SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Old Ironsides - Revisiting the classic Revell 1/96 kit

214363 views
510 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Sunday, May 13, 2012 12:43 PM

John,

Actually, I was wondering about that same question.  I doubt the use of teak as decking material on either British or American warships because of the splintering issue; teak splinters cause horrendous wounds and subsequent infections.  British naval officers loathed teak, and denigrated HMEIC ships because of their teak components.

It's great hearing from you again!

Bill

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Sunday, May 13, 2012 1:02 PM

Folks -

Whew!  Looks like I leave this post alone for a bit and it generates plenty of great topics!

Regarding the provided ratlines... I don't intend to use them directly, but I may reference the pattern and scale to help maintain my perspective as I rig the shrouds "by hand".  I think I've seen other modelers comment that they are prone to stretching over time, but I can't seem to confirm that.  Certainly they are a big improvement over the moulded versions provided elsewhere...

I have no clue about the differences between the German vs American Revell kits... I think it was once suggested that the sails and provided rigging thread were improved in the Germany version - but that does not seem to be the case according to the responses.  I'd imagine that whatever differences might have been in place will surely disappear now that Revell America has regained controlling ownership of Revell Germany.

Professor Tilley -I very much appreciate the interest you've shown in my efforts and your excellent overview of the wood deck approach has given me cause to pause...!  I still think I should give it a go with the provided decks, but I will modify my earlier stance to say that I will strongly consider the wood decks if my initial approach does not meet the standard I am hoping for...  Never say never and all that...

I have been referencing the following link to try and get smart about the construction of the great ship:

http://www.history.navy.mil/constitution/44guns.htm

You'll see this reference to the spar deck planking from the notes of Joshua Humphries:

(Spar Deck) Plank for deck
Three inches thick, five feet of which must be laid with oak from the side, the rest of the best heart pitch pine plank.

I think this approach was taken with the recent restoration of the spar deck:

Notice the outer planking having a slightly different shade from the inner planking.  Perhaps this reflects the contemporary practice of using stouter wood directly under the heavy gun carriages with the less expensive heart pine everywhere else...

Good discussion!

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Sunday, May 13, 2012 1:18 PM

Force9,

Keep in mind that the appearance of the deck today is probably not the appearance of the deck in 1812, the period you are trying to model. I agree with John that the wood used then was probably yellow pine not teak. The source you provided supports this point.  I can't be sure, but the photo you use appears to be teak.  Also, it definately does not appear to have been holystoned even once, let alone daily. In other words, your decks should not be as dark, nor should they be two-toned.

Bill

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Sunday, May 13, 2012 1:28 PM

Bill -

As I've noted - Joshua Humphries' own builder notes specifies that heart pine and oak were BOTH used on the spar deck of the original ship.

The photo shows the result of her most recent refit.  Probably the identical wood species cannot be replicated these days - and otherwise the current maintenance crew would need to use the most durable choice - regardless of the authenticity.  I can't imagine the crew getting down to holystone those decks these days - certainly cause for a modern day mutiny.

I'll probably use gray tones for the spar deck with more "woodiness" tones on the gun deck.

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Sunday, May 13, 2012 2:29 PM

Force9,

I couldn't agree more!  That just illustrates my point that the photo cannot be used as a source for the deck appearance as it appeared (or was likely to appear) in 1812.  You would not want to use photos of the ship following her 1990's rebuild to depict her as she appeared in 1812; the same is true of the pictured deck.   It also seems to me that, if we understand that different woods are used today than those used in her original configuration, you wouldn't want to use the appearance of today's deck as a guide for an 1812 version of the ship.

I do know that gray tones would not be correct for a well-maintained deck under the service conditions of 1812. It may be true that today's sailors would likely not holystone decks, but those ships that existed in service by the late 1980's with wooden decks had very light colored decks with no gray. I had many visits to the USS Fulton in New London while I served on submarines alongside; her wood decks were pristinely as off-white or light tan as wood could be without painting them.  I never witnessed Sailors holystoning them, but they maintained those decks somehow. That would be a particular truism in the days of daily holystoning, especially using pine and oak.

Anyway, it is an interesting discussion!

Bill

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, May 13, 2012 5:17 PM

Since this thread is so interesting, and so friendly, I'll go one step further and offer an opinion (with which, of course, anybody is free to disagree) on the subject of "preformed ratlines."  I suspect nobody will be surprised that I intensely dislike them.  My custom was always to throw them out before leaving the hobby shop (back in the days when I could buy ship model kits in a hobby shop).  I'll cheerfully concede that the plastic-coated thread ones are preferable to the monstrous injection-molded variety. but that's not saying much.

Three reasons.  One - they're almost impossible to set up tightly - and the shrouds (except on the leeward side when the ship's working to windward) should be very taut.  Two - they're invariably made in such a way that the ratlines are the same diameter as the shrouds.  (In a real eighteenth-century ship the shrouds are among the largest ropes in the ship.  In addition to keeping the masts from falling over, they're key components of the propulsion system.  The sails pull the masts, the masts pull the shrouds, and the shrouds pull the ship through the water.  The ratlines, which only have to support a man's weight, are much thinner.)  Three - there's no good way to secure the upper ends of them.  (In a real ship, the lower shrouds were looped around the masthead one after another.  They were also parcelled and served - i.e., wrapped with canvas.  The stack of shroud eyes on board a ship like the Constitution would rise a quarter or a third of the way up the lower masthead, and the eye of the stay would be passed around them.  Those piles of eyes are quite conspicuous in pictures of the real ships - and contemporary models.  Theyre's just no way those manufactured concoctions are going to look like that.)

The manufacturers seem to have convinced several generations of modelers that the shrouds and ratlines on a plastic ship model just have to look phony.  A well-kept secret:  rigging ratlines to scale is easy.  (Rigging shrouds, with individual deadeyes, is another matter.  I find that one of the trickiest jobs in ship modeling.)

For what little it's worth, I can summarize how I did the job on my little model of the frigate Hancock (scale: 3/32"=1'), which is shown in my avatar.  I started out by making the rope for the shrouds, using silk thread on my primitive "rope making machine" - spinning the strands counter-clockwise to reproduce the cable-laid (or shroud-laid) rope that was usually used for that purpose in those days.  After seizing the eye in the middle of each pair of shrouds,  I coated the eye with some stuff called "modeling paste," which I found in an art supply store.  I mixed a little black acrylic paint with it, for color.  Then, taking an educated guess at the finished lengths of the shrouds, I seized the deadeyes (britannia metal castings from Bluejacket) into them.  The lower deadeyes were already in place on the channels.   Then came the lanyards between the deadeyes; for them I used the finer of the two diameters of silk thread that I had at the time.  This, to me, is the trickiest part of the rigging process:  getting the upper deadeyes lined up in a row that's parallel to the channel - with a 3-diameter separation between uppers and lower.  If you screw one up, you have to make a new piece of rope. 

For the ratlines on this small-scale model I used a spool of .003" nickel chromium wire that a hobby shop friend (ah, nostalgia!) had found in a military surplus store.  That turned out to be great stuff for th purpose:  soft enough to be tied in a clove hitch, but stiff enough to be tweaked so it sagged a little between the shrouds.  To establish the spacing, I cut a piece of file card to fit between the channel and the underside of the top, inside the shrouds.  A series of inked lines, 3/32" apart, established the spacing of the ratlines.  After the nastiness of setting up the shrous and deadeyes, rigging the ratlines was easy - at least for a pair of 30-year old eyeballs.  I honestly don't know whether my current 62-year-old ones would be up to it or not.

The key to rigging ratlines authentically is practice.  The muscles and nerves of the human hand have memory, and can be taught to do remarkably sophisticated things if given a little time.  Set up your little card with the parallel lines on it, put some nice music in the CD player, and have at it.  My guess is that the first ratline will take you about fifteen minutes.  But by the time you get to the masthead you'll be rigging one every two or three minutes, and wondering why people make such a fuss about ratlines.

Some people, of course, lack the closeup eyesight and/or manual dexterity to do such things.  I deeply sympathize with those folks; I had a mild bout with arthritis in one hand a few years back, and got a little taste of what it's like.  The most cordial, honest advice I can give such people is to pick another hobby.  They probably won't get much fun out of ship modeling - and fun, for most of us, is what it's all about.  To those who do have the necessary attributes I say:  give authentic ratlines a try.  If you can do all the other tasks involved in building a model, you can do this, and few improvements to a kit will make such a big difference.

Too long as usual.  I've been using this computer time to relax after planting a pair of hibiscus bushes (Mother's Day present to my wife.)  Sorry.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:40 PM

Crackers - I owe you a reply...

I think it would've been very unlikely that the gun deck interior bulwarks would be painted red or green.  I think it is incorrect to think that interiors were painted red to mask blood in those days... In fact it would probably make these spaces very dark - and I think I read once that red paint in that day was very expensive in comparison to other colors (dunno that for sure).

I will be painting the interior bulwarks on the gun deck a muted white "linen" tone... Cmdr Martin notes in his comments within the Bluejacket kit manual that these bulwarks were either whitewashed or painted white.  This probably gave the space a lighter and more airy and "healthy" environment for the crew. 

Thx

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:49 PM

Prof Tilley -

Thank you indeed for the overview of the shrouds and ratlines.  I've never rigged a ship before, but I fully intend to give this a good effort and do the deed myself - without the aid of the preformed shortcuts.  Aside from the flaws you've pointed out... I just don't think they look good and I figure "how hard can it be?" to rig up a better scale result?  I'm game to try to tune my fine motor skills with a favorite beverage close at hand and a Red Sox game in the background...

Incidentally... I was just re-reading my copy of the American Neptune, Winter 1987 with Tyrone Martin's pet theory of the Guerriere battle outlined.  It also includes some book reviews. Seems a hot shot young professor from East Carolina University couldn't recommend "The Discovery of Ship Models" by Norman Boyd.

(And I do hope people will find this a friendly and encouraging forum for all things related to Old Ironsides)

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Sunday, May 13, 2012 7:45 PM

Let's build some more of the model...

I had to ponder a decision faced by better modelers than me... Do I include the iron bolt "rivet" details on the spar deck bulwarks?

In addition to the photo above, you can see those on the post-refit spar deck 

Looks like it was a PITA to remove them during the restoration effort:

Are they authentic to 1812?  I have no clue... It is interesting that they were put back in the recent reconstruction of the spar deck.  It may be that there is something definitive that justifies including them... In truth I don't really care.  I've decided that it would be a nice way to pay homage to the restored ship while at the same time including some interesting detail to enhance my model.

Unfortunately there is no way around the tedium that adding all these rivets will entail... Modelers on larger scale ships will add thousands of dots worth of thick paint or actually insert the gazillions of pins necessary to represent the bolt heads properly... 

Here was the approach I took:

I used the thinnest strips of styrene in my inventory and punched in the bolt pattern using an inexpensive scribe tool purchased at the local hardware store. None of the three pin wheel tools I have had the right pattern I was after - so I did it one at a time.  Amazing how sore your fingers can get after a few hundred of these... Once done, I simply flipped the strips over and affixed them to the bulwarks.  When completely dry, I came back along and trimmed the edges with a file.  All very neat.

This has the added benefit of covering over the overdone wood grain detail moulded on the bulwarks of the kit as well as some obvious injection marks.

Thanks for following along

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, May 14, 2012 9:14 AM

Force9

Prof Tilley -

Thank you indeed for the overview of the shrouds and ratlines.  I've never rigged a ship before, but I fully intend to give this a good effort and do the deed myself - without the aid of the preformed shortcuts.  Aside from the flaws you've pointed out... I just don't think they look good and I figure "how hard can it be?" to rig up a better scale result?  I'm game to try to tune my fine motor skills with a favorite beverage close at hand and a Red Sox game in the background...

Incidentally... I was just re-reading my copy of the American Neptune, Winter 1987 with Tyrone Martin's pet theory of the Guerriere battle outlined.  It also includes some book reviews. Seems a hot shot young professor from East Carolina University couldn't recommend "The Discovery of Ship Models" by Norman Boyd.

(And I do hope people will find this a friendly and encouraging forum for all things related to Old Ironsides)

Well, this is one big reason why, as I noted in another thread recently (   /forums/t/146987.aspx?PageIndex=2 ) I don't recommend this kit as a first effort for newcomers to ship rigging.  I do stand by my contention that any reasonably dexterous modeler can rig ratlines.  But I can't honestly recommend a big warship like this as a first experience with deadeyes and lanyards.

A good, practical compromise might be to junk the "preformed ratlines" but use the plastic deadeye and lanyard parts from the kit.  Revell actually did a pretty good job with them; a careful paint job could make them look pretty convincing.

Another, perfectly satisfactory solution:  leave off the spars.  A well- executed "hull model" (pardon the expression - though I know that won't be easy), like the old British boardroom models, of the Constitution would be a fine thing.

In that other thread I mentioned several other kits that, in my personal opinion, would be much better for "breaking into" scale rigging.  A few numbers will show what I mean.  The Constitution's three masts have a total of about 18 shrouds on each side.  That translates into 72 deadeyes, in 36 pairs.  Throw in the backstays and the topmast shrouds, and you're dealing with well over a hundred deadeyes.  The two masts on the Pyro/Lifelike/Lindberg Gertrude L. Thebaud have 9 shrouds on each side - and no deadeyes on the topmast shrouds or the backstays.  36 deadeyes in 18 pairs.  To my mind it makes far more sense to learn the ropes (pardon the expression) on a model like that - and the result, in a few weeks at the most, will be a handsome model of an historically important ship.

You're right:  that book on ship models that I reviewed for the now defunct, and much missed, Neptune was pretty awful.  Twenty years or so later Mr. Boyd wrote another one, The Ship Model:  Her Role in History, that's much better - and illustrated with color photos.  I don't like writing negative reviews; nowadays I rarely agree to review a book unless I'm pretty confident that I can review it positively.  Note:  I said "rarely."  Not "never.")






Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Sarasota, FL
Posted by RedCorvette on Monday, May 14, 2012 10:01 AM

jtilley
 Force9:

A good, practical compromise might be to junk the "preformed ratlines" but use the plastic deadeye and lanyard parts from the kit.  Revell actually did a pretty good job with them; a careful paint job could make them look pretty convincing.

 

That's the approach that I'm planning to take on my smaller 1/196 Constitution.  I plan to seize the shroud pairs around the masts and then tie them off on the molded deadeyes.  In this smaller scale I think I'll probably just end up gluing the ratlines across the shrouds and then trimming the ends.  Should have some updates to my build thread my next weekend.

There is always going to be some type of compromise in modeling due to the limitations of scale, materials & skill.  At the end of the day we're building representations of the subject, not exact duplicates, though like many of us here, I like exploring the limitations of what we can accomplish.

I also support the suggestion to start with a simpler rigging project berfore jumping into the deep end with a full-rigged ship like the Constiution for your first effort.

Personally, I like the solid-hulled wood Mini-Mamoli kits to practice rigging and other modeling techniques.  They're easy enough for beginners to finish out of the box, but also provide the opportunity for more advanced modelers to add rigging and scratch-built details.

Mark   

 

FSM Charter Subscriber

  • Member since
    March 2012
Posted by oscarwray on Monday, May 14, 2012 1:29 PM

Subscribed! Following with interest, I have one in a 60% completed state. The rest is the rigging. The rat lines are plastic that came with my kit, they are nice but I am making my own with thread and the result looks a lot better. Fantastic work so far.

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Monday, May 14, 2012 9:11 PM

Folks...

I'm sure your caution and advice regarding the complexity of the rigging is sound and should be followed, but... I think you'll agree that anyone as daft as me who is enhancing the kit with built up bulwarks, framing, etc. is probably not going to be satisfied with moulded deadeyes.  Not gonna happen!

I'm willing to take my time and redo a few along the way if that is what it takes to gain enough proficiency to get a good result.  Ironically, this kit IS my "learners" platform for rigging so that I learn enough to improve my other project - the Heller 1/100 Victory.

I do have some advantage here since I still have my old 1/96 kit on hand... I will probably rig up a lower mast or two and experiment on that platform before moving on to rig this kit.  For better or worse I'm all in for getting this Old Ironsides rigged without pre-formed components.

I have some great sources at hand and I've already gleaned many important pointers from kindred spirits on this and other forums - with many more yet to come my way.

Wish me luck - and feel free to say "I told you so!" when you see me struggling down the line!

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • From: Jerome, Idaho, U.S.A.
Posted by crackers on Monday, May 14, 2012 9:28 PM

Please send us pictures of your building progress. It will be a learning experience for all of us.

Montani semper liberi. Happy modeling tyo all and every one of you.

                   Crackers             Geeked

Anthony V. Santos

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:43 AM

I'm very interested in seeing your solution to the bolts on the inboard sides of the bulwarks. They are a prominent detail that, if done right, could really enhance the model's appearance.  I wouldn't even think of starting the rigging of shrouds until this decision is made.and carried out.  Toast

Bill

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • From: Jerome, Idaho, U.S.A.
Posted by crackers on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:29 PM

On August 18th of this year, the U.S. Postal Sevice will issue a 45 cent forever stamp, with a picture of the U.S.S. CONSTITUTION, as she appeared during the War of 1812.  The ship has a yellow ochre strip around the gun ports, with a white figure head that is not to easy to discern. The flag flown is of the star configuration of that period.

Miontani semper liberi. Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

                  Crackers         Geeked

Anthony V. Santos

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:38 PM

warshipguy

I'm very interested in seeing your solution to the bolts on the inboard sides of the bulwarks. They are a prominent detail that, if done right, could really enhance the model's appearance.  I wouldn't even think of starting the rigging of shrouds until this decision is made.and carried out.  Toast

Bill

Gents -

Take a look at this:  http://www.micromark.com/ho-scale-decals-with-raised-3d-rivets-and-other-surface-details,9968.html .  I haven't tried it, but it looks interesting.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    February 2003
Posted by Jim Barton on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:43 PM

I'm a latecomer here, but a very nice model so far!

"Whaddya mean 'Who's flying the plane?!' Nobody's flying the plane!"

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:51 PM

I explored the resin decal alternative:

http://www.archertransfers.com/ASSETS/SurfaceDetailsPg4.pdf

But it looked to be a very expensive solution... There are lots of bolt heads needed - I thought I'd need almost three sheets worth.  I think my approach, although more time consuming, was much less expensive and produced a very satisfactory outcome.  I'll post more pictures to give folks a better sense of the finished result.

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:36 PM

Crackers

According to the latest newsletter from the USS Constitution museum the stamp will depict the 1803 Michel Felice Corne painting commissioned by Commodore Preble.  This has the distinction of being the earliest known painting of the great ship:

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:45 PM

I alluded to the USS Constitution newsletter in the previous post...

I should take this opportunity to urge folks to make a contribution to the USS Constitution museum in this Bicentennial of the War of 1812 year...

Go to the following website and sign up for one of the annual memberships:

http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org/support/membership/

I usually get at least one chance per year to visit when I'm in town visiting the relatives.  The museum does not charge any regular admission - they rely heavily on contributions from folks like us.  I usually do the Quartermaster level and I get a very nice welcome packet that includes a color print in addition to the other regular goodies (including an annual subscription to the newsletter and a nice window sticker).  I also get regular invites to members only events and pre-openings - which I never can attend given that I live on the wrong coast.  I have recouped some of my fee with the membership discount at the museum store.

If you only contribute one time... Make it the Bicentennial year of the War of 1812.

End of sales pitch!

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 8:28 AM

Gentlemen,

This thread really stresses to me the value of sharing our ideas in a collegial fashion!  I seriously would never have known about those bolt head decals; I must check them out.  I also want to see Force9's alternative solution.

Bill

  • Member since
    May 2012
Posted by Stonemin on Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:15 PM

I just found this thread while researching my newly purchased 1/96 Connie.  I've been thinking about building it for eons, and frankly one of my hesitations was trying to figure out what to do with it when it's completed.  Someone mentioned to me a relatively inexpensive plexiglass case/cover.  Anyone have any ideas?

thanks

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • From: Jerome, Idaho, U.S.A.
Posted by crackers on Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:24 PM

Plexiglass is safer to cut, but the drawback is that it scratches easily.

Montani semper liberi. Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

                        Crackers      Geeked

Anthony V. Santos

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, May 18, 2012 8:41 AM

Stonemin

I just found this thread while researching my newly purchased 1/96 Connie.  I've been thinking about building it for eons, and frankly one of my hesitations was trying to figure out what to do with it when it's completed.  Someone mentioned to me a relatively inexpensive plexiglass case/cover.  Anyone have any ideas?

thanks

I've found some nice, reasonably priced clear plastic cases at arts and craft stores, and at hobby shops.  But none remotely big enough for that model.

The "glass vs. plexiglas" argument is a hot topic in the museum world, with legitimate points on both sides.  Some of the big ones on the pro-glass side:

1.  Some people find glass easy to cut.  (The human race seems to be divided into two parts: those who find it easy to use a glass cutter and those who, like me, don't.  I always have my glass cut by a dealer; that doesn't raise the price much.)

2.  Glass is considerably cheaper.

3.  Glass doesn't bend.  If you make a good-sized case out of plexiglas, you have to make sure the stuff you buy doesn't sag in the middle.  A plexiglas case for a 1/96 Constitution needs to be at least 1/4" thick - and 1/4" plexiglas is quite expensive.

4.  Glass is much harder to scratch.

5.  Plexiglas is electrostatic.  (At least I think that's the technical term for it.)  When light - especially sunlight - enters a sealed plexiglas box, tiny electrical charges get generated, with weird, unpredictable results.  The effect is especially disastrous if any part of the object inside the case has lead in it (including lead-based solder.)  Glass doesn't have that problem.

6.  Glass is relatively easy to keep clean, using products like Windex.

On the pro-plexiglas side:

1.  Plexiglas is easier to cut - especially if you have a table saw.

2.  Glass breaks much more easily than  plexiglas.  And when glass breaks, the flying shards can slice a ship model to ribbons.

3.  Glass cases really need to have some sort of wood or metal framework.  Particularly in small cases, that framework gets in the way of the viewer.  Lots of modern exhibit designers simply pronounce that cases wit wood frames are ugly - period.  (Personally, I don't think it's that simple.  But the issue is worth thinking about.)   Besides, making that wood or metal frame isn't easy - or cheap.  Plexiglas, on the other hand, can be glued at the corners.  (If you do it yourself, the joints will be grey and slightly bubbly.  The dealers have better ways to do it.  But those techniques cost.)

4.  The ectrostatic problem shouldn't come up if you avoid lead in the model.  And keeping a model in direct sunlight is always a bad idea - no matter how the case is made.

5.   Plexiglas can be kept clean if you use the right stuff and apply a little elbow grease.  Don't use Windex, which contains ammonia, which is a mild solvent for plexiglas.  (I wish I had a dollar for every plexiglas case I've seen in museums that has a dull, hazy look - because nobody told the janitor not to spray Windex on it.)  Mix a little dishwashing detergent (e.g., Palmolive) with water, and wipe with a clean, soft paper towel.

 Bottom line:  ya pays your money (a lot of it) and ya takes your cjhoice.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Monday, May 21, 2012 8:44 PM

BTW - Here is an image of the upcoming forever stamp commemorating the War of 1812 Bicentennial:

Strange that they would choose the 1803 representation rather than one of the many representations of the Guerriere battle...

 

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Monday, May 21, 2012 9:58 PM

Folks -

I should make mention of the sources I have been utilizing for my build...

Unfortunately there are no books out there that really satisfy me in every respect - some are certainly better than others, but all seem to have blatant flaws.  The AOTS book by Karl Heinz Marquardt is a well criticized case in point.  He seems to have invented a representation of the ship that is a hybrid between the 1927 restored version and various "historic" representations across the years cobbled together from old photographs, plans of other ships (USS President) and various paintings - not all of which trace to the War of 1812 glory years.  His omission of the Hull model is downright inexplicable.  In Mr. Marquardt's defense, it should be said that he had a much tougher job than McKay did with the AOTS for the HMS Victory.  There are many contemporary sources for the construction and refits of the Victory to reference - and ultimately McKay probably did very little archeological research beyond consulting the well researched restored version of the ship.  Same can be said for Longridge and his Anatomy of Nelson's Ships - it is essentially relying on the restored ship.  Old Ironsides is a more complicated situation - the restored ship is at most a faint glimmer of her War of 1812 configuration... Lt. John Lord seems to have restored her to an "historic" configuration without any deep effort to match her glory years... It seems like somebody tapped him on the shoulder, or otherwise whispered in his ear, and told him that he should focus on restoring the structural integrity of the ship and ensure that nobody had to come back and restore her again within their lifetimes... The historical "accuracy" was almost an afterthought with folks winking and nodding that she was brought back to her War of 1812 appearance.

Underlying all of this is the reality that we have very little extant historical documentation of her War of 1812 appearance.  When the newly appointed William Jones took over as Secretary of the Navy amid the War of 1812, he found an underfunded department in shambles with no cohesive record keeping in place to help manage the precious few ships available for battle.  He hired a bunch of extra clerks, reorganized the entire record keeping process, and ordered that all ship construction, maintenance, and provisioning records be forwarded to Washington DC for proper cataloguing.  He utilized these records to prioritize and carefully dole out the pitiful funds at his disposal where they were most needed.  Unfortunately, this meant that all of these valuable resources (at least for us future ship modelers) went up in flames when the British ungallantly sacked our capitol city and burned the public buildings and the navy yard.  That leaves folks to make assumptions on her war years appearance by extrapolating from when the written records tail off... The pre-war refit undertaken by Isaac Hull is reasonably well documented in journals and logs and is probably reflected in three dimensions by the Hull model in the Peabody Essex museum.  Most experts assume that she carried this configuration deep into the War of 1812 since the only surviving written record to contradict it shows up when Charles Stewart noted in the log that he painted a Yellow stripe on the ship on her last war cruise.  The reality is almost certainly something different... The advent of war changed the circumstances completely and likely caused the various captains of USS Constitution to restyle her as a wolf in sheep's clothing... Every captain's dream was to sail into the midst of a large convoy of merchant ships and cut out as many valuable prizes as possible before getting chased off by a ship of the line.  Every instant of doubt that a yellow stripe could introduce would be very helpful.  We see her represented in every credible painting of the period with a yellow stripe.  The record we have from Charles Stewart is interesting... He waited until he was offshore to rig up the painting platforms and repaint the stripe out of sight of prying eyes and informants on shore who might otherwise tip off the British fleet to the deception.  If Hull and/or Bainbridge overpainted the stripe, they likely did it offshore for the same reasons.  All of this leaves me inclined to refer to the contemporary paintings to guide my project.

Useful books include Old Ironsides, The rise, decline, and resurrection of the USS Constitution by Thomas Gillmer and Tyrone Martin's Creating a Legend.

The only book I anticipate using as a key reference is Howard Chapelle's History of the American Sailing Navy.  In particular I will refer to the plan view of USS President (plate 16 between pgs 265-266) for the positioning of the diagonal knees on the gun deck and the proper placement of the bitts and the various pumps. This, of course, is based on the Admiralty draughts taken from the captured ship and is very representative of this class in the war period.

For the rigging I've gone ahead and purchased the very fine Bluejacket Manual/plan set for their 1/96 wooden kit model:

In addition to many illustrations and two fold out pages for the deck structure, the manual includes many historical research notes from Cmdr Tyrone Martin as well as detailed rigging directions.  The real value is added by the terrific scale deck and rigging plans that are included (there are four full size sheets) all produced in 1/96 scale.  Highly recommended.

 

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • From: Jerome, Idaho, U.S.A.
Posted by crackers on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:28 PM

Will the real 1812 version of the U.S.S. CONSTITUTION please stand up ?

Montani semper liberi. Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

                                Crackers        Geeked

Anthony V. Santos

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Friday, June 1, 2012 9:24 AM

I am very interested in learning exactly how the Bluejacket instruction booklet and instructions are helping you . . . I might make that purchase myself!

Bill

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Sunday, June 3, 2012 10:59 PM

Bill...

Essentially the Bluejacket Manual/plan set was purchased to help me rig the beast when I eventually get to that phase... I want to respect the intellectual property of the BJ folks, but I'm sure they won't mind a small snippet to encourage other modelers to invest in their own set:

Hopefully this gives a sense of the terrific detail that the plans provide.

A funny thing happened when I went online to the BJ site to order the manual set... It finally registered in my feeble mind that the Bluejacket kit was 1/8 scale (The same as 1/96)... I had never realized that before.  When I received my packet in the mail and ripped it open I found something nearly as valuable as all the rest - the detailed parts listing.  I sent along a note to the good folks at Bluejacket asking them whether the individual parts for their USS Constitution kit were available for separate sale.  Lisa wrote back and said that would be no problem.  Bluejacket, of course, is a major supplier of model ship parts, but you will not find most of their Connie components in their catalog.  After close examination I noted some specific part numbers, placed my order, and within a very reasonable period a small box showed up:

I won't reveal all the contents... Those will show up at various points in my build log along the way, but here is an important sample:

The longest boat provided in the Revell kit would scale to about 28 feet.  That might do to represent something like the commodore's barge, but not the Pinnace (long boat).  According to Tyrone Martin, the long boat would be 36 feet in length - which at 1/8 scale would measure out to around 4.5 inches.  Fortunately the BJ kit has a cast resin version (part no. 8633) that fits the bill very nicely.

A bit of enhancement with some styrene components and this will be a real winner.

More good stuff from the Bluejacket box to be revealed as we move along...

Thanks again for your interest!

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.