-sixties state of the art, with a full-length gundeck (and a hatch to see it through), and transparent stern windows through which the bulheads of the captain's cabin could be seen.  In my personal opinion it's still one of the top ten plastic sailing ship kits.  It's been reissued many times in different boxes - with and without vacformed plastic "sails" (as has the 1/192 kit).  Its biggest weakness, perhaps, is that its bulwarks are too thin - an almost inevitable consequence of the injection molding process.

Next came the "simplified series" kit, in 1969.  At that time the American plastic kit industry was having serious financial problems, and the manufacturers were trying all sorts of tricks to drag in new customers.  This one, with a length of about 22 inches, was part of a short series advertised with the slogan "Build a Legend in a Weekend."  It was a scaled-down version of the 1/96-scale kit, with such features as gun carriages cast integrally with the decks to keep the parts count low.  It was originally numbered H-362; according to Dr. Graham, it was on 1/159 scale (to fit a standard box, presumably) and was in the Revell catalog through 1975.

At about the same time Monogram (this was long before the Revell-Monogram merger, of course) was testing the waters with a small series of "simplified" sailing ships of its own - including a Constitution.  This is the one whose transom is on the left in RedCorvette's photo.  It was a rather ingenious kit, with a one-piece hull and yards molded integrally with the masts.  It's really a shame that Monogram's designers of that period - who were among the best in the business - never took on a more serious sailing ship project.  I don't have one of those kits myself, but on the basis of photographs it appears that the one-piece hull actually has at least some of the prototype's tumble-home molded into it.  That must have required some mighty clever designing - and/or some fancy, expensive mold tooling.  I can only remember that kit appearing in Monogram boxes, but I guess it's possible that it turned up somewhere in the world under the Revell label too.

Revell's most recent Constitution (not counting the numerous reissues of the 1/192 and 1/96 kits) was an odd thing called the "U.S.S. Constitution Wall Plaque," which (according to Dr. Graham) was in the catalog from 1972 through 1975. Dr. Graham describes it as follows:  "Brown plastic.  Includes bottle of gold antiquing wax, thread for rigging.  These three wall plaques [the others being a "Spanish galleon" and the Cutty Sark] were based on development materials used fro the old full-hull models, but were completely new molds.  They are not just half-hulls, but project out from the plaque slightly.  Authentic old maps for the backgrounds.  Based on H-319 Old Ironsides."  I've never seen that one out of its box; I never had any inclination to buy it.  Apparently few people did.  Dr. Graham gives its current value as $15-20, which, if I remember correctly, isn't much more than the original retail price.

Trivial stuff, but a fun exercise in nostalgia.  Anybody who's been a plastic modeler for any length of time really owes it to him/herself to get a copy of Dr. Graham's book.  It's a thoroughly enjoyable trip down memory lane.

jtilley wrote:

The Revell 1/96-scale and 22-inch Constitution kits are based on the plans drawn by George Campbell for the Smithsonian, which commissioned the construction of a 1/8-scale model of her back in (I think) the late fifties.  Mr. Campbell clearly based the bow and stern ornamentation on the "Isaac Hull model," which is currently in the Peabody-Essex Museum of Salem, Massachusetts.  (We've discussed that model several times here in the Forum; a search on the phrase "Hull model" should bring up some interesting info - including some pictures.)  The transom on the Hull model, allowing for the relatively crude workmanship of it, does look pretty much like that of the two Revell kits, with one interesting exception:  the window frames on the Hull model are painted a rather pale but bright blue.

The 1:96 kit is based on the Hull model as you stated, however the smaller 1:196 kit is based on the 1927 restoration (and the current configuration of the ship).  The models are distinctly different.

Here's a picture.  The transom of the 1:196 kit with the current three window, high bulwarks and three gun port configuration is the painted piece on the right (the un-painted piece on the left is from the even smaller 1:2XX "quick-build" version of the kit. Even though it is hard to see in the photo, it also has the three windows):

Mark

Well, come to think of it, both of them - though I didn't meet my wife till considerably later.

The Revell 1/96-scale and 22-inch Constitution kits are based on the plans drawn by George Campbell for the Smithsonian, which commissioned the construction of a 1/48-scale model of her back in (I think) the late fifties.  [Later edit:  I originally typed "1/8 scale," which obviously was a typo.  Sorry about that.]  Mr. Campbell clearly based the bow and stern ornamentation on the "Isaac Hull model," which is currently in the Peabody-Essex Museum of Salem, Massachusetts.  (We've discussed that model several times here in the Forum; a search on the phrase "Hull model" should bring up some interesting info - including some pictures.)  The transom on the Hull model, allowing for the relatively crude workmanship of it, does look pretty much like that of the two Revell kits, with one interesting exception:  the window frames on the Hull model are painted a rather pale but bright blue.

The Smithsonian model used to be displayed prominently in the Armed Forces exhibition of the National Museum of American History - along with quite a few other excellent models of ships from most periods of American naval history.  A few years ago the Smithsonian completely revamped that exhibition, replacing it with a permanent gallery called "The Price of Freedom:  The History of America's Wars."  My opinion of that gallery is generally quite high; it does about as good a job of covering that enormous subject as such an exhibition can do.  Lots of new, fascinating stuff went into it, including both artifacts and fancy interactive exhibits.  (I especially like the WWII Jeep hanging from the ceiling, and the wall full of sixties-vintage TV sets blasting out their coverage of Vietnam between excerpts of vintage westerns and sitcoms.)  But almost all the ship models are gone now.  I don't know where that Constitution model (or Robert Bruckshaw's Revolutionary War frigate, or the enormous Missouri from Gibbs and Cox, or any of a dozen or so others) is now.

The entire Museum of American History is closed for renovation at the moment; I believe it's scheduled to open again next summer.  One of the new developments is to be a completely revised version of the Hall of Maritime Enterprise (which covers merchant ships, fishing, and other non-military maritime subjects).  I can't help wondering how many of the excellent ship models in that part of the museum will disappear from public view as well.

"My wife and I paid a visit to the Constitution last month.  She looked to me like she was in the best physical shape she's been in since the first time I saw her, which was in (I think) 1965."

 The ship, or your wife?  LOL

The 1/196 Revell model is pretty close to the 1927-31 overhaul except for Andy Jackson on the bow. I really wonder what the Navy is going to do to the transom. Maybe copy the 1/96 and the"22 inch" Revell models! I also wonder where Revell got the information for those pieces. modelbob@hotmail.com

Thanks for the update professor.  I'd be interested to see the "master plan" for the restoration.  I see it as a pretty significant step that they're cutting down the bulwarks (assuming to the 1812 configuration with a cap rail running across the top of the carronade gun ports).

Lots of work on both the bow and the stern ahead if they really want to get her back to the way she looked in 1812.

The thought just occured to me that the current work will pretty much obsolete not only the Revell 1:196 model, but also the big Model Shipways wooden model.  Can't imagine that Revell would do anything to their old molds, but it will be interesting to see if MS eventually modifies their kit (or publishes plans/instructions on how to do so). 

Mark

Wonder

The following comes from the latest (Autumn, 2007) issue of Sea History magazine, which I think is pretty reliable.  P. 11:

"This October, the navy will begin more restoration work on the ship.  She will stay in her current berth at the Charlestown Navy Yard, while her bulwarks are shortened an the top deck [I gather the author means "spar deck"] will be replaced with a properly cambered deck to allow water to run out the sides.  All the work will be done by their civilian maintenance and repair crews, plus the occasional outside contractor for specialty work.  The work is scheduled for completion in 2009 and visitation will be ongoing during the restoration period."

That there's no camber in the spar deck is news to me - but, I guess, not surprising.  If they actually intend to add such camber, it will be quite a project indeed - presumably requiring replacement of the deck beams.  Like most such published references, this little magazine article raises as many questions as  it answers.  I suspect the people responsible may not actually have decided exactly what they're going to do to the ship yet; they probably will have to tear into the structure a bit before finding out just what's practicable and what isn't.

The bottom line:  these people, unlike their predecessors early in the twentieth century, know what they're doing in terms of making the grand old ship more accurate.  I'm confident that whatever changes they make will, subject to the inevitable limitations of funding, be an improvement.

The website says the ship will still be open for visitors, but will not be taken out for any cruises during the overhaul period.  My first thought was that implies they are going to un-rig her and un-step the masts.

Just what the "1812" configuration means is intriguing.  Besides the fife rails and skylights, are they going to cut down the bulwarks?  What about the split gun port doors? Go back to the pre-Java helm arrangement?   I'd love to see the master plan for the restoration.  At some point down the road you figure they'll have to drydock her if they're going to tear into the stern and reconfigure her to something close to the 1812 configuration.

Mark

My impression is that the Navy, having carried out quite a bit of high-quality research on the subject, wants to restore her to her 1812 configuration gradually.  As pieces of her wear out and need to be replaced, the replacement versions are to be "1812 style."

That press release raises about as many questions as it answers.  It doesn't answer the most obvious one:  will the ship be open to visitors during the period in question?  It sounds like the basic problem they're going to deal with may be the planking of the spar deck.  When the planking gets replaced, will they modify the deck fittings - e.g., the fiferails and skylight?  (Those are two examples that come to mind of differences between the ship's current configuration and that of the "Hull model" in Salem, which is the best indication I know of how she looked in 1812.)  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  It sure would be nice if the Navy would publish, in advance, a detailed explanation of what's going to happen - and why.

My wife and I paid a visit to the Constitution last month.  She looked to me like she was in the best physical shape she's been in since the first time I saw her, which was in (I think) 1965.  On the other hand, there seemed to be some problems regarding public access to her.  So far as I could tell, there's not a single sign - on the freeways, the bridge from Boston to Charlestown, or even the streets nearby - to tell anybody how to get to her.  Her masts don't stick up above many of the surrounding buildings, bridges, etc.; lots of people probably don't know where she is till they're almost next to her.  And there's no designated parking lot to accommodate private cars (as opposed to tour buses).  Would-be visitors get stopped at the gate of the Navy Yard and told to hunt for parking places on the streets - and on a weekday they aren't easy to find. 

I suspect this may have something to do with the fact that the number of visitors when I was there (a sunny weekday late morning and early afternoon in early August - right in the middle of the tourist season) was the smallest I've ever seen there.  Part of the problem is concern over possible terrorist attacks.  (You have to approach the ship through a small building about a hundred yards away, where everything you're carrying gets x-rayed.)  I certainly support any efforts to keep the old lady from getting blown up by a car bomb.  And, of course, a big part of the problem is that the City of Boston in general doesn't believe in street signs.  But it does seem like it ought to be possible to make it easier for the public to appreciate her.