Info & photos of "Hull Model"? Corné-Paintings - Navy-Homepage?

Actually, I think it’s in Grimwood’s American Ship Models and How to Build Them. Chapelle did write the introduction though.

I’m certainly no expert on this stuff, but I’ve been reading about 18th and 19th century sailing warships most of my life, and its seems like this removeable gun port lid concept has only come to the fore fairly recently - or maybe I just wasn’t aware of it. The curious thing to me is that a hinged gunport lid seems like such a simple, workable and easy to operate solution to the problem, with little or no disadvantages that I can think of. Why fool with removable port lids that have to be heavy and awkward to put in place, remove and stow? Good for modelers though, as it certainly simplifies things.

Just speculating, but the single-piece doors as represented on the Revell kit might be a pain in the rear in battle. Wouldn’t take much to blow away the single lanyard holding the thing up and then you’re dealing with either finding a way to prop it up or jettison it. Plus it could serve as a unwanted source of blast splinters. Removing a gun port lid would be no big deal compared to the effort required to horse around a 24 lb long gun, plus you’ve got ten or so guys on the gun crew to help deal with it. And if you have it stowed someplace, you know it’s going to be there when you want to put it back in place.

Mark

On the subject of gunport lids:

Capt. Martin’s A Most Fortunate Ship, Revised Edition, gives a description of manning the guns on page 76. “Operating a 24 - pounder weighing about 6,500 pounds was a backbreaking labor. First, the tackle securing it tright against the ship’s side was cast loose and the gun hauled inboard by means of a tackle affixed to the inner end of its carriage; then the gun port lid halves were removed and stowed.”

In Lawrence Arnot’s U.S.S. Constitution, 1812 - 1815 on page 22 he states “The CONSTITUTION had several types of gunport lids during her career. At her launching she carried the single, top-hinged lids familiar to many model builders. In 1803, Preble changed them to split lids, with one major variation on her presently-fitted port lids. The port lids during the 1812 - 1815 period were not hinged at the top or bottom, but were held in place by fore and aft bolts and were removed in battle.”

On page 33, Arnot goes on to state “The current split gunport lids, hinged at the top and bottom, date from the 1927 restoration. In 1803 Preble had split lids fitted but they had no hinges. Fore-and-aft slide bolts held them in place, flush with the sides. This prevented them from being damaged in battle.”

On Capt. Martin’s web site, The Captain’s Clerk he posts some of the logs of the CONSTITUTION. A couple of entries: 23 Aug 1803 “Armorers making iron work for securing the half ports over the guns.” 31 Aug 1803 “We put in all the half ports and secured them”

On the subject of Capt. Martins criticism of Campbell:

Capt. Martin wrote a section on the appearance of the CONSTITUTION in Arnot’s work. On page 5, Capt. Martin writes: “The Campbell plans of the ship are open to endless criticism based on documentary evidence. Don Turner, Director of the USS CONSTITUTION Maintenance Facility, and I (and others) reviewed a set of the Smithsonian plans soon after I took command of the ship in 1974 and came to the conclusion that there were many more details in it relating to the CONSTELLATION than to CONSTITUTION.”

Arnot follows this with his own remarks. “*Author’s note: In a letter from George Campbell to me 10 Oct., 1985, he stated that he created his drawings while he was a resident in England and that he never heard of CONSTELLATION and didn’t even know that it existed. Campbell stated that Howard Chapelle and Philip Lundeberg provided copies of “every piece of recorded information in existance about CONSTITUTION.” Campbell maintains that since he drew these plans in 1963, they couldn’t have benefited from the work of CDR Martin (A Most Fortunate Ship). Campbell also states that he went by Chapelle’s information.”

Parrels are available from Model Shipways/Model Expo. Or, as noted, they can be made.

I agree with the notion that if one were able to rig the Revell CONSTITUTION with all the standing and running rigging, the rigging would overwhelm the model. The historic accuracy would actually detract from the appearance. Therefore, one has to draw the line somewhere.

I do not claim to have experience with various model manufacturers, but it does seem to me that Revell put a lot of effort into CONSTITUTION. And it does seem that they had someone there that knew something about sailing ships. Perhaps if they were doing it today, they would change some things.

I would think that if the ghosts of Preble, Hull, Bainbridge and Stewart could be brought together to view a Revell CONSTITUTION built and rigged straight out of box, they all would recognize the vessel. And then a discussion would follow along the lines of: “Well, when I had her, she had…”.

Seems a very realistic way to look at a model of ship with such a long history. Would also indicate that a lot of things can be adjusted, coloured or fitted to your own taste without it being per definition wrong ( barring adding hydrofoils or gas turbines or fitting bushmasters instead of the carronades [;)])

Julian

Very good Julian! Does this mean I can’t put a radar on her?

Hello Jayman1,

very interessting, your posting!

Your wrote: “In Lawrence Arnot’s U.S.S. Constitution, 1812 - 1815 on page 22 …”

I did look wether I can get the book somewhere - but in Germany it seems not available. Amazon does not know the book. Also not in Ebay - even your american Ebay.

So my questions:

who ist Lawrence Arnot? Which sources did he use - and when, meaning: how old is the book?

Any idea, where to get it?

I hope Jayman 1 will forgive me for jumping in here; I imagine Marcus wants an answer as soon as he can get it, and this one’s pretty easy. The book by Professor Arnot is the instruction manual for the Bluejacket Shipcrafters wood Constitution kit. It’s available from Bluejacket via www.bluejacketinc.com. The price is rather steep - $60.00 U.S. - but that includes the full set of plans.

I met the late Professor Arnot once or twice. As I recall, he was a professor of mathematics at a university in the northeastern U.S.; I don’t remember which one. He wasn’t a professional modeler, historian, or draftsman; I believe he took on the Constitution project in retirement. It was, in the most literal sense, a “labor of love,” and he probablyl did more digging than anybody doing such work for a living would be able to afford. Maybe somebody can correct me, but I think the kit, the plans, and the book appeared about ten years ago. I haven’t seen the book or the plans myself (quite frankly, I ran out of enthusiasm for Constitution models about 25 years ago), but as a research project they have a good reputation. They probably come as close as anything else to representing the current state of knowledge about this ship. Their absence from Mr. Marquardt’s bibliography is another conspicuous hole in it. I have the impression that Bluejacket kits aren’t widely distributed in Europe - but I must say I think Mr. Marquardt should have known about those plans.

John:

The book, plans, and kit are a few years older than that at least. I recall getting the book and plans back in the late 80s or early 90s, so they are at least 15-20 years old. The plans are geared to the solid hull kit, but they are pretty well drawn.

Where this book really pays off though is in the research. The bibliography at the end of the book is two pages. Keep in mind though this book is printed in a rather large format so the pages are extra large compared with the average hardback. Arnot looked into just about every nook and cranny he could find that related to the ship’s appearance during the War of 1812. His work, is, I believe, the best research yet on her War of 1812 appearance.

Russ

I found a review of the Bluejacket Constitution kit in the Nautical Research Journal, Vol. 33, no 2 (Spring 1988), pp. 101-102. The reviewer, Dr. Charles MacDonald, says he based his comments on a pre-production sample of the kit - so I guess it came out in 1988 or 1989. I feel old - not for the first time.

The late Dr. MacDonald was, at that time, editor of the NRG. He was a retired professor of English literature at the University of Cincinnati - and when it came to the history of naval architecture and just about any other aspect of ship modeling, he knew what he was talking about. One of his comments on this particular kit was that “Laurence Arnot…is not a professional draftsman or writer, but the plain understandable style of his plans and writing inspire a confidence that a more polished preserntation might not, especially for the beginner…Arnot is clearly a fan (and fanatic even) of the ship and has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide authentic information about it in its most famous configurations from 1812-1815,. Some of the good scholarship he has supplied is concealed by the informal presentation, but it is clear that he ‘has done his homework’ well and carefully.”

Incidentally, I found that review on the CD set that contains the entire run of the NRJ, from Vol. I through Vol. 40. The two CDs are available through the Nautical Research Guild. When I bought mine (let’s not try to figure out when that was; I’ll probably remember the date wrong), they cost $100 U.S. - one of the best investments imagineable for anybody who’s even slightly interested in ships. Highly recommended.

Here’s a detail of the Revell kit that has always puzzled me-- the gun strake is two-tiered, that is to say, the bottom plank of the gun strake is slightly raised. This is not something I’ve seen on any drawings or the original ship. Is this feature erroneous or correct for a particular time period or am I just imagining things?

Dave

Dave:

The plank thicknesses along the side of the Revell model reflect what George Campbell drew in his Smithsonian plans, particularly in his construction cross section drawing. Campbell drew the plank thicknesses in the cross section construction drawing based on Joshua Humphreys’ original specs for the hull planking thicknesses for the 44 gun frigates.

Russ

Interesting. Next question, is this change in plank thickness accurate? If so, for what time frame, and what purpose would it serve?

Dave

Dave:

By accurate, do you mean does it conform with Humphreys’ original specs? The answer is yes.

As I said, the planking thicknesses were taken from Humphreys’ original specs for the 44 gun frigates. He wrote those specs in the mid 1790s, give or take a year. Whether or not they stayed precisely with those specs at some later date in the ship’s career is anyone’s guess.

Russ

Edit: Ups, there have been more answers while I was writing my text - sorry. Missed that!
Edit-end.

Thank you both for the quick answer. I am trying to become Germanys best expert for questions on Constitution [:D]… Your answers help a lot. I noticed the Bluejacket-modell - very likely by another post from you. And I will order at least the plans, before I start my Connie.

I am trying to collect all information I can get via Internet about design and colors of Constitution. I am thinking about a “matrix” in columns the sources/authors, in lines the details focused on seperated in any time period for which I found a describtion for that detail.

This way I hope to find a better possibitity to judge the relayabilty of a proposed design. If several authors say the same - or if their sources are more likely… or not!

A very specific describtion of USS Constitutions design I found also in Internet:

Does anyone know who Ray Morton is? Where did he get his information? Any idea?

OK assuming Campbell got Humphreys right, and Humphreys got the Constitution right [:D] can anyone explain why would the plank thickness be an inch or two thinner on the upper two thirds of the gun strake? One thing I’ve come to appreciate about naval ship design, everything is there for a reason.

Dave

Dave:

Campbell got Humphreys right. That I can say for sure. Several years ago I went over Campbell’s plans and compared them with Humphreys’ specs. Whether or not Constitution was actually planked with exactly the widths and thicknesses that Humphreys called for in each instance we cannot know. What I can say is that Campbell took what Humphreys wrote and then rendered it in a drawing.

As to why Humphreys chose those dimensions for the planking is a question that may never be answered. I do not know that there is enough primary source evidence to say for sure. I think all that can be said at this point is that Humphreys was relying on something he had been taught or had come across during his earlier shipbuilding experience. I’ll have to have long look through his day book to see if there is any clue there, but chances are he was relying on some formulae that he had worked with at some point.

He was brought up in his shipbuilding education on the old British Establishments when he was an apprentice. That is copied very exactly in his daybook and he referred to those tables probably every day. I do not know for sure what other treatises he had access to but it is probable that he had access to (or had at least seen) Sutherland’s work, and perhaps a few others who were writing on the design and construction of ships.

I just do not know if there is any way to nail down exactly where he got the idea.

Russ

Dear Gentlemen,

is anyone living close to Boston? I am looking for a possiblity to get good digital photos of the old painting.

I got William Bass´s beautiful book - but the reprints of the painting in the book are somehow … poor. So real digital photos in good quality would be a great source. But since I am far away from having access to the museum, I wanted to ask wether someone else would have the opportunity to help me / us in this thing.

Do you see any chance?

My major focus would be

  • a very good photo of the painting overall

  • a very good macro-photo of the details below the gunports - the “squared things” which could be ventilation openings - or some steel butt-and-nut reinforcement.

  • a macro-photo of hercules

  • a macro of the gallery

Second issue:

Does someone know where the Corné-paintings of the battle at tripolis (1805 (?)) are displayed? Are they / is one of them at the Peabody Essex Museum?

Is then someone able to visit and photograph those / this one too?

When I visited the Constitution museum in the summer of 2008 the painting was displayed in a fairly dark room and behind glass, hardly the ideal photographic environment. You would probably need to use a flash and, aside from the issue of shooting through glass with a flash, I think most museums frown on flash photography of their artifacts.

To get the kind of photos you are requesting someone would have to make arrangements with the museum to remove the painting and photograph it using optimium equipment and lighting conditions. I believe this is what William Bass, with assistance from Tyrone Martin, was able to do thirty years ago, albeit not digitally. The painting is also rather small, about 15 x 20 inches overall, I think. Part of the reason you find the details reproduced in the book to be so poor may be that they were not painted very large in the first place.

I’m sure that new high quality color digital photos of the Corne painting would be very interesting and might also reveal some new information. I just don’t think you’ll be able to obtain those photos from someone walking into the museum with a camera and shooting the painting as displayed.

Uh oh … I believe, you have a real important point here! You are propably right. I think they have to protect the old paint from the destrucive power of sun light (and ultraviolet light in special - and therefore probably from flash lights as well) - and therefore the rooms are darkend.

Yes … so it´s probably not allowed to take photos. Thank you for your comment - very good thinking!

It might be possible to use a tripot and a very long exposure time … but then there still is the question: will they allow photos within their rooms at all!

Some months ago I tried to get in contact with the PE-Museum - but I was advised to check the homepage - were I could not find anything about the USS Constitution at all! My following mails were not answered.

The same with the USS Constitution Museum. I just have not been able, to get in contact with someone who liked to help me.

Maybe you (or someone else) is able, to get me in contact?