USS Constitution - Hull Model in Peabody Essex Museum

Modeling Subjects Ships
1

I managed to drag the family along to Salem and a visit to the very fine Peabody Essex Museum (PEM) to have a firsthand look at the famous Hull model of Old Ironsides. For those not familiar with the model it was built by the crew of USS Constitution and presented to Isaac Hull when he quit the ship to attend to family matters shortly after his victory over HMS Guerriere. As such, it is rightly considered a primary contemporary representation of how she appeared when she first burst into glory. The white stripe and green bulwarks are two of the key elements to note. Some additional elements worthwhile for modelers to note:

Hatch coamings and deck furniture are also green

No gunport lids (except the two nearest the bow on either side to keep out the sea)

Six stern windows

Jacobs ladders at stern

Popular legend has it that Commodore Rodgers used it as a centerpiece at a grand dinner and actually fired a cannon on board… Probably a bunch of hooey. The model is perplexing in some ways… The basic hull is very carefully crafted, but the upper works are downright primitive… The gundeck looks carefully planked, but the spar deck is less detailed with wide planking strips. The carronades are not represented - only long guns on crude carriages with no wheels. No ship’s wheel or boats… Some think the crew left these out to acknowledge the wheel being shot away in battle and most of the boats damaged. Not sure that isn’t unfounded theory from an unaccredited source…(in fact, her wheel was shot away in the Java battle - not this one) Most likey the crew didn’t have time to add these (or the wheel was once there and has been lost over time) before they presented it to Hull. Interestingly the rigging is generally very fine, which adds to the mystery. There is a B&W photo in the navsource site showing the model some time back with a placard indicating British POWs repaired the model at some point. If true, I would wildly speculate that they tuned up the rigging.

There was a small study done on this model by a Swedish gentleman named Olof A. Eriksen who was building a massive stainless steel model of the great ship. He apparently gained access to the model through the good office of Commander Martin. Here is a link to his findings:

http://books.google.de/books?id=XYUWBpxFZN8C&pg=PR5&dq=uss+constitution+all+sails+up+and+flying&hl=de&ei=hi7NTZDUB4_6sgaqy9m6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=uss%20constitution%20all%20sails%20up%20and%20flying&f=false

Essentially he theorizes that the model was begun as a careful project to pass some idle hours at sea by a reasonably skilled modeler seaman. After the battle the crew found out Hull was leaving and likely decided to gang up on the project to hurry it through to completion - hence the difference between the careful parts and the rushed elements. It is likely that the basic hull was completed and painted up to the gundeck before the rush was on… All of which is academic speculation, but his theory makes sense to me after seeing the model in person.

It sits off to the side in the original East India museum building and has no placard or other indication of its significance in the immediate vicinity:

There may be a small hole where a wheel may have once been:

Note the carefully seized lines and the worming/keckling on the anchor cable:

More photos at this link:

https://picasaweb.google.com/106997252788973852335/PEMUSSConstitutionHullModel

It is a remarkable artifact and well worth a visit if you’re ever in the neighborhood.

2

Thank you very much for the post.

I was unaware of the model’s existance.

3

One issue that I have concerns the gunport lids. I do understand that a ship’s crew would open or remove them when in port or in calm seas but not when cruising in any sea state above 1. There is simply too little freeboard and too much floodable volume. It seems to me that those ports would become swamped and the ship founder. Can anyone provide insight into this question?

Bill

4

The omission of the gun port lids is curious… It may be that the crew left them off the model to save time, but the fact that the forward most are included might argue against that - especially considering that the lids were probably one of the easiest components to fashion and should’ve been easy to include even though the model may have been rushed to completion.

We should also note two pertinent facts that should interest us modelers: These are not half-lids as depicted on the restored ship, and the outer surfaces are painted black - again unlike the restored ship.

Interestingly, many of the credible contemporary paintings also support the idea that the lids were often left off…

Note the lack of lids on both ships in the Thos Birch painting of the United State vs Macedonian fight:

Also the Michel Felice Cornè paintings of Constitution vs Guerriere commissioned by Capt Hull himself show no lids:

It may be that they were only unrigged for battle, but the 1803 profile by Cornè also omits the lids:

Of course none of this is definitive, but I’m tempted to leave off the lids on my next build of the 1/96 Revell kit…

5

Of course, the painters weren’t “there”. Maybe the lids were just such a pain in the butt to make for the model that they got skipped. It’s hard to imagine a ship crossing the Atlantic without them, though.

Thanks for the post. It’s good to see and I envy you going there.

6

Hello Bondoman!

It is possible that the lids were positioned with slide bolts from the inside, making it very easy to utilize at sea and pull off for battle… It does seem, however, that British frigates commonly went without port lids judging by some comments on other forums. I think, in fact, frigates generally had a bit more freeboard than we expect - more than line of battle ships. Victory had very little clearance along her lower gun deck. I think USS President had a bit less than her sister ships - which may have contributed to her speedy reputation.

Nothing should be taken at face value and the written record is clearly more powerful than a painting, however…

While it is certainly true that these painters weren’t there at the battles it should be noted that these particular paintings were rendered by the finest marine painters of their day based on eyewitness accounts. Birch based his work on information provided by participants… The 1803 painting I think was commissioned by Commodore Preble and the Guerriere painting is one of a set of four commissioned by Captain Isaac Hull… Presumably these guys guided the details and wouldn’t have paid for them if they weren’t accurate… Six contemporary paintings and the model all show no lids… Hmmm… I’m just sayin’…

7

Kind of hard to argue that a painter who got the number of shrouds and stays right would then decide that gun port lids were an inconvenience . . .

Further, if we look at the actual construction of gun port lids, really, they are mostly rain-resistant; not sea-resistant. if one needed to keep seawater out, the lids would need fittings for wedges or the like, to seal them down. Which would be some complicated, a gun port lid being a couple inches thick in a hull penetration that could 12-24" deep.

USS Constitution’s main deck is the gun deck, it’s scuppered as if there was no deck above–even if the spar deck is near complete overhead. Gun ports at that point are about ventilation and keeping rain/spray off the sailors berthed there. I suspect that, much later in Constitution’s life, the split semi-lunar ports were added by/for those billeted therein. By 1820-30, there was not much going on, and many, many idle hands. The sort of hands that could be busied with fiddly work like hinged half port lids. But, that’s supposition on my part; from knowing of sailors and peacetime and living 24/7 out of the ‘glamor.’

8

There is a question that has not been answered satisfactorily. From the time President Jefferson sent the CONSTITUTION to wage war on the Barbary Pirates, to the War of 1812, when did the color of the broad band along the gun ports change from yellow ochre to white ? Some modelers want the early version of the CONSTITUTION,when the design on the stern transom had a different configuration, the figure head was a statue of Hercules holding a club and the broad gun port band was yellow ochre. Anyone have an answer ?

Montani semper liberi ! Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

Crackers [8-|]

9

True mac and I cede the point, except I am not sure there are not lids in the painting; the one with red spots above the guns.

The (upper) gun deck was also often scuppered because the pumps evacuated on that deck.

Half moon ports meant the guns were permanently run out. Carronades only?

I’d disagree about the sea worthiness of a good gun port lid. They got lashed down pretty well, in the case of the Victory all the way back to the deck timbers at mid-deck. A leaky gun port beats one taking a major green water wave.

But Anthony, you may have the best evidence. look at all that water streaming out of the gun ports as she sails level and on a calm sea,[prte]

10

To be clear: The four paintings done by Corne for Isaac Hull all show no gun port lids:

They also clearly show a yellow ochre band. Anthony - the color of the bands is another topic rife with disagreement… The logs indicate a white stripe painted in the pre-war refit (1811?) along with the loading of barrels of green paint for the bulwarks, etc. We also know from log entries that both William Bainbridge and Charles Stewart painted yellow over the white bands on their successful war cruises. So all those artists (most of them modern) showing the white band in the Java battle are blatantly wrong. And here we have a series of paintings commissioned by her captain from the foremost marine artist of his day clearly showing a yellow ochre stripe during the Guerriere fight. I’ve seen folks argue that the white paint had turned yellow over the years distorting the color… no. All four paintings with the band and the masts turning yellow while all the other white paint stayed crisp and bright? Nah. I’ve stood inches from these incredible paintings - clearly the details are fresh and vibrant after professional conservation. I think the fact that the ends still show trimmed in white paint lends itself to the idea that these paintings show that Isaac Hull hurriedly painted over the white bands before departing Boston to chase the Halifax-bound merchant ships and her battle with Guerriere. Of course, unlike the other battles, there is no written confirmation that this was done - only these paintings testify to what might have been the case.

I know it seems holy writ that USS Constitution has a nice bright white stripe during her War of 1812 period and the Hull model and the restored ship herself would seem to confirm that… But… I personally gravitate towards the idea that the stripes got painted over with yellow right before she sailed and the Hull model had already had the white stripe painted on…

Speculative history at its finest!

11

How could I have missed this interesting thread???

Thanks Force9 for those interesting and superbe photos. I already linked them in other german forums, where are friends of the ship as well.

I fully follow your thesis. I think Tyrone Martin describes the process of putting in the gunport lids only in heavy weather from inside of the gun-deck - and disassemble them in calm waters or during battle in his book “a most fortunate ship” … for the ships earlier configuraton.

The stripe or any other discussed question with the ships layout:
I think we have to take into consideration that some of the paintings have been done a while after the events (all of them AFTER the event - of course [;)] ). The ship back in harbour, the damagde being reparied. These paintings are a kind of visual promotion or propaganda to show the public what happened. So the ship had to be represented in a way that the common publicity is able to recognize “its the Constitution”. This may have meant that artist and client wanted to show the ship in its actual or in its commonly best known configuration.

IF Constitution had a white band in her time before the war - and after … it might have caused confusion to sho her to the publik in her “war-time-camouflage”. These paintings have never been meant to show what really happened. They are more a praise and homage for the ship and its crew to raise the common gratitute for the crew and its captain (who very often was the initator and sponsor of the paintings).

To compare:
did you ever see a painting showing a ship which fools the enemy by flying the wrong flag? No: as the code of honor demanded: before discharge the first shot a ship had to show its “real” flag. But to come closer it was kind of allowed to fool the enemy.
But would a painter show that? Wouldn´t the audience being fooled too? Whouldn´t that debase the daring deed of the captain? So would he like to show that to a publicity which may not have been that experienced in naval warefare?

The same - by the way I think - is valid or the number of Constitution stern windows. Different numbers may have their reason in the fact that during the time of the paintings production the number had changed.

This may be a clue for the fact that capable artists do show different configurations of the same events - although they are used to work very accurate and althoug their clients were men who knew the ship.

The same for the Isaac Hull Model. Its makers may have had their reasons for showing things different from what we expect … compared to the paintings, compared to written word…

Conclusion:

we have to consider that some of the details shown in paintings may come from commonly used and known layout before or a while after the action presented in the painting. This does not mean to NOT to trust anything at all - but this means: you have to try to get as much information as possible and then judge carefully which puzzle-piece you want to take - and which to refuse. Many answers are then only a question of likelyhood. No “right”, no “wrong” … but a “very likely”, “possible” or “implausible or questionable”.

In may point of view: this makes the whole process of describing an old ship more interesting, more thrilling. … and it gives everyone the freedom to decide for his/her model, his/her representation. …

Disatvantage: everyone with a bit of knowledge might start to argue - and you would not have the chance to say: “my way is the right one!”

Tolerance is needed - from both sides.

12

Bumping this thread, hoping it will be useful for the several current builders of Old Ironsides.

Cheers,

Jose

13

Hi;

This is interesting. Now I do have four models of this ship from four reputable mfgrs. Each has a different stern layout considering the windows and only one has Hercules on the Fore peak! Does anyone know why all four models do not match at the waterline forward? Some have a finer entry at the waterline and down.

This may have been done, As I have been told by someone years ago at a Maritime Museum, that Her designers stole the design from a French design as did the British ! This was often truly the case. A captured ship that sailed better than her captors same class would be copied in some way on the next build.

I don’t know for sure. But, I have a French Ship of the Line and she, compared to the Victory, for instance, has a very fine entry and forepeak. Could this be evidence of more Copying by the ship-builders of the day who built very much by eye?

Some sailing ships of the Day( The Bounty) had ( " Apple" ) bows which impeded speed but allowed for more cargo room. Many British warships of the period are portrayed this way. Many of the Portuguese “Black-Ships” from the Orient and their Spanish counterparts did indeed have " Apple" bows.

14

I might be able to add value to the discussion of the gun ports.

In “Constitution: All Sails Up and Flying” by Olaf A. Erikson, which was mentioned in the OP, page xxvi states "The absence of gun port lids. Commodore Edward Preble is known (“Naval Documents of the Barbary Wars”) to have fitted the ship with split lids held in place with deadbolts in the summer of 1803. With the guns run out, the lid halves would have been inboard on the gun deck. The Corne paintings of the ship of 1803, 1805, and 1812 all confirm this.

Note: Corne appears to have viewed the ship firsthand in 1803, and we know he worked with Commodore Preble in 1805 and with Captain Hull in 1812".

15

The honest answer to “why” is that no body knows. The best knowledge anyone has about these old ships comes from educated guesses! Dogmatic responses come from great faith!

16

In those days, the Captains had greater leeway to fit out their command as they saw fit. So with the ship’s carpenters on board, who were quite able and skilled, it is possible that windows were removed, added, renovated at the Captain’s whim. (This probably also applied to the furniture and quarters) After all during the great chase, gun ports were cut into the transom! No wonder we see such confusion.

The same is true of the gun port lids, that they were usually open would not be surprising. Ventilation was important, not only for the comfort (as much as possible) of the crew, but also for the health of the crew. On the other hand, it was advisable to keep the ship as dry as possible, also for the comfort and health of the crew, scuppers not withstanding. Mold is nasty stuff and a ship full of mold would definitely not be heatlhy, nor pleasant, and there is also the effect a moldy environment would have on the ship’s black powder supply. And take into account the environment…water not only all around but also below, and from above in a rainstorm.

17

Two hundred years ago, many things were different. Ventilation was not seen as a requirement for health, neither was regular bathings for that matter (and cold seawater redoubled that reluctance).

Powder supplies were kept in particularly secure accommodations, as spark and draft proof as possible.

We ought also remember that water was bought by the barrel from Chandlers, who did not go to great efforts to find especially clean or healthy water. Comtemporary reports are rife with descriptions of mold and algae in the barreled water stowed on ships. The quality of “fresh” water availabale is part of the Royal Navy’s daily ration of rum as well.

Gun decks were where most of the crew slept, hammock-to-hammock in great dangling rows and ranks strung from the deckbeams overhead. In the Tropics, and on a beam or broad reach, there might be some slight cross ventilation, but, “miasama” literally bad air, was considered a prime source of Yellow Fever. And, keeping ports stoppered up would actually keep mosquitos carrying yellow fever out. Some.

So, the argument can go both ways on port stopper/gunports.

Running the guns out does allow for more deck space when meals are served from tables hung from the deck beams. Closing up the spaces to prevent drafts makes some sense. Unless one were on watch for coming upon an enemey vessel unexpectedly, in which case they would be a hindrance.

So, I’m of two minds on Constitution specifically.

I’d love to have a mass-imbued CAD model that could be put to various points of sail in various sea states. It would be interesting to see where the lee rail goes at say, 12º-15º of heel. Heel rotates aproximately around the center of bouyancy, with a slight offset from the moment arm of the centroid of the sail input through the CG. Not simple math, sadly, and well beyond my desktop computer.

18

Force9,

Did you ever finish your outstanding model of the Constitution?

Bill