Constitution running rigging question - where do the fore and fore topsl braces go?

Modeling Subjects Ships
1

Hello all -

A question on the running rigging of the Constitution. I am still working on my Revell 1:96, but I just scored a big hit on e-bay with a Bluejacket Constitution for way less than list. The rigging diagrams differ somewhat. My biggest concern is the fore braces. In the Revell rigging plan they run back to the main top and then down to the mainmast pinrails. In the Bluejacket plans, they start at the mainstay near the main top, run to the yard end, then back to a block tied to the mainstay, and then run roughly parallel to the mainstay and down to the FORE pinrail. Does anyone know what standard rigging practices were in effect around the war of 1812? Which of these are correct for that era?

Thanks in advance,

Jose Gonzales

2

Hello Jose,

Based on my emassed knowledge of rigging, mu suggestion is as follows: Be forwarned that my ideas are not kosher with some others on this site.

Let’s say you are working on your revell kit. From the main spar rigt side run the thread up to the fore on the left side. let it drop to any pin available under it. From there, and this is very important, stand over your model with string in hand. create large circles while letting loose the line. then tie of to the nearest pin.

OK it is a little unorthodox, but it might work. Maybe. Well almost maybe. OK, at least you have thread on it.good enough.

Egads, I can hear Prof Tilley walking in his Christmas slippers just waiting to hound on me for this one. therefore, everything I said above is Nil. Wrong. Do not do it. Just look at the thread, decide on witch version of riging to use and stay with it. I would elect bluejackets idea first.

Ah dmn, I can already feel I am wrong. Anyway Jose, help is on the way. That is what this group does bestou may need to wait post holidays, so hang tight bro.

Robert

3

I think I can find an answer to this question, but it’ll take me a little while. At the moment I’m in Texas, paying a holiday visit to the grandkids, and my books are back in North Carolina. If somebody else doesn’t provide an answer before I get home I’ll do some digging.

My preliminary reaction is to think Bluejacket is more reliable. Revell undoubtedly simplified the rigging a bit.

4

The drawings in the book “Anatomy of the Ship USS Constitution” seem to agree with what you descibed the Bluejacket plans to show. The belaying pin drawings are missing some lines- neither the main nor fore course braces are shown, but the fore topsail braces are shown as terminating at the foremast pinrail. I suspect the fore brace shoudl be there as well.

-Bill

5

I agree with Dr. Tilley, the Revell plan is the least reliable.

General practice in the early 19th century was to run the fore course braces from the main stay to the yard and back through a block suspended from either the main top or main stay, then down to belay at the posts of the main jeer bits. The top’sl braces ran from the main stay to the yard, back to a block on the main stay, along the stay to another block on the stay (above the fore skid beam) and then down to the ends of the fore skid beam (not to the fore pin rails). By running the braces, clews, buntlines, leechlines etc.from ‘interior’ belaying points for the course yard (or at the extreme stern for the main course), tops’ls and t’gallants, interference between the crewmembers running the primary battle sails and the gunners at the bulwarks was reduced.

Of course, nothing was universal in ship rigging, and some battle sails had to be controlled from the bulwark pin rails (staysails, jib, etc.) and primary yard braces were sometimes even belayed to cleats attached to the lower shrouds. The Captain or Mate may have chosen to change things a bit based on their armament, experience and preference.

I hope to have a more definitive answer when my “Anatomy of the Ship, 44 Gun Frigate Constitution” shows up. For the amount of time invested by anyone building the 1/96 Revell kits, the AOS book is a cheap investment. Check it out at:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591142504/qid=1135481036/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2095840-1983224?n=507846&s=books&v=glance[](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591142504/ref=pd_sim_b_1/002-2095840-1983224?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155)

Enjoy and Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or whatever you feel like celebrating!

6

As I mentioned in my first reply to this thread, I have a copy of this book as well. I think it is a nice book, and certainly is fun to look through.
However, keep in mind that it does have some errors-- for example, the belaying diagram has a entry in the legend for the for for braces, but the number doesn’t appear in the drawing.

This book was discussed on the Seaways modeling list back in October. Jim Krauzlis, a knowledgable Constitution Modeler, IMO, posted the following evaluation of the book:
Well, I have to be honest, I have found quite a few problems with the
research and conclusions made by the author. Now, I know how difficult it
is to research such a subject, there are so many holes and sources to
consider before making any determination of the proper configuration of the
vessel. What I am finding, however, is the author has made very little
reference to primary sources and very good secondary sources that are well
know to those who have spent some time researching this vessel. There are
very good, historically accurate books by Ty Martin and Bass, and a
fantastic and accurate book as part of the Bluejacket kit which are not
referred to; in fact, some of the author's conclusions are in direct
conflict with the findings of these naval historians, as well as my own
research. I fear he has placed too much reliance on secondary and third
hand sources whose historical accuracy has been shown by subsequent research
to be wrong.

I could go into many instances, but one that really struck me was the
apparent resurrection of the lore that she had a figurehead of Neptune upon
her return from the Mediterranean following the Barbary Wars. The author
claims she was fitted with a Neptune figurehead (no apparent reference for
that statement) when it is pretty well settled now that there is no
historical basis for that concept.

The narrative and history section have many such errors which really casts
doubt on the basis upon which the author approached this project. There is
reliance on sources which are well beyond the period in question, that is,
1812, and actually reflect later modifications that did not exist in 1812.
It actually seems the author took most of his information from the 1929
restoration and books written about that time, which is not an accurate
representation of what we now know to be historic fact. The thing that
bothers me the most is the complete failure to consider the Hull model built
by the crew in 1812, and shown to be an accurate 1/48 scale model of the
ship as she appeared at that time, and a questionable analysis of the four
contemporary paintings by Corne of her encounter with Guerriere under Hull.
Another example: the waist area is shown by the author as having a single
line of stanchions and a single canvas waist cloth, which does not match the
Hull model's configuration. His drawings of the fife rails are wrong,
showing squared rails where she actually had rounded ones, and having a fife
rail at the mizzen when she actually had a spider bridle on the mast. He
also shows a sky light on the quarterdeck which there is no support for
during 1812 and his list of guns ignores a contemporaneous memorandum by a
crew member from 1812. There are others, but I trust you get the idea.

I am currently studying his rigging plans but the first thing I noticed is
the utter lack of reference to any Bentinck shrouds, which we know she had
and which are shown on the Hull model. I don't mean to rain on the parade,
but these mistakes should be kept in mind when referring to this book.

These are all my personal opinions based on my research over the years
including contemporaneous, primary sources and research from others based on
the same type of historical support. I fully appreciate the amount of time
and effort the author must have invested in this book, and the difficulties
of trying to pull together accurate information about this ship, since she
has evolved quite a bit other the years, and the potential pitfalls of
relying upon earlier books which seem to embrace ideas that have no
historical basis in fact. It's not easy, but my feeling is the author would
have done better to find out more about what was available from primary
sources from the relevant period he was writing about (1812), not second and
third hand sources which are out of date and inaccurate. He really should
have been aware of not only the Hull model but also the work done by Ty
Martin, Bass and others who have spent a good deal of their lives
researching this ship, and upon whose work we can build upon with
confidence.

Again, the above comments are Jim's , not mine, but I think they are valid criticisms of the book. Still, I think there is lots of usefull info in the book- I just wouldn't use it as my sole reference.

-Bill

7

I still haven’t received my AOS Constitution yet, but I did look through the Nautical Research Guild’s ‘Ship Modeler’s Shop Notes’ from 1979 and found a belaying plan for the Constitution attributed to Col. W. F. Spicer (p. 197).

Relative to the foresail braces, this diagram is consistent with the Revell instructions…

Dr. Tilley?

8

Well, I got back from Texas in one piece (complete with luggage, unlike last Christmas’s trip, when the airline managed to lose it - twice). I’ve done some digging about this interesting rigging question, but I’m afraid what I’ve found isn’t going to remove much mud from the water.

The source I’d really like to consult is the so-called “Isaac Hull model” of the Constitution in the Peabody-Essex Museum of Salem, Massachusetts. Most modelers probably are familiar with it. It apparently was built for presentation to Captain Hull during or shortly after the War of 1812. The workmanship in its hull, deck, and fittings is crude, but the rigging is extremely well detailed. The person responsible for the rigging obviously knew exactly what he was doing. Unfortunately the only photos of the model I could find in my modest book collection are too small to resolve this particular issue.

The next-best source I know of is James Lees’s The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, 1625-1860. That book obviously doesn’t deal with American ships, but I think it’s generally accepted that American riggers generally (though by no means universally) followed British practice.

According to Mr. Lees, the braces of the fore yard, “up to 1805, altered very little in the method of rigging, the standing part being always made fast tot he stay, the running part reeving through a block either on the stay or stay collar, then down to the deck.” He goes on to explain that “in about 1805 the blocks previously carried on the stay wer sized to eyebolts at the bibs of the main mast, and in about 1815 the pendants were dispensed with and the blocks were stropped to the yard with dog and bitch strops.” In one photo of the Hull model I think I can see the fore braces running through blocks on pendants that are hitched to the mainstay just below the collar, then through lead blocks under the tops and thence down to the pinrail forward of the mainmast. But it’s awfully hard to tell. In that same photo it looks like at least one skinny line is running down parallel to the forestay; that could be the hauling end of one of the fore braces. But it could also be some other piece of rigging. The photo just isn’t clear enough.

The story regarding the fore topsail braces, according to Mr. Lees, is more complex. He provides (pp. 86-87) a pair of drawings showing how the lead varied over the years. For the period 1805-1830, the standing end of the brace is made fast to the main topmast stay collar. It then leads through a block at the end of the yard, then through a lead block on the mainstay just below the collar, then through another lead block “under the forward part of the maintop” to the deck.

The bottom line here is that Mr. Lees seems, in general, to agree with the Revell rigging diagram.

I have a great deal of respect for Ms. Lees, but I do think his book tends a little bit in the direction of the dogmatic. It covers an enormous amount of ground, and occasionally (in very minor ways) contradicts itself. (My copy has quite a few notes and queries that I jotted down while I was working on my model of the frigate Hancock. Actually rigging a model according to the book inevitably brings out problems that don’t show up otherwise.) I’m sure he’d be the first to acknowledge that the rigging practices he describes - and the dates he assigns to them - were not universally applicable to every single ship (especially to American ones).

I haven’t seen the Bluejacket kit, but it’s my understanding that the people responsible for it put a great deal of effort into the research. (They almost certainly studied the Isaac Hull model.) I’d think twice before ignoring anything on those plans.

I fear I have just used up quite a bit of space making no real contribution to the discussion. Sorry about that. I’ll keep looking. I want to see what Steel’s Elements of Rigging and Seamanship and Lever’s Young Officer’s Sheet Anchor have to say about the subject.

9

I have a general question on this topic:

I understand that the Revell model is based on the Smithsonian’s model, and I understand that iti si a pretty faithful reproduction. (A model of a model?)

But, I’ve never read anythign on the history of the Smithsonian model-- who made it and when? What period is it supposed to be representing? (As I understand it, it is NOT 1812-- that there are some differeneces between it and the Hull model, and the Hull model has a certain provenance to it that makes it hard to refute!)
-Bill

10

It’s been a long time since I’ve done any serious reading about the Constitution, and quite a bit of new research about her has been done since then. So take the following with an even bigger grain of salt than usual.

My recollection is that the Smithsonian model (and the Revell kit, which is based on it) was built by a firm called the Arthur Henning Company back in the late fifties or very early sixties. (The Revell kit was originally released in 1965.) The plans were drawn, under contract from the Smithsonian, by George Campbell - one of the best in the business. (I’ve never actually seen those plans, but the Smithsonian sells copies of them.) They were intended to represent the ship as she appeared in 1814.

The “Hull model” is, in terms of its hull, deck, and fittings, extremely crude; it gives only a general impression of how the ship looked. (It has no steering wheel, the gun carriages are simple blocks of wood with no wheels, and each gun, if I remember right, is held in place by a huge nail with its head showing.) I suspect Mr. Campbell took a good look at it, but for the hull and deck features he probably relied more heavily on another source: the Admiralty drawings of the *Constitution’*s sister ship, the President. The latter was captured late in the War of 1812 and taken to England, where some Admiralty draftsmen did us the great favor of taking off her lines and making a reasonably detailed set of drawings of her.

The rigging of the Hull model seems to have been done by a different individual from the one who built the hull. The rigging is remarkably detailed; the person responsible for it obviously knew exactly what he was doing. My recollection - which is mighty old at this point - is that the Smithsonian model’s rigging follows the Hull model’s rigging pretty closely. (I should emphasize again that I haven’t looked at either of them in person for quite a few years.)

The Smithsonian model represents the state of research into the ship’s history as it existed in the early sixties. A few additional bits of information about her have come to light since then, but in my opinion the model holds up remarkably well.

On a slightly sad note - a few months ago I paid a visit to the Smithsonian’s huge, new permanent exhibition on American military history. In general I think it’s a first-rate exhibition; it covers the topic about as thoroughly as it can be covered in that amount of space. And the Vietnam section (the first major museum exhibition in the U.S. to deal head-on with that conflict) is remarkably effective in explaining a controversial and complex subject without taking sides on still-sensitive issues. The bad news: almost all the ship models that used to be in that part of the Smithsonian are gone. The old military history gallery used to include two Constitution models: the big one we’ve been discussing and an absolutely exquisite one on 1/192 scale by Donald McNarry. Both of them apparently are now in storage - along with Bob Bruckshaw’s beautiful Revolutionary War frigates, the huge 1/48 Missouri, and almost all the other warships that used to bring me to that gallery. The museum profession, for better or worse, tends to operate in cycles and to follow trends. Apparently ship models just aren’t “in” at the moment.

11

What a shame. I was in Washington DC just in November on business for a week, with very little time to sightsee, so I spent much of my free time in the Holocaust Museum, which I had never seen before (with which I was thoroughly impressed and moved), but did not make it to the maritime section of the Smithsonian. I’m especially sad to hear that the McNarry model is off display - I remember his book “Ship Models in Miniature” and it had a wonderful model of the Constitution as it putatively appeared in her earliest days. The level of detail he was able to achieve at such a small scale (much smaller than the 1/96 of both the Revell and Bluejacket kits) is amazing, and his representation has lead me to believe that the original appearance of the ship was far more beautiful then than she has looked since then.

I stand corrected regarding the Bluejacket’s rig of the fore braces. I based my assumptions on a photograph of a completed model, and it had the braces running ultimately to the fore fiferail. I received the actual Bluejacket kit yesterday, examined the plans, and found very specific instructions on how to rig these braces. From the instruction book:

“(Fore) Braces…Standing end hitched around mainstay collar. Led through 3/16 single brace blocks at yardarm to 1/8 double block stropped to main preventer stay collar to 1/8 single block seized to FWD shroud. Belay to main fiferail.”

This follows the Revell plans in general- the Revell plans lack the blocks rigged to the main preventer stay collar and go straight to the blocks on the shrouds and down to the main fiferail. This rig is corroborated by Schoonerbum’s excellent pix of the Peabody Museum’s Hull model (Thanks Schoonerbumm!)

On the other hand Revell and Bluejacket diverge regarding the fore topsail braces. From Bluejacket’s instruction book:

“Fore Topsail Braces: …Standing end hitched around the main topmast stay collar. Led through 1/8 single brace blocksat yardarm to 1/8 single blocks on FWD end of main topmast trestletrees. Through maintop to main fiferail.”

The Revell plans have the fore topsail braces run to the mainstay, right next to the Fore braces, a setup again corroborated by the Hull model. Bluejacket has them instead run from and to the main topmast stay and main topmast crosstrees, adjacent to the fore topgallant braces.

Wolfram Zu’s website shows diagrams regarding how braces were run, and it differentiates between 18th and 19th century rigs. Among other things, the diagrams suggest that the fore braces used to be run from the mainstay collars to the yardarms, back to the collars, and then down and forward to the fore fiferail before the turn of the century, while they ran down to the main fiferail after the turn of the century. Further, the HMS Surprise (formerly HMS Rose), currently residing here in San Diego, has the fore braces rigged to the fore fiferail. I’m inclined to stick to the Peabody model’s rig. I’ll follow the Bluejacket rig for the fore braces and the Revell kit’s plans for the fore topsail braces.

By the way, the Bluejacket kit is impressive. The kit I won on E-Bay is vintage 1991, but in excellent condition. I know that the kit was updated in 1997 to celebrate Old Ironside’s bicentennial celebration. I wonder if the update included any modifications to the rigging plans.

One more question regarding the Bluejacket kit. The Britannia fittings are impressive, but the gun carriages in the kit are made of this metal also. How would one go about installing ringbolts and eyebolts on these carriages to rig the tackles? Will I need to resort to wooden gun carriages to be able to do that? Has anyone used metal gun carriages for their sailing ship models?

Sorry this post is so long. I don’t get much opportunity to post, and so when I do I have a tendency to have “diarrhea of the mouth”.

Jose Gonzales

12

I’m afraid the Smithsonian has simply lost interest in ship models. Unfortunately, said loss of interest has been going on for a long time.

I first saw that McNarry Constitution model when I was in high school and my parents took me on a vacation trip to DC. (That must have been in about 1965 or 1966.) Sometime during the next fifteen years it got taken off exhibition. When I got my job at the Mariners’ Museum, in 1980, I made arrangements for that museum to borrow the model and put it on exhibition in what was then called the “Sea Power Gallery.” (Driving down I-95 with that model - carefully crated - in the back of a station wagon was more than a little nerve-wracking.) When I left the MM in 1983 the model was still there. Sometime thereafter the gallery got renovated and, I gather, the model got sent back to Washington. At any rate, I haven’t seen it since.

McNarry built several models of the Constitution. Another one, almost identical to the Smithsonian version, belongs to the Naval Academy Museum at Annapolis. I’m not sure, but I think that one is on public display. (The last time I was there, I got so fascinated by the new gallery in the basement, where the old “Board Room” models are exhibited, that I didn’t have time to tour the rest of the museum.) The Naval Academy Museum, unlike the Smithsonian, has several staff members who appreciate, and are deeply interested in, ship models.

Regarding the Bluejacket gun carriages - Britannia metal is a nice, workable material. You shouldn’t have any trouble drilling holes in it, and such things as eyebolts can be fastened to it quite effectively with CA adhesive (superglue). In terms of flexibility, density, and so on it actually works with tools remarkably like styrene - except that it bends (and re-bends) more easily and requires different adhesives.

13

Hello all,

I contacted Bluejacket Shipcrafters and Jim Krauzlis by e-mail. I thought you might be interested in the responses I got

from Bluejacket:

Dear Mr. Gonzales:

There is very good historical evidence supporting BlueJacket’s rigging plan of the USS CONSTITUTION. My dear friend, Mr. Larry Arnot, researched and created the plans for BlueJacket’s CONSTITUTION. Mr. Arnot, who passed away approximately 4 years ago, was a member of the Board of Governors of the CONSTITUTION Museum. As such, he spent approximately 3 years in the CONSTITUTION Museum Library researching her, based upon deck logs and maintenance records. Utilizing these sources, he recreated her sail plan as she was rigged during the War of 1812. Based upon the accuracy of his research, the Museum has adopted BlueJacket’s kit of the CONSTITUTION as the official model.

Further, from a mechanical advantage point of view, it makes more sense for her to be rigged in the manner in which we have her depicted. I will not categorically state that all other models are inaccurate, but I do believe that our model is supported by historical evidence and common sense.

Jeff Marger, President
BlueJacket Shipcrafters Inc.

From Jim Krauzlis:

Hi, Jose!

Thanks for your note and question on the rigging for the 1812 Constitution fore topsail yard.
I believe by following the Hull model, you will be following the best possible primary source for the correct rigging of Constitution from that time period. The rigging scheme follows the Brady book on rigging of American warships (the earlier editions, not the subsequent revisions that reflect a later time period). The Hull model has been found to be a very accurate rigging scheme, following the earlier Brady edition quite well, and I would rely on the model more so than anything published since then.
The Arnot plans, as do the Model Shipways plans, seem to follow the current rigging scheme by showing the braces running higher up on the main mast…based, it seems, on the 1929 restoration plans, which are not a historical representation of her 1812 configuration.

The Brady book, unfortunately, at least the earlier version which reflects the correct American practice from the 1812 era, is long out of print and not readily available. Luckily we have the Hull model, which as you probably know, was built by crewmembers under Hull in 1812, and their model is a very accurate representation of the proper 1812 configuration. Why Arnot apparently discounted that source is not known to me, but I feel if you follow the rigging scheme on that model your reliance on would be very well placed. As an aside, one of the best historians on Constitution, Cmdr. Ty Martin, helped Arnot in his research, but Ty Martin would most likely have referred to the Hull model…why this aspect is not consistent is, again, not clear as I know Cmdr. Martin is well aware of the 1812 Hull model and, if there were a question on inconsistent rigging schemes I would have expected Martin would follow the Hull model.

Hope this helps!

Cheers!
Jim Krauzlis

Mechanically, I can see the Bluejacket point of view. The downward angle, and therefore the downward force exerted on the yard, imposed by rigging to the mainstays is severe compared to the relatively horizontal force exerted on the yard when the braces are rigged higher up. It makes for more efficient use of force when the force is in the same plane as the axis of rotation of the yard.

On the other hand, as Mr. Krauzlis says, the books about American rigging practices, and of course the Hull model, argue on the other side.

A third option is the one suggested by Mr. Lees’ book as mentioned above by Mr. Tilley, where the brace starts up high at the main crosstree region, runs to a block attached to the yardarm, then down under the main top at the mainstay collar. This description is similar to William Gillmer’s reconstruction drawings of Constitution in his book (Old Ironsides - the Rise, Decline and Resurrection of the USS Constitution). It appears to be a sort of compromise between the above two schemes. However, in this same book, some very impressive lithographs by JJ Baugean done during the early 1800’s show the fore topsail braces running completely under the main top.

Of the three options, I’m now inclined to follow the Hull model. Without more specific resources to counter that primary source, as well as the secondary sources (Baugean and the Brady book), I don’t think I can justify doing otherwise.

By the way, Mr. McNarry’s dockyard model of the Victory as launched (not 1805), as well as other fine models (unfortunately not the Constitution) can be found here: http://www.shipmodel.com/art-Donald-McNarry.htm. On that same website another artist has done a model of the Constitution: http://www.shipmodel.com/art-Glanville-Richard.htm#4 - It seems he chose to rig the braces up high.

Jose Gonzales

14

2 tools that don’t always work with history are Common Sense and 2nd Guessing. BUT, imho, rigged to stays and to fore pirail makes the most sense. I base this mostly on William baker’s rigging of Mayflower II - I worked on her fpr a few years, and a lotof people were involved at that point, so there could be “corruption” - but it makes sense - the stays work, and you would rig the foremast controls to the duh, FOREmast, not to the main. Also, as good as revell can sometimes be…they are not the best source I would guess.

But again, I’m not a real square sailor…

15

I went digging through my “archives”, and found the rigging plans from Marine Models, drawn Jan. 1940, by R.L.Bittner, revised April 1957. I aquired the plans, to rig a smaller solid hull model, it might have been a “scientific”, or “sterling” I don’t remember. I had all the standing rigging done, hand tied ratlines and all, when it was dismasted by “lowest bidder movers”. I saved the fittings, and the plans, but didn’t have the heart to rebuild the “remains”. I’ll quote the instructions on the plans for the fore braces.

Fore Royal braces; start at the yard arms & lead aft to a pair of single blocks, fastened to the Main t’gallant trestle trees & down thru tops to Main fife rail.

Fore T’gallant braces start from Maintopmast stay near top & lead forward to single blocks on yard & aft to a pair of single blocks seized to stay just above where the ends are seized; thru these blocks & up thru single blocks fastened to cheeks P & S & so down to main fifi rail.

Fore Tops’l braces also start with dead ends seized to maintopmast stay & then run forward to single blocks on yard arms, thru these & aft & down to a pair of single blocks seized to mainstay, thru these & up thru single blocks fastened to cheeks P.& S. & then down to main fife rail.

Fore course braces start with dead end at single becket blocks on cheeks of mainmast P. & S. & lead forward to blocks at yard arms, thru these and back thru blocks on cheeks & down to main fiferail.

The plan shows the Fore t’gallant brace blocks, attached to the yard on 30" pendants, 6’ pendants on the Foretops’l yard, and 13’-6" pendants on the Fore course. The plans are on four “blueprint” sheets 24" X 36", I don’t have any way to “scan” them, or I would.

Pete