I was looking at photos of the Hull model of the Constitution and noticed the small jolly/cutter boats at the stern of the ship are not there. Nor are there any indications that they should be there. The Revell kit has them and I’m curious as to whether or not the ship actually carried them as the kit shows. Anyone have any info on this? Thanks.
The small boat complement of sailing warships changed a great deal over time. The Revell kit is based on the research done by a fine naval architect and marine artist named George Campbell on commission from the Smithsonian. I think he gave the ship a pretty representative assortment of boats. (I know there are a couple of contemporary lists of the boats officially assigned to American warships at various dates; I’ll do some digging.) My inclination is to think the Revell kit’s boats are entirely reasonable.
Perhaps I should have been a little more precise with my question. I know the ship may have carried them at various times in her career, I was just curious about the time frame that the Revell kit is supposed to represent, ~1812-1814. I would think that the model would at least have had the davits for the boats if they may have been present at the time. Of course I realize that they may have been omitted for construction simplicity by the builder. Just a curiosity question.
I don’t have a definitive answer to this one, but I think jpk probably got it right: the davits got omitted from the Hull model “for construction simplicity by the builder.” I got to spend a little while staring at that model last summer. It really is an intriguing artifact. The rigging is quite remarkable in its sophistication and accuracy. The hull and deck furniture, on the other hand, are by any reasonable definition downright crude. Just as one example - the guns are extremely simplified in shape, and are mounted on carriages that have no trucks; each gun is secured to the deck by a huge nail whose head is visible. Lots of major components simply aren’t there - and their absence certainly doesn’t mean the real ship didn’t have them. It’s pretty obvious, for example, that the model has no steering wheel because making one was beyond the capacity of the modeler. I suspect the davits are in the same category.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I wish the Peabody-Essex Museum would commission, and publish, a really thorough study of that model. It could reasonably be described as one of the half-dozen most important American ship models in existence, but I have the impression that scarcely any serious research has been done on it. That it was once owned by Isaac Hull seems beyond doubt; a statement to that effect is painted, in lettering that certainly looks as old as the rest of the model, on the side. I’m not sure how much more than that is actually known about it. It seems to be assumed that it was built by one or more members of the ship’s crew during the War of 1812, but I’m unclear about just why that assumption is made. (I’ve never seen any actual documentation of the model’s provenance; I have no idea how much documentation about it the museum has.) At the moment, the computerized “label” in the gallery claims the guns on the model can actually be “fired.” That one I just don’t believe. (They’re just little chunks of wood with holes crudely drilled in their muzzles. If they’d ever had any sort of explosive put in them and set on fire, they surely would show some evidence of the experience.) There’s a story that the model originally had “firing” guns, which were “fired” on some ceremonial occasion or other with the result that the model got damaged, and had to be repaired. I have my doubts about that; it may be a legend. If it’s true, just what did the “repairs” consist of - and who made them? And when? Some sort of conservation seems to have been done fairly recently; a few of the original, crude belaying pins have been replaced by nice, shiny brass ones that certainly look like products of a ship model kit manufacturer.
This model deserves a published monograph - or at least a thoroughly-researched article in a journal. If nothing else, it would be nice to know exactly what genuine, reliable documentation about it exists. (Maybe none whatever. Or maybe the museum has a fat file folder of nineteenth-century documents about it. I have no idea.) Unfortunately, though, recent developments at that institution, while turning it into a superb museum of art and anthropology (one of the best in the country), seem to have led to a slight reduction in emphasis on its maritime collections.
For the wealthy, have a look at this! http://www.rchobby.co.uk/rc_uss_constitution.html
I am amazed that the Smithsonian or the US Navy hasn’t offered to aquire the model for the Museum of American History or for display at Annapolis. Well, maybe they have but the museum refused their offer. I’m not familliar with what other models might be considered for “most” significant but certainly this piece is much more significant than just being a model, it is a historic relic from the founding of the country, a touchstone, and national treasure and as such its value is far more important than just being an important model. This artifact should be given the greatest possible effort to insure its preservation.
The Smithsonian has two models of the Constitution. (Actually maybe more than two; two that I’m familiar with.) One is a big, 1/48-scale one that was built by (if I remember right) a commercial firm called the Arthur Henning Company back in the late fifties. This is the one for which the Smithsonian commissioned the plans by George Campbell, on which the Revell kit is also based.
The other Smithsonian Constitution is an incredible 1/192-scale one by the great modern modeler Donald McNarry. I saw this one on my first visit to the Smithsonian, back in about 1966, when I was in high school. It’s one of the finest, most detailed models I’ve ever seen; it depicts the ship in her as-built configuration. Some years after that, the museum took it off exhibit. When I got a job as a curator at the Mariners’ Museum, in 1980, I made arrangements to borrow the McNarry model. (Driving down from DC to Newport News with that model in the back of a station wagon was a neurotic experience.) It was still on exhibition at the MM when I left in 1983. I believe the MM has given it back to the Smithsonian since then.
I last went to the Smithsonian’s Museum of American History three years ago, when the new American military history gallery had just opened. My opinion of that exhibition is, in general, extremely high. But I was somewhat dismayed to note that scarcely any ship models were in it. Neither of the Constitutions was anywhere to be seen - nor were various other important, beautiful models that used to be exhibited prominently. Tastes in museum exhibition design change over time; I guess ship models are out of favor at the moment.
The Museum of American History is currently closed for a major renovation. (I believe it’s scheduled to reopen in summer '08.) One of the big projects in progress now is a major refurbishing of the “Hall of Maritime Enterprise,” which deals with non-naval maritime history. In its old form it contained lots of ship models. I’m holding my breath waiting to see how many of them have vanished from public view when the new gallery opens.
The Naval Academy Museum at Annapolis has another 1/192 Constitution by Donald McNarry - almost identical to the Smithsonian one. (The man is simply amazing.) I’m not sure whether it’s currently on exhibit; I do know that the staff of that museum does appreciate ship models. The relatively new gallery in the basement of the building, in which the famous Rogers Collection of “Admiralty models” is displayed, is one of the best ship model exhibition facilities in the country - if not the world.
The Naval Academy Museum has a model that also probably belongs on that “top ten” list of most important American ship models: the model of the brig Fair American, from the American Revolution. That one has (with the Naval Academy Museum’s encouragement) been the subject of several excellent articles in the Nautical Research Journal, which examined its provenance, the existing documentation about it, and just about every other aspect of it. The museum also cooperated with Model Shipways, which offers a wood kit based on the model.
I have no idea whether anybody’s ever approached the Peabody-Essex Museum about moving the “Hull model.” I strongly suspect the museum would be unwilling to part with it. My wife and I were up at Salem last summer, and I had a chance to take a look at how the model is currently being treated. I did a post about it here in the Forum when I got back; here’s the link:
/forums/818443/ShowPost.aspx
I don’t accuse the Peabody-Essex Museum of mistreating the model. But I do think it needs to be the subject of a more serious research and publication project than, to my knowledge, has been devoted to it so far. I’ve given some thought to doing an article about it, but in all honesty I don’t think I could afford it. Even if the museum agreed to the proposal, to do it right would entail taking up residence in Salem for quite a while, and that’s just beyond my - and, I’m pretty certain, the museum’s - means for the time being.
John:
I agree that McNarry’s model is very beautiful. The only problem with it is that his decorative scheme has since been found to be mistaken. He built that model several yars before they found and identified the early 19th century watercolors by Corne’ that clearly showed her carved details, especially those at the stern. Just bad timing.
Other than that, ther McNarry model holds up quite well, I think, with modern research of the Constitution. I recall that he wrote he had built 6-7 different models of the Constitution. He is one of the finest craftsmen of our age. His Navy Board models and clipper ships are mind boggling. I wish I could build that small and be that good. It would solve my model storage problem. 
Russ
When I got that McNarry model to the Mariners’ Museum I had the museum photographer take some closeup pictures of it, and sent prints of them to Captain Tyrone Martin. (At that time - 1981, I think - he had recently retired from the Navy; his book about the Constitution was the latest work on the subject.) He offered quite a few criticisms of it, most of which were relatively small - and most of which I’ve forgotten. (I think I may have a copy of his letter at the office; I’ll try to remember to look for it.) One point I do remember is that Captain Martin said there were some iron, athwartships truss rods in the ship originally, and that their ends should be visible outboard. His overall conclusion was something along the lines of “as an example of craftsmanship it is a masterpiece, but in terms of accuracy it is wanting.” I didn’t forward the letter to Mr. McNarry; he was on the verge of retiring from building models professionally, and I figured that information wouldn’t do him any good.
One of the tasks I set myself when I got that job at the MM was to get a McNarry model for its collection. I sort of succeeded. He wasn’t building many by that time, and the museum’s budget couldn’t handle the prices of his more elaborate ones. I did engineer a loan, for a couple of years, of several McNarry models from a private collector in Philadelphia. And toward the end of my brief curatorial career Mr. McNarry offered to sell us one of several little English ceremonial barges he’d just completed. I got the museum to buy one of them. The task of getting it from England to Newport News was formidable and time-consuming, but eventually our Registrar made contact with an employee of a sister institution who was going to England and was willing to make a side trip to Mr. McNarry’s house. One day when I got to my office I found a remarkably small cardboard box on my desk. The Registrar had put it there, so I could open it. It of course contained the little barge, in all its glory.
I don’t know whether the museum has that model on exhibit at the moment; I rather doubt it. The big problem with McNarry models (and others on extremely small scales) from the standpoint of a museum is that most members of the general public, understandably, have trouble appreciating them. The average person’s eyesight is barely good enough to see the detail on such models, and only a person who’s got at least a little experience in model building can really understand what remarkable things they are - in terms of both craftsmanship and research.
The North Carolina Maritime Museum, where I spend quite a bit of time hanging out nowadays, recently acquired (by donation from that same Philadelphia collector) a McNarry model of a Civil War blockade runner. A couple of the museum staff members are former students of mine. I spent some time explaining to one of them why that model is probably the best one in the museum - and why it’s probably worth what the donor said it was (and, I assume, will be telling the IRS shortly, when he claims a tax deduction for having donated it). The staff member made some nice, sympathetic comments about it, but I don’t think she entirely believed me.
For the benefit of anybody who doesn’t know what we’re talking about, here’s a link to a web page containing some photos of a few (just a few) of Mr. McNarry’s models:
http://www.donaldmcnarryshipmodels.com/menu.html
None of his Constitutions is shown, but you’ll get the picture. Pay particular attention to the scales and dimensions.
John:
I have that website boomarked for some time now and refer to it often just to sit dumbfounded. I also have both of his books and I thumb them quite frquently, both to drool and to get me back into ship modeling mindset again. One of them has two examples of his Constitution models. He actually had the properly scaled tools for the gun crews laid out on the spar deck next to the guns. So, its not just a great model, but its got great atmosphere as well.
I have read about those truss rods. Bass showed them in his drawings that were based on the Corne’ paintings. However, I really wonder if they would have been that visible. I accept that they were there, but as a matter of scale, I wonder if they would be seen at 1/192 scale. Probably a lot of different opinions on that.
Russ
In the mid 80’s I spent a few days in DC on vacation and went to the M of AH. I saw the model of the Constitution in a case and took some photos of it. They also had a model of the Constellation. I was building the Revell large Constitution at the time. Unfortunately the ship took a broadside from my cat and destroyed the rigging and masts beyond repair. It was a moment for sure but the cat did survive. She was too much a loved pet.
I realize this may be getting off topic but I will ask anyway. I have the large Revell United States in addition to the Constitution. Looking at the large area taken up by the round house it is devoid of any cannon or bulwark protection for crew. It seems strange that such a large area on a warship would not commit any weapons or protection to such a large area. Are there any thoughts as to why this is? I realize that the design of the round house is for the most part speculative as to its outfit and I know about it possibly having been removed at some point. However, it seems she did go to sea with the structure so would it not have been outfitted with weapons and protection?
We had an interesting Forum discussion about this subject a while back. Here’s the link: /forums/749974/ShowPost.aspx
Bottom line: (1) Very little is known for sure about the “roundhouse” of the United States. (2) Revell’s rendition of it shouldn’t be taken seriously. The questions jpk has raised are certainly interesting and significant, but I don’t think anybody can answer them with any certainty.
If I remember correctly, the Smithsonian’s Constellation model was built by the same people, and at about the same time, as the Campbell-designed Constitution. That was just about the time when Howard I. Chapelle, then curator of the Smithsonian’s Division of Transportation, was raising the hackles of the people in Baltimore with his assertion that the 1797 Constellation and the one then under restoration in Baltimore were two different ships. The model, as I recall, represented the 1797 frigate; reading between the lines, I think it can be regarded as one of Chapelle’s “broadsides” in his battle with the Baltimore faction. Chapelle, of course, eventually won (albeit quite a few years after he died). The people responsible for conserving and operating the Constellation now accept that she is in fact an 1850s corvette.
I understand the information on the round house is slim but it did exist at one point. It may or may not have been removed by the 1812 war. I also know Revell probably did as little as possible so they could make the US from the Connie. But still, the round house was there and while Revell’s redition of it may not be accurate it certainly would be similar save for the transom decorations and the gallery windows. I plan to remove the out of scale railing and raise the bulwarks similar to what are along the spar deck. I’ll put hammock nettings above those along with 3 caronades and gun ports cut into the bulwarks on each side. I’ll also fill in the last three spar deck gun ports as these, if left open in heavy seas, would allow water to flood into the round house area. I would think that that would not have been desirable. I’m also planning on an additional doorway into the round house.
I had read that thread before and looking at the gentleman’s build of the US I felt the stern of the ship looked bad. Not his build but just the way it was designed. The US was a war ship and to leave such a large area open with nothing on it knowing that space was always at a premium on those ships seemed to me to be wrong. The great thing about it is with such a paucity of solid info, you can pretty much do what you want and who’s to argue. I may also change the transom design to something a little more decorative than that boxy one supplied by Revell. Even when you look at drawings of US 74 gun ships of the line the transom was usually of a curved design and not boxy like the kit’s transom.
That odd ‘stern heavy’ look is exactly why I lost interest and gave it up to gather dust in the loft these many years.
A poor rendition lacking any sense of proportion; a quick and cheap fix by Revell to squeeze a little more out of the market off the back of their very fine Constitution model which in my opinion provides far greater scope for enhancement with a reasonable degree of historical accuracy.
I wish you luck with your conversion jpk, and hope you can make a swan out of this ugly duckling [;)]
Well, I find the ship interesting. I love the lines of the Constitution. I have one that I’m currently building and it’s fun to try to decide how I want her to look. I’m not trying to make a museum piece, just a nice looking model. But…I find the United States an interesting off shoot. It’s a combination of historical fact finding and personal interpretation. Much like taking a standard Fletcher but modding it to fit a particular ship. Not all Fletchers were the same and displayed many different configurations. Same with the Constitution class but there were only three ships available to display the differences. I don’t see how Revell so totally screwed it up. The round house was the round house. It was in fact there. The detail stuff they may have missed the mark on but the ship had a round house. All I’m trying to do is apply what I think the warship might have looked like based on what I would think the captain would have done if he had such a structure built and still maintain the fighting capabilities of the ship.
I seached for paintings by Corne and found I believe the one you refer to in your post. It can be considered no more or less detailed than any other painting I’ve seen of the stern decorations of the Constitution, of which there are many interpretations. I’ve seen many differing arrangements on many different paintings of Constitution’s stern, why is it that you hold his painting in such high regard while the Hull model, made and painted by a crew member is given less weight?
The 1805 painting by Corne’ that showed her stern decorations during the Tripolitan War is valuable because it is the earliest known rendering of the Constitution’s original stern decorations. That painting has been put through a microphotographic examination and the stern decorations have been pulled out and redrawn so that they are quite distinct.
The Hull model and the 1805 Corne’ painting are not at odds because they represent different periods of the ship’s history. It is well settled that by the War of 1812, her decorative scheme was much simplified from what she originally had. Just what sort of decorations she had on her stern during the War of 1812 is up in the air. However, what is on the Hull model is the best record I know of for that period. Laurence Arnot drew a plan of that decorative scheme in his kit instructions for the Bluejacket Shipcrafters kit of the Constitution.
Russ
Russ, I apologize, I was looking at the wrong painting. It was Constitution and Guerriere. I will try to find an image of the one you’ve noted online. If you know of a link it would be most appreciated.
Ah!! That’s no problem. Just crossed wires.
I do not know an online source for the Corne’s paintings. William Bass’s monograph, written in 1980, is titled Constitution Second Phase, 1802-1807. He created his drawings for that book. So far as I know, this book is out of print. I have a copy that I have used in my research.
Russ
With regards to the round house on the United States, I was looking at photos of the HMS Victory which also has a round house/poop deck. The ship obviously is much larger than the United States but the interesting thing was the poop deck had no cannons on it. It also was with out any armaments. Of course the ship had many more gun decks and cannons than US but I may rethink my refit of my United States and keep the cannons on the spar deck. I will install hammock nettings on the bulwarks though and a solid transom with maybe two stern chaser ports cut into it.