Lindberg's Jolly Roger a.k.a. La Flore

Oops!  you are right, there is another gun under the mizzen channels.... Here is something else to throw into the stew.....  It is well-known that 18th century French frigates (and the same was true with French ships of the line) rarely, if ever had a gun in the forward pair of gunports, instead, using these as bridle-ports for mooring.  Some of the earlier ships didn't have a port at all, which gives them a peculiar apprearance (though this would generally be added by the British later after capture).  This was done as method of easing the weight on the forefoot, which would reduce hogging (French frigates in particular were often lightl built), and improve sailing qualities. If a chase gun was needed, the next gun in line was simply moved to the forward port for temporary use.  Once in British hands, these gunports would almost invariably be put to full use with their own designated guns (in the case of a captured ship of the line, this would often be a 68 Lbs carronade, though a frigate would have the same type cannon as the rest of the gundeck).  The point I am trying to raise is that this standard practice by the French throws all the talk about numbers of cannon assigned into a fair bit of confusion!  In fact, if you note the labelling on the 'Flore' frigate model we have been talking about, it clearly states that this is a 28 gun frigate, although the model clearly has 15 gunports a side, all of which are equipped with cannon (which would not be the case in actual service).  The 'extra cannon' could well be a simply foible of the original model-builder, and not the designer, or the ship itself.  Further, French ships on extended service overseas would also often remove a pair of guns aft as well to make better accommodations for officers, as well as to relieve the weight aft.  The British reports of 'Vestale' when captured in 1761 indicate it had 26 main guns (12 Lbs, not 8!!), which could indicate that it could be a 28, or possibly even a 30 gun ship in British use.  The point of all this is that it is very hard to decide whether or not the 'Flore Americain,' or the 'Flore' actually represent ships as built, as received, or as used, as the records for these things have long ago been lost.  All that can be definitively stated (and even this is somewhat questionable) is when the models were built, who they were built for, and what they claim to represent (and the same is true of a number of 'Admiralty' ship models too).  Nice models in any case! 

One other point; earlier in this string we discussed differences/modifications in ships after they were captured, and a very good summary of this can be found in Boudriot's 'History of the French Frigate' on page 148.  It shows a comparison set of plans for the frigate 'Concorde,' with the initial being 'as captured' in 1783, and the second after modification for British usage in 1791.  They look like completely different ships in almost every feature!

I also count 15.  The forward gunport is not easy to see with the broadside view.

Bill Morrison

Well, I count fifteen.  (The second photo is the one in which they're easiest to count.  Don't miss the one under the mizzen channel.)  I don't have the Lindberg kit in front of me, but I'm pretty sure this is the model on which it's based.

Maybe my eyes are bad, but I count 14 gunports on this model, which is not the same model as that used by the Lindberg La Flore, as was pointed out by Prof Tilley earlier in this string.  I was confused in much the same way, until rightfully corrected by the Professor.

Hello gentlemen,

This is probably not going to bring anything new to the discussion, but I'll post it anyways. I stumbled yesterday on some pictures showing La Flore of the Musee de la Marine in Paris. You can see them (in a bigger size) on www.modellmarine.de.

As already mentioned before, the pictures cleary show that this version has 15 gunports (same as the Lindberg kit).

I hope these pictures will be usefull for those who consider building - and painting - this ship!

Best regards,

Chris

I think the point that has somehow gotten lost is that captured ships don't necessarily have their decorations altered unless and/or until the ship itself is altered, and/or there is a name change.  In the case of 'Hancock/Iris,' there simply wasn't time, and/or it suited the British for political reasons not to do so (though once the ship was in the yard for its line drawings, it is quite likely the decorations were altered at that time or shortly thereafter, as it was not in the drydock just to have its lines drawn, but to be coppered, etc, etc.).  In the case of 'Vestale/Flora/Flore,' the ship was in British hands for plenty of time (years!) to have the decor changed to reflect the name change, along with any other stylistic or structural modifications considered suitable at the time.  These altered decorations would most likely have carried on along with the name when the ship subsequently passed into American hands, and then back to the French.  However, without a comprehensive examination of the model at the Musee, I can't tell you specifically what modifications were done either by the British, Americans, or the French the second time around!  What I can tell you is that there are three historic French frigate models in France, each purporting to be named 'Flore,' and each sporting remarkably similar decorations, two of which are known to have actually been built.  And on that basis, the Lindberg model really is quite suitable to portray almost any of the above (though the French 18 pounder is a bit of a stretch!).

This topic (how this thread got diverted onto it I'm not quite sure) isn't worth arguing about it.  Yes (of course) different countries had different ideas about how ships should be built, how their internal spaces should be laid out, etc.  Yes, ships got captured.  Yes, standardization of components was considered an important thing.  (In January, 1781, H.M.S Bedford got caught in a gale off Long Island and her captain ordered all her masts and yards cut away to keep her from capsizing, and another 74-gun ship, H.M.S. Culloden, ran onto the rocks and severely damaged her hull.  No spare spars were available, and the British admiral in command, Marriot Arbuthnot, was in a desperate hurry to take his fleet to sea and catch up with a French squadron that was heading southward.  So he ordered all the spars and rigging of the Culloden moved and put into the Bedford.  The squadron's crews, with no dockyard facility, accomplished the feat in about two weeks - because the components were, in effect, interchangeable.)  Yes, making a captured ship conform to those standards would be a good idea - if it was practical under the specific circumstances.  I don't think, however, that anybody's going to find a written policy from the British Admiralty or Navy Board stating "if a French ship gets captured, it shall be brought into dockyard ASAP so the knees can be replaced with larger ones." 

The first consideration when a ship got captured (assuming it was decided to take her into the Royal Navy - which in many cases, for a variety of reasons, wasn't practicable) undoubtedly would be to make good any damage.  If the top hamper had been seriously shot away, for example the replacement spars probably would be made to standard British dimensions.  (The surviving records of American spar dimensions from the Revolution indicate that, in general, American designers liked bigger sail plans than British ones did.)  But if the masts and yards were in good shape, it's highly unlikely that the ship would be ordered to make a voyage across an ocean just to get them replaced with new ones of "approved" dimensions.  Once any damage had been repaired, the next priority would be to get the ship into service as quickly as possible. 

If the ship went into a dockyard for a refit of any sort, the people responsible probably would take the opportunity to replace or update any equipment that was causing a problem.  Decorative components, like figureheads and transom carvings, surely got extremely low priority - unless, again, they were damaged in such a way as to affect the ship's structural integrity.  

In terms of the kit that started this thread - if a modeler wants to use the Lindberg La Flore (aka "Jolly Roger," aka "Flying Dutchman") as the basis for a hypothetical exercise in creating a French warship that's been captured by the British, it might be fun to create a scenario to explain whatever modifications the modeler does and doesn't feel like making.  Just about any approach probably could be justified that way. 

Correct.  In a number of cases, French ships were captured and instead of taking them into the Royal Navy, were either sold off or broken up after examination because they could not be modified to suit British usage or requirements (the 120-gun 'Le Commerce de Marseilles' is a classic example of this, and the USS Chesapeake is another).  British requirements for a ship of war were quite different from the French, and the Spaniards were something else again.  And of course, none of the French or Spanish guns would correspond to British sizes, and so all would have to be replaced at the earliest opportunity (French used 36 pounders on the lower decks vs British 32's, and the Spanish generally had only 26 pounders, carronades would need to be found, and any number of rigging changes too). 

The name of the game for the Royal Navy all through the 18th and early 19th century was about increasing standardisation of all features as much as possible (the 'establishments') to increase efficiency, reduce costs and equalise sailing performance.  The location of key things like capstans, bilge pumps, framing of the head, framing of the quarters, invariably would all have to be altered in the event of a captured French ship, which were built to suit very different requirements and Boudriot and Gardiner and many others have examined and explained these things at some length.  While in a time of crisis a captured ship might be used for a short time 'as is,' the requirements for standardisation would always be met eventually (and you can just bet that bonaventure mizzen on the 'Hancock' was the very first thing removed!).  A good book to see some of these issues in detail is 'Warships of the Napoleonic Era' by Gardiner, in which a large number of the ships' plans show not only ships 'as captured,' but also a number 'as modified,' and careful examination of these plans will reveal the extent of alterations required.

jtilley wrote:

I don't think any captured vessel "required" modifications (other than the repair of damage)before being placed into service by a rival navy.  Various parts would be replaced as needed if that was necessary to make them work; the guns, for instance, had to accommodate the available ammunition.  Other changes, if any, most likely would be made when it was practical, and affordable, to make them.  By the end of the American Revolution, for example, the British navy was, as a matter of policy, applying copper sheathing to the hulls of warships as they came into dockyards for refitting.  That seems to have included captured vessels - including the Hancock.

John:

From my reading of Gardiner's books, I think the most important aspects they would address in a captured vessel, at the earliest opportunity, would be the hull's structure not meeting with Royal Navy standards and the internal arrangements not being suited to the Royal Navy's needs. For instance, in First Frigates, Gardiner points out that French frigates were often criticized for being too lightly constructed, not having enough room for stowage of stores, and their internal arrangements not being in the traditional British layout.  

To correct the structural problems, they would need to add knees and additional fastenings, principally extra bolts to help ensure that structural elements did not work more than they should.

There was very little they could do about lack of stowage. If the captured vessel could only stow 3-4 months provisions rather than the 6-8 months generally preferred, then that vessel would not be of as much use to the Navy as their own native built ships.

The internal layouts could be altered, at least in part, to more readily conform to what was generally found in Royal Navy frigates. Most of them had their storerooms and such laid out in a generally familar pattern and it made sense to have it that way so the crews would know where to find things without too much trouble. Its also possible that this would include internal arrangement issues such as cable stowage and the location of capstans and hatches.

Russ

 

 

Awww, c'mon you guys. You know the Brits kept the rattlesnakes and "Don't Tread on Me" because they looked cool! And they probably painted a handlebar mustache on ol' John Hancock's mug, too.

The Hancock had several rather unusual features (most notably, perhaps, the shape of her bow at the level of the forecastle deck), but I can't think of any that I'd feel comfortable in labeling distinctively "American."  In fact some details of her were slightly anachronistic in 1776.  I'm pretty sure her fore tacks ran through holes in the knee of the head, rather than to the boomkins that were common in the British navy by that time.  On the other hand, surviving documents (specifically two very detailed "inventories" of the frigates Raleigh and Alliance) suggest that in other ways, American riggers were a little ahead of the game.  Both those ships apparently had separate topsail yard lifts and topgallant sheets, with the latter running through sheaves in the topsail yardarms.  The British navy, according to James Lees, did not adopt that sytem until about 1790.

The term "bonaventure mast," or "bonaventure mizzen," was common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (when the four-masted rig was common for large warships), but not in the eighteenth.  Sir George Collier's report to Admiral Howe about the capture of the Hancock said that she "has a mast in lieu of an ensign staff with a lateen sail on it."  That seems to have been a rather unusual apparatus at the time, though I suspect it wasn't utterly unknown elsewhere.  In the Francis Holman paintings both the Hancock and the Boston are rigged like that, though none of the British ships is.  Several authors have speculated at length about just how that arrangement worked.  By definition it had to be a temporary rig that could be struck in a hurry every time the ship came about, lest it get clobbered by the boom (which Collier also mentions that the Hancock had - though the Holman paintings don't show it).  The photos of my model ( http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/JohnTilleyHancock/index.html ) show my best guess, but I don't pretend it's definitive.

I don't think any captured vessel "required" modifications (other than the repair of damage)before being placed into service by a rival navy.  Various parts would be replaced as needed if that was necessary to make them work; the guns, for instance, had to accommodate the available ammunition.  Other changes, if any, most likely would be made when it was practical, and affordable, to make them.  By the end of the American Revolution, for example, the British navy was, as a matter of policy, applying copper sheathing to the hulls of warships as they came into dockyards for refitting.  That seems to have included captured vessels - including the Hancock. 

My comments were restricted to French and Spanish ships captured by the British.  It is also useful to note that other than a few short-lived peculiarities (like a bonaventure mast with a lateen), 'Hancock' was most likely built a lot closer to British standards specifications and practice than any comparable French-built frigate, and so far less modification would have been required for British service than an equivalent captured French ship.  Don't you agree?

I think I can claim to be fairly thoroughly acquainted with the career of the Hancock/Iris.  

There's room for debate, I guess, about what ship deserves the title "first sizable warship built by the Americans," but the Hancock wasn't it.  She was one of thirteen frigates authorized by the Continental Congress in December, 1775, and was launched in early July, 1776 - probably, though not absolutely certainly, on July 4.  At least two of the other eleven frigates authorized under the same authority were already afloat, the Raleigh having been launched on May 21 and the Boston on June 3.  The Randolph wasn't launched until July 10, but had fewer problems fitting out than the Hancock did. The Randolph got to sea in February, 1777; I think that made her the first of the American frigates to be "commissioned" (though I don't think that term was in formal use in the Continental Navy at the time).

The Hancock, in company with the Boston, got to sea for what turned out to be her one cruise under the American flag on May 21, 1777.  The Hancock was captured, as mentioned above, 49 days later.  She did not "sit 'in ordinary' for a fair amount of time"; the British put her into service immediately, renaming her H.M.S. Iris.   

She was kept almost constantly in service, mainly escorting convoys, for more than four years.  She made a brief stop at Plymouth Dockyard in June, 1779; at that time her bottom was coppered and, as mentioned earlier, her lines were taken off.  She was part of Adm. Marriot Arbuthnot's fleet that fought the indecisive action against the French (sometimes referred to as the Battle of Cape Henry) off the mouth of Chesapeake Bay on March 16, 1781.  She was still serving as part of the North American Squadron when, in September of that year, under the command of Adm. Thomas Graves, it fought the more famous Battle of the Chesapeake (aka Battle of the Capes) against the fleet of the Comte de Grasse.  When the two fleets separated, five days after the battle, Graves sent the Iris (ex-Hancock) and the frigate Richmond back to the Chesapeake to reconnoiter.  They were in the process of cutting loose the anchor buoys DeGrasse's fleet had left in Lynnehaven Bay when the French unexpectedly returned, and the two British frigates were captured.

The Admiralty and Navy Board records, along with the ship's log, clarify all this.  There's a brief mention in the Navy Board correspondence of the Iris's having been "Fitted for Channel service" at one point, but there's no evidence that she ever underwent any significant modification.  So far as I know, the Holman paintings (which are inconsistent; her color scheme and the number of gunports in her side vary from picture to picture - perhaps, to some extent, because of retouching by restorers) and the two sheets of Admiralty drafts are the only pictorial representations of her.  The Admiralty drafts are dated June, 1779; it's entirely possible that her ornamentation got altered sometime after that date, but so far as I know there is no documentation on that point.

The Iris spent sixteen years in French hands.  She was still afloat, serving as a powder hulk at Toulon, in 1793 when the British occupied that port shortly after the start of the French Revolution; when the British evacuated it, in 1793, the old Iris was blown up. 

Beware of terms like "always," "never," and "invariably" when talking about sailing warships.

Oh, by the way, and if you didn't know already, the French are building a replica of the French 12 pounder frigate 'Hermione' of 1778 in Rochefort, which brought Lafayette to America for the revolution.  The build has been going slowly, but they are quite well along now, and the progress can be seen at http://www.hermione.com/

 

Actually, there are a fair number of differences between a French ship and a British ship, and it was usual for the British to make these modifications.  Most of the books referring to Napoleonic and earlier captures by the British show quite a number of detail differences between 'as captured' and subsequent usage, some of which are evident in the plans.  Ordinarily, the bowsprit on a French ship would be 'steeved up' almost 20 degrees higher than the same ship in British usage.  Lowering the bowsprit usually also means changing the beakhead to accept this lowering.  The British would often add a fairly prominent forefoot on the keel, which was not favored by the French.  Capstans get moved around, bulwarks and rails on the quarterdeck and/or poop are quite a bit different, the whole transom might be altered making it more vertical, enclosed, extra gunports added, existing gunports modified, etc, etc. 

Actually, it is really quite annoying examining plans in some books that purport to be of some French or Spanish ship, but in fact the ship has been altered so much it might as well have been built in a British yard at that point!  There are some plans that actually show ships 'as captured,' and ordinarily this depended on the amount of time available to the yard and bureaucrats and designers interest.  In most other cases, plans were produced showing the ship 'as modified,' often to show the specific changes either planned or already done to bring the ship into standard British practice, and because of the nature of the changes to both stem and stern, new quarter and stern galleries would have to be built anyways, as well as new bow railing and scrollwork.  In the case of the 'Hancock,' this was the first sizeable warship built by the Americans, and the design was considered worthy of examination in depth before any modification work would take place, or consideration relative to copying any particular design features, and/or the whole design itself.  As this plan was done two years after capture, it is most likely this ship most likely sat in 'ordinary' for a fair bit of time before a dry dock could be made available (there was a war on!), and it was eventually judged that the 'Hancock' design was not really worthy of repetition. 

One other point regarding changes after capture; if the ship's name was to be changed, then the decorations were invariably changed to reflect the new name.  Changing the name of a ship was never considered good practice, both because of superstition, but more importantly to avoid repetition.  It was also considered good for morale (and bad for the enemys) to keep the name of a captured ship as a way of not only 'rubbing the enemys' nose in it,' but also as a form of propaganda elsewhere overseas (the US Navy kept the old captured British frigate 'Macedonian' around for years for this reason).  In the case of 'Flora,' La Flore' (1-4!) the decoration involves garlands of flowers around the quarter and stern pieces.  Apparently, this particular set of decorations was considered attractive enough for repetition for at least three different ships.  As 'Flora' was originally 'Vestale' (vestal virgin), my guess is you would see tastefully shy semi-nudes draped about the quarter and stern pieces in the French fashion of the day for the original decor, before changed by the British to the flowers of 'Flora,' and subsequently retained after that.

John:

I should specify that my points were mainly about the outboard appearance of the quarter galleries and stern windows. Even the changes in the frigates I spoke of did not really address the decorative details. It was mostly related to the structural stuff like the galleries and perhaps head timbers. Chances are, in the Napoleonic period, they did not make many decorative changes in captured ships except perhaps to simply remove decorative carvings entirely as a cost saving measure.

Russ 

 

 

I imagine Russ's points are valid.  But I suspect the biggest reason for the lack of change in the Hancock/Iris's appearance was the simplest one:  practicality.  To alter the figurehead and stern carvings of a ship would cost time and money, neither of which the Royal Navy of 1777-1779 had to spare.  The navy of that period (like any other in the sailing ship period) needed all the frigates it could get, and the Admiralty records of the time are full of references to cost-cutting.  Things reached the point in the latter part of the Revolution where the Admiralty banned the firing of salutes to admirals' flags, because it wanted to save gunpower.

jtilley wrote:

Incidentally - don't assume that the British made any changes to a ship they captured.  When H.M.S. Iris (ex-Continental frigate Hancock) had her lines taken off, almost two years after her capture by H.M.S. Rainbow, she still had her John Hancock figurehead, carved rattlesnakes on her transom and quarter galleries, and the words "DONT TREAD ON ME" on a carved scroll over her transom windows.

John:

Although this is really and aside, I will mention that perhaps one reason the British did not change the Hancock's outboard appearance is that it suited them not to. 

If you read Robert Gardiner's First Frigates, he shows several "as captured" plans of French and Spanish frigates, as well as a few of the plans of the same vessels after they were fitted for service in the British Navy. The British apparently went to some lengths to change, not only the internal arrangements that they felt the ship needed for its daily operation, but also the external work such as the quarter galleries and stern window arrangements. In that I can only guess they wanted the ship to appear more "British" after its capture. That may have been a strategic necessity since they needed to be able to tell a British ship from a French ship at a distance, but I do not know for sure about that.

Of course, I only have a handful of such examples to go by and such alterations may not have been the rule.  Like your discussion of the La Flore, my little paragraph is laced with conditional words. :)

Russ

 

 

Well, I guess such things depend on how picky one is.  According to Boudriot's article, the Vestale (which he thinks was probably the ship referred to in various documents as "La Flore Americaine" - but he doesn't pretend to be certain) was 41.95 meters long, 10.4 meters in beam, and had a depth of hold of 5.3 meters.  He doesn't provide measurements of the Musee de la Marine model on which the Lindberg kit is based, but he thinks the modeler based it on a class of French frigates (which had 15 gunports per side) that measured 43.45 meters by 11.2 meters by 5.4 meters.  The ship represented by the model, in other words, was a little bigger than the Vestale/"Flore Americaine." I don't remember the scale of the Lindberg kit, but the discrepancies certainly would be measured in milimeters (or, if you like fractions of an inch).  How important that is - well, that's up to the individual modeler.  The extra gunports strike me as considerably more important than the dimensional discrepancies.  And I have serious doubts about whether the deck configuration and furniture would be appropriate. 

If Boudriot is right about the Vestale and "Flore Americaine" being the same ship, she also (probably) was the one the British named H.M.S. Flora, which took part in the battle that resulted in the capture of the Continental frigate Hancock and the recapture of H.M.S. Fox on July 7-8, 1777.  If so (there are an uncomfortable number of "ifs" in this story), we have another source of information about her:  the series of four oil paintings by Francis Holman that were commissioned by the captain of the Flora.  The paintings are now in the Peabody-Essex Museum of Salem, Massachusetts:  http://www.pem.org/archives/mpd/mpd05.htm

The Flora shows most prominently in the last of the four pictures.  (She's the ship on the left.) To my eye she does look quite a bit like the Lindberg kit in a general way, except for the gunports.  (I count thirteen, but there may be a fourteenth one; my monitor isn't big enough to tell for sure.) 

I personally wouldn't use that kit as the basis for a model of this particular ship.  I'd be more inclined to follow Kapudan's approach - and perhaps give the finished model a lengthy label summarizing the story of the Musee de la Marine model, as a means of boring admirers to death.  But to each his own.

Incidentally - don't assume that the British made any changes to a ship they captured.  When H.M.S. Iris (ex-Continental frigate Hancock) had her lines taken off, almost two years after her capture by H.M.S. Rainbow, she still had her John Hancock figurehead, carved rattlesnakes on her transom and quarter galleries, and the words "DONT TREAD ON ME" on a carved scroll over her transom windows.

Well, I don't know as you have to that far, as with the exception of the extra set of gunports, this model is 'near-as-dammit' 'La Flore Americaine' (ex-Vestale).  The decorations are the same, the dimensions are the same, and the rig is essentially the same as well.  This is what has caused so much confusion!  In fact, it would not at all surprise me to find out that the '15-guns a side' version that Lindberg has reproduced was used as the basis for the 'Vestale,' and others, but with the simple change of a reduction in the number of guns by one pair, and a slight shortening of the hull by a frame or two in consequence (they may not even have done that much).  'Vestale' was but one of a class of frigates designed by Ginoux, and I have not seen any evidence to support any of them having 15 guns per side.  The original decor on the stern and bow would have assuredly been different as 'Vestale,' but is more than suitable for 'la Flore Americain,' or as the British 'Flora' for that matter (and would have been originally put on by the British).  Almost the same decor was conclusively used by the French in the building of the 18-pounder frigate of the same name, as well as the 'non-descript 'la Flore' used by Lindberg, so that gives you quite a few options!  As examples of these ships ended up in French, British, and American hands, my advice would be to build the kit as given, paint it as whatever nationality you propose, and enjoy the final product for what it is (and it really does build up into a lovely model!). 

jtilley wrote:

Vry interesting, Imperator Rex; thanks for the link. I'm not so sure about the description of the ship as having been part of D'Estaing's fleet.  Somewhere or other, a long time ago, I read an article about the various eigheenth- and nineteenth-century French frigates named La Flore.  (I wish I could find that article again; so far no luck.)  It sticks in my memory that there's some controversy among the French historians about which was which, and which one that model represents.  I believe one theory is that the model represents a ship that never actually got built.  But I honestly don't remember. Later edit:  I found the article!  I'm embarrassed to admit that it was almost literally under my nose:  in the CD version of the Nautical Research Journal, Vols. 1-40.  (That set of two CDs, by the way, is one of the biggest bargains in ship modeling or maritime history.  It can be ordered through the Nautical Research Guild website.)  A 57-year-old memory is a strange, unpredictable, and sometimes downright infuriating thing. The article in question is in Vol. 27, No. 4 (Dec. 1981), pp. 185-194.  The title is "The Frigates La Flore," and the author is none other than Jean Boudriot, dean of the history of French naval architecture in the sailing ship period.  I think we can believe what he says - with the obvious caveat that he, or some other historian, may have dug up some additional information about the subject in the past twenty-seven years. He says there were four French Frigates named La Flore (five, if one counts the first one).  The first was built in 1706.  She was actually a "barque longue," "a type of vessel that might be considered the equivalent of a corvette," but "in the early establishments of our Navy this vessel, despite its trifling power, is called a frigate at times [pp. 185-6]." The second Flore was built in 1728, and had a configuration that seems odd to non-French eyes:  a full-length gundeck with twenty-two guns on it, four light guns on the quarterdeck, and a "half battery" of four 12-pounders amidships on a deck below the full-length one - just a few feet above the waterline.  This ship ended her career as a receiving ship at Marseilles, being (apparently) broken up in 1761. La Flore Number Three was a normal-looking frigate of twenty-six guns built in 1768, to a design by a famous naval constructor named Groignard, and remained in service until 1785.  M. Boudriot describes her, and the circumstances of her design and construction, in some detail, but doesn't say much about her career beyond the fact that (p. 185) she "has a certain standing by reason of a scientifc voyage primarily devoted to the testing of marine chronometers, a cruise carried out in 1771-1772." Number Four is, it seems, known in some French circles as "La Flore, called 'American.'"  M. Boudriot says (p. 190) that "this frigate is claimed to have been a gift of the United States to France, but I venture to enter certain reservations about that assertion, because I have brought to light...the fact that on September 30, 1784 the engineers Chevillard and Penetreau drew up a document reporting on their inspection of the frigate La Flore, brought from Bordeaux to Rchefort to be sold conditionally by private parties to the King."  M. Boudriot suggests that this ship may have been confused by somebody or other with "the old frigate La Vestale (1756), taken by the British in 1761, scuttled in 1780 when Rhode Island was evacuted, raised by the Americans, and sold to France."  (I think this was the ship the British named Flora, which took part in the capture of the Continental Frigate Hancock in 1777.  The British name would help explain the confusion.  If I'm right, she was scuttled in Narragansett Bay not in 1780 but in 1778, when the Comte d'Estaing's squadron was approaching.  That, I think, was the extent of the connection between any ship with a name resembling "La Flore" and the Comte d'Estaing.)  At any rate, La Flore Number Four was sold out of the French navy in 1792, placed in service by her new owner as a privateer, and captured by the British in 1798. The fifth La Flore was built in 1804 and wrecked in 1811.  That ship was the last French sailing warship to carry the name. Now, which of these ships does the Lindberg model represent?  The answer seems (though not absolutely definitively) to be: none of them. It looks to me like the Lindberg kit and the Kennedy model were based on the same plans, which also were the basis for a famous model with the name La Flore on its transom that's in (or was as of 1981) the Musee de la Marine in Paris.  (I believe a set of modern plans based on this model is among the series published by the Friends of the Musee de la Marine; my guess is that the designers of the Lindberg kit worked from those plans.  I don't know how old the Kennedy model is - or where M. Malraux got it.  Maybe it was also built from the Friends of the Musee de la Marine plans.)  According to M. Boudriot, that model is identified as "The American La Flore," but he's established that the "American" connection is almost certainly bogus.  M. Boudriot says the Musee de la Marine model doesn't match the known characteristics of either Number Four or Number Five.  (The model has fifteen gunports on each side.  That was highly unusual; most French frigates had, at the maximum, thirteen per side.)  He spends several paragraphs establishing that the model fairly closely resembles four big French frigates, La Sylphide (1756), La Terpsichore (1763), La Renomee (1767), and L'Hebe (1757).  They were the only French frigates of the period that had fifteen ports per side.  But he doesn't think the modeler was trying to represent any of those ships accurately; the model lacks several distinctive features of each of them.  M. Boudriot also comments (p. 191) that "the rig seems to me later than the hull, withits mizzenyard converted into a gaff, an arrangement they commenced to adopt of vessels of low freeboard around the 1780s; perhaps there has been a restoration of this part of the rig?" His conclusion (p. 194) is that "the model of La Flore does not represent any of the frigates which bore that name; that the model was made between 1765 and 1770; that it may have been inspired, as regards the arrangment of it armament, by the large frigates of Groignard [the designer], yet without representing any one of them; that the maker very arbitrarily called this frigate La Flore and produced a figurehead quite in harmony with that name.  But was it he who took the initiative? This liberty astonishes me on the part of a man who had substantial knowledge such as attested by the realism of the model he made. "Briefly put, this handsome model is not of Groignard's Flore [Number Three] nor of the "American" Flore, [Number Four] but what frigate does it represent?  On this point the problem remains to be solved, if one supposes to begin with [the supposition] that the maker of the model did really desire to represent a quite specific frigate." Unless somebody produces some authoritative piece of research on this subject dating from a later date than 1981, I think we can take that as the last word on it. As I remember, the instructions in the original issue of the Lindberg kit mentioned something about the scientific voyage of 1771-1772 - the one made by La Flore Number 3.  The reference to the ship represented by the Kennedy model having served with the Comte d'Estaing is simply wrong.  Does any of the three models - Musee de la Marine, Kennedy Library, or Lindberg plastic kit - represent an actual ship?  Probably not. I think at least one of the notorious HECEPOB wood kit companies (Mamoli, Amati, or one of that crowd) used to make a La Flore kit.  (There's none currently on the Model Expo website, which is where I usually look for info on the strange realm of the HECEPOBs.)  My vague (as usual) recollection is that this kit looked remarkably like the Lindberg one.  That probably means it was based on the Musee de la Marine plans.  I frequently get up on my soapbox to rant at the HECEPOB companies and their frequent failure to do research, but in this case I have to go easy.  It seems that, deliberately or otherwise, the builder of that old model fooled a great maritime museum, at least one other excellent modeler, two ship model kit manufacturers, Les Amis du Musee de la Marine, a French novelist, and a President of the United States.  Quite an achievement.

this is what sets scholars apart. I spanked myself for missing this mountain of research in that thread Well, as my hopes to have a specific mid-18th century frigate are dashed, I think I will build it with just lower masts and bowspirit without a jibboom and call it "18th century french frigate" as Professor suggests.

I think that description by the Association des Amis probably was written before Boudriot did his research, the conclusion of which was that the model in question (the one in the Musee de la Marine, with fifteen gunports on each side) does not in fact replicate any of the actual frigates named La Flore.  The two documents (Boudriot's article in the NRJ and the description Imperator-Rex quoted) don't exactly contradict each other.

One thing I think can be said with pretty fair certainty:  the model does not represent "an American frigate" - or any other vessel built in the United States.  We have enough documentation about American frigates of the Revolutionary period to be pretty certain that they just didn't look like that.  We cannot, of course, make any such statements with absolute certainty.  But I'd be willing to bet a considerable sum of money that this is a model of a French vessel - albeit, in all probability, one that was never actually built.  (Boudriot thinks the ship sometimes referred to as "La Flore Americaine" probably was in fact the French frigate originally named Vestale, which went through a tortured and complex history before coming back to France.  See the summary of his article back on the first page of this thread.)

The concept of an old, well-executed model not representing a specific ship isn't actually so uncommon.  There are quite a few English/British "Admiralty models" around whose dimensions, decorations, etc. don't correspond precisely to any actual vessel.  One possibility, I suppose, is that the model was built to a set of drawings of a ship that was in the planning stage, or even under construction, and that the name of the ship got changed before she was launched (but after the model was finished).

I certainly recommend that anybody looking for ship plans shop around for the best price.  But "Forget Taubman" is an unjustified over-generalization. 

Taubman's Plan Service (aka Loyalhanna Dockyard) gets plans from many sources, and the prices vary tremendously.  The markup on the Musee de la Marine plans does seem high - and they're available for lower prices elsewhere.  I don't know how many intermediate hands these drawings pass through between the publishers and the final purchaser, but those intermediaries often jack up the prices considerably.  (I think that's why, a few years ago Taubman's prices for the Harold Underhill drawings suddenly skyrocketed; I don't know whether there's a cheaper source for them or not.)  But the prices of ship plans, like their quality, vary wildly.  Some of the finest modern drawings of old ships that I've ever encountered are the ones by Thomas Hornsby and William Crothers, published under the name Seagull Plans.  They cover American clipper ships, American sailing warships, and some twentieth-century American destroyers.  The prices Taubman/Loyalhanna charges for them are extremely reasonable.  The two-sheet set for the clipper Young America (two sheets that are about four feet long and two feet high, that is) costs $28.50.  That, to my notion, is a huge bargain.

My biggest criticism of Loyalhanna is that many of the listings on its website are extremely sketchy; it's often difficult to figure out just what the plans in question are.  And the organization of the site leaves something to be desired.  (All the plans for British warships are listed under "H" - for "H.M.S.")  I suspect this situation is a legacy from the days when Abe Taubman ran the operation himself - in his extremely personal, friendly, and slightly eccentric way.  The best way to deal with Abe was to show up at an NRG conference and paw through the boxes of plans he'd brought with him.  One never knew quite what would be in those boxes, but the contents were guaranteed to be interesting.  I know the current owners have been trying to sort out and organize the operation, but that must be a huge undertaking.  The website invites phone inquiries; I haven't had occasion to try that, but if I were thinking about ordering a set of plans from Taubman without knowing in advance just what they were, I'd call first. 

 

jtilley wrote:

My reading of the situation is that Lindberg based its kit on the plans published by the Association des Amis du Musee de la Marine (http://www.taubmansonline.com/ ; click on "Alphabetical List," then "Plans L-P," then on "La Flore"), which pretty clearly were based on the model in the museum.

This is what can be read on the website of the Association des Amis du Musée de la Marine: 

Model building : advanced skills and time required

Scale of drawing : 1/ 75th,
three plans , four photographs, one notice.

Notice available in French or English

By the way, concerning Taubman's website as mentioned by jtilley: it might be useful but its prices are outrageously expensive. The plans of La Flore, for instance, cost $ 105.00 at Taubman, whereas the Association des Amis de la Marine sells them for about $ 40.00 (€ 25.00). What a rip-off!!!!

Forget taubman.com, except if you are looking for ultra rare, out-of-print plans of obscure ships, and are willing to pay the price.

Touche'!  I bow to your superior research Pofessor Tilley!

Here's a post containing some pictures of a model built, more-or-less straight from the box, from the Lindberg kit:  /forums/560730/ShowPost.aspx .  (The modeler made quite a few additions and improvements, but didn't alter the basic shapes.)  As you can see, it has fifteen gunports per side. 

It's pretty clear that the kit was based on the model that M. Boudriot determined to be of a ship that never got built.  That's confirmed by the photos in his NRJ article.  I think the Friends of the Musee plans (from which the Lindberg designers presumably worked) also were based on that model - and I'm reasonably certain the one in the Kennedy Library was as well.

The older model in the Musee de la Marine - the one with the removable underwater planking - seems to represent the Vestale/Flora/Flore Americaine.  (M. Boudriot, by the way, seems to regard the latter label as a strictly informal nickname - but he wrote that article a long time ago.  Mr. Winfield may have some more recently-discovered data.)  But it doesn't match the Lindberg kit. 

The Lindberg kit represents a ship that, so far as M. Boudriot was able to determine (and to my knowledge no serious authority has ever refuted him on this point), never existed.  The only real reason to call it "La Flore" (normally a persuasive reason, admittedly) is that that name is carved on the stern of the Musee de la Marine model on which the kit was based.  But neither that model nor the kit matches the documented characteristics of any French frigate that actually bore the name. 

Perhaps the best approach for a modeler working from the kit would be to label it "Generic Eighteenth-Century French Frigate," and leave it at that.  Or (gag) call it "Jolly Roger" or "Flying Dutchman."

...And to add to the confusion, 'Vestale' was apparently built in Le Havre to a Ginoux design in 1756, and there was also a 'Flore' 8 pounder built to a Groignard design in 1769, and both were taken by the British (which is probably why 'Vestale' became 'Flora,' and 'Flore' retained her name....).....

I think there may be some confusion..... There are THREE frigates in the Musee de la Marine named 'Flore,' or La Flore.'  One is an 18 pounder, which is the subject of much scrutiny by Boudriot in 'The History of the French Frigate,' and which does not concern us here.  The second is a later reproduction of a ship based on some plans, which is apparently what you are referring to with 15 gunports per side.  This ship can be seen at:  http://www.chez.com/rimbr/flore01.htm

But the model I am referring to is this one:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:French_frigate_Flore_Img_0350.jpg

And if you count the gunports of this model, you will see there are 14 gunports per side, not 15.  This is the same model I referred to before.  Note, it is not the same model that I mentioned above, and is quite old too (and also has the bottom open on one side so you see storage arrangements).  This model also has an information plate that comes with it at the Musee that states it is originally 'Vestale,' captured by the British, refloated by the Americans and sold back to the French, etc, etc.  Now as the Musee de la Marine has had a long and fruitful affair with Jean Boudriot for many years, I would think that if there was a problem with their display or identification, this would have been altered sometime between now and 1981.  I certainly agree that the first 'Flore' model above has 15 gunports, and fits all of the criticisms by Boudriot, and probably was not built.  But it ain't the same model, and the older model fits the Lindberg version quite well (I don't think anyone is faulting Lindberg on the model, just on their 'potted history.'  Please have a look at both the reference photos I have listed above, and see for yourself if they are the same.  Also something to note is that the lateen spanker on the mizzen would have been immediately replaced with a gaff by the British, and would have been retained as such on the return of the ship from America.

Folks, in treating and discussing that Lindberg kit we need to bear one overwhelmingly significant point in mind.  According to M. Boudriot's article in the Nautical Research Journal, which I have no reason not to trust, the model in the Musee de la Marine (on which the Lindberg kit quite clearly was based) represents a ship that was never built.  It is not a replica of La Vestale/H.M.S. Flora/La Flore Americaine.  (M. Boudriot's article contains some photos of a beautiful model of that ship, also in the Musee de la Marine.  The two are superficially similar, but that's about all.)

So a model built from the Lindberg kit is not going to be a literal representation of an actual ship.  So the modeler is in the pleasant position of letting his/her personal preferences and taste rule.  There is, for instance, no point in worrying about whether it ought to be copper-sheathed or not.  Copper sheathing was coming into use in the British and French navies at the time when the ship represented by the kit would have been build (if she had been built, which she wasn't); during the American Revolution some ships in both navies were coppered and some weren't.  (I am unaware of any evidence that any American-built ships were copper-sheathed prior to the end of the Revolution.) 

Many published sources have been thoroughly confused by the plethora of ships named Flore and Flora.  (I don't blame them a bit.  I read that Boudriot article thoroughly a couple of weeks ago, and at this point I couldn't begin to sort them all out without looking at the article again.)  I think that article is the best, most reliable source - but I'll emphasize again that, in view of the fact that the Lindberg kit was originally issued more than a decade before M. Boudriot did his research, it's hardly fair to criticize Lindberg for making the same mistake that lots of eminently-qualified people had made. 

This current thread has aroused my curiosity so I referred to British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714 - 1793 by Rif Winfield.

He records the ship Flora (French La Vestale) taken in1761 by Unicorn.

Her armament is given as UD 26 X 12pdrs, QD 4 X 6pdrs, Fc  2 X 6 pdrs.

She was scuttled at Rhode Island in 1778 to prevent her capture by the French, later salvaged by the Americans who sold her back to the French in 1784 as La Flore Americaine.

She was again taken by the Royal Navy in 1798 but was not added to the service list.

Rif Winfield's two volume record of ships serving in the British Navy between 1714 and 1817 does not show a ship specifically called Flore, only several named Flora, (there was a Flora class of Frigates) The La Vestale is the only prize given the name Flora when taken into service