Question: Revell 1/96 Constitution

John:

I agree that McNarry's model is very beautiful. The only problem with it is that his decorative scheme has since been found to be mistaken. He built that model several yars before they found and identified the early 19th century watercolors by Corne' that clearly showed her carved details, especially those at the stern. Just bad timing.

Other than that, ther McNarry model holds up quite well, I think, with modern research of the Constitution. I recall that he wrote he had built 6-7 different models of the Constitution. He is one of the finest craftsmen of our age. His Navy Board models and clipper ships are mind boggling. I wish I could build that small and be that good. It would solve my model storage problem. :)

Russ 

 

 

The Smithsonian has two models of the Constitution.  (Actually maybe more than two; two that I'm familiar with.)  One is a big, 1/48-scale one that was built by (if I remember right) a commercial firm called the Arthur Henning Company back in the late fifties.  This is the one for which the Smithsonian commissioned the plans by George Campbell, on which the Revell kit is also based.

The other Smithsonian Constitution is an incredible 1/192-scale one by the great modern modeler Donald McNarry.  I saw this one on my first visit to the Smithsonian, back in about 1966, when I was in high school.  It's one of the finest, most detailed models I've ever seen; it depicts the ship in her as-built configuration.  Some years after that, the museum took it off exhibit.  When I got a job as a curator at the Mariners' Museum, in 1980, I made arrangements to borrow the McNarry model.  (Driving down from DC to Newport News with that model in the back of a station wagon was a neurotic experience.)  It was still on exhibition at the MM when I left in 1983.  I believe the MM has given it back to the Smithsonian since then.

I last went to the Smithsonian's Museum of American History three years ago, when the new American military history gallery had just opened.  My opinion of that exhibition is, in general, extremely high.  But I was somewhat dismayed to note that scarcely any ship models were in it.  Neither of the Constitutions was anywhere to be seen - nor were various other important, beautiful models that used to be exhibited prominently.  Tastes in museum exhibition design change over time; I guess ship models are out of favor at the moment. 

The Museum of American History is currently closed for a major renovation.  (I believe it's scheduled to reopen in summer '08.)  One of the big projects in progress now is a major refurbishing of the "Hall of Maritime Enterprise," which deals with non-naval maritime history.  In its old form it contained lots of ship models.  I'm holding my breath waiting to see how many of them have vanished from public view when the new gallery opens.

The Naval Academy Museum at Annapolis has another 1/192 Constitution by Donald McNarry - almost identical to the Smithsonian one.  (The man is simply amazing.)  I'm not sure whether it's currently on exhibit; I do know that the staff of that museum does appreciate ship models.  The relatively new gallery in the basement of the building, in which the famous Rogers Collection of "Admiralty models" is displayed, is one of the best ship model exhibition facilities in the country - if not the world.

The Naval Academy Museum has a model that also probably belongs on that "top ten" list of most important American ship models:  the model of the brig Fair American, from the American Revolution.  That one has (with the Naval Academy Museum's encouragement) been the subject of several excellent articles in the Nautical Research Journal, which examined its provenance, the existing documentation about it, and just about every other aspect of it.  The museum also cooperated with Model Shipways, which offers a wood kit based on the model. 

I have no idea whether anybody's ever approached the Peabody-Essex Museum about moving the "Hull model."  I strongly suspect the museum would be unwilling to part with it.  My wife and I were up at Salem last summer, and I had a chance to take a look at how the model is currently being treated.  I did a post about it here in the Forum when I got back; here's the link: 

/forums/818443/ShowPost.aspx

I don't accuse the Peabody-Essex Museum of mistreating the model.  But I do think it needs to be the subject of a more serious research and publication project than, to my knowledge, has been devoted to it so far.  I've given some thought to doing an article about it, but in all honesty I don't think I could afford it.  Even if the museum agreed to the proposal, to do it right would entail taking up residence in Salem for quite a while, and that's just beyond my - and, I'm pretty certain, the museum's - means for the time being.

I am amazed that the Smithsonian or the US Navy hasn't offered to aquire the model for the Museum of American History or for display at Annapolis. Well, maybe they have but the museum refused their offer. I'm not familliar with what other models might be considered for "most" significant but certainly this piece is much more significant than just being a model, it is a historic relic from the founding of the country, a touchstone, and national treasure and as such its value is far more important than just being an important model. This artifact should be given the greatest possible effort to insure its preservation. 

For the wealthy, have a look at this!  http://www.rchobby.co.uk/rc_uss_constitution.html

I don't have a definitive answer to this one, but I think jpk probably got it right:  the davits got omitted from the Hull model "for construction simplicity by the builder."  I got to spend a little while staring at that model last summer.  It really is an intriguing artifact.  The rigging is quite remarkable in its sophistication and accuracy.  The hull and deck furniture, on the other hand, are by any reasonable definition downright crude.  Just as one example - the guns are extremely simplified in shape, and are mounted on carriages that have no trucks; each gun is secured to the deck by a huge nail whose head is visible.  Lots of major components simply aren't there - and their absence certainly doesn't mean the real ship didn't have them.  It's pretty obvious, for example, that the model has no steering wheel because making one was beyond the capacity of the modeler.  I suspect the davits are in the same category.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  I wish the Peabody-Essex Museum would commission, and publish, a really thorough study of that model.  It could reasonably be described as one of the half-dozen most important American ship models in existence, but I have the impression that scarcely any serious research has been done on it.  That it was once owned by Isaac Hull seems beyond doubt; a statement to that effect is painted, in lettering that certainly looks as old as the rest of the model, on the side.  I'm not sure how much more than that is actually known about it.  It seems to be assumed that it was built by one or more members of the ship's crew during the War of 1812, but I'm unclear about just why that assumption is made.  (I've never seen any actual documentation of the model's provenance; I have no idea how much documentation about it the museum has.)  At the moment, the computerized "label" in the gallery claims the guns on the model can actually be "fired."  That one I just don't believe.  (They're just little chunks of wood with holes crudely drilled in their muzzles.  If they'd ever had any sort of explosive put in them and set on fire, they surely would show some evidence of the experience.)  There's a story that the model originally had "firing" guns, which were "fired" on some ceremonial occasion or other with the result that the model got damaged, and had to be repaired.  I have my doubts about that; it may be a legend.  If it's true, just what did the "repairs" consist of - and who made them?  And when?  Some sort of conservation seems to have been done fairly recently; a few of the original, crude belaying pins have been replaced by nice, shiny brass ones that certainly look like products of a ship model kit manufacturer. 

This model deserves a published monograph - or at least a thoroughly-researched article in a journal.  If nothing else, it would be nice to know exactly what genuine, reliable documentation about it exists.  (Maybe none whatever.  Or maybe the museum has a fat file folder of nineteenth-century documents about it.  I have no idea.)  Unfortunately, though, recent developments at that institution, while turning it into a superb museum of art and anthropology (one of the best in the country), seem to have led to a slight reduction in emphasis on its maritime collections.

Perhaps I should have been a little more precise with my question. I know the ship may have carried them at various times in her career, I was just curious about the time frame that the Revell kit is supposed to represent, ~1812-1814. I would think that the model would at least have had the davits for the boats if they may have been present at the time. Of course I realize that they may have been omitted for construction simplicity by the builder. Just a curiosity question.

The small boat complement of sailing warships changed a great deal over time.  The Revell kit is based on the research done by a fine naval architect and marine artist named George Campbell on commission from the Smithsonian.  I think he gave the ship a pretty representative assortment of boats.  (I know there are a couple of contemporary lists of the boats officially assigned to American warships at various dates; I'll do some digging.)  My inclination is to think the Revell kit's boats are entirely reasonable.