• Win a Free Custom Engraved Brass Coin!!!
    As a way to introduce our brass coins to the community, we will raffle off a free coin during the month of August. Follow link ABOVE for instructions for entering.

To Build or Not to Build According to Howard I. Chapelle

Chapelle’s article is both timely and behind times. Let me explain.

Timeless: someone here on SOS asked about the difference between two different Mayflower kits causing me to reread William A. Baker’s comments about designing the replica at Plymouth, MA. Here’s what I learned:

1. Only two things are known for sure. The ship that brought the Pilgrims to the New World was named Mayflower and that she was rigged with at least one topsail. That’s it.

2. Baker found at least 20 different vessels named Mayflower in British records for the period that the Pilgrim’s Mayflower was believed to exist. It was impossible to learn which of these the Pilgrims sailed on.

3. Different passengers on the voyage quote different tonnages for mayflower ranging from 140 to 181 tons.

Choosing the largest tonnage (181 tons) and late 1500-early 1600 manuscripts Baker designed an Elizabethan Era merchant ship. No one can claim that it’s Mayflower yet the name sells. Chapelle would say that calling such a model built to Baker’s plans “Mayflower” makes it a “Model that should not be built.”

Behind the times: Since Chapelle’s death in the mid-1970’s a number of very old wrecks have been explored and documented. One is the wreckage of the Red Bay Galleon. This Spanish galleon, probably the Basque built San Juan was crushed in the ice off the coast of Labrador in the 1570’s. Archeologists recovered the vessel’s timbers, measured them, and used the information to build a model. Unfortunately Chapelle was not alive to see this sort of archeology based reconstruction. Builders wanting to build a model of a Spanish built Galleon no longer have to rely on the offerings from the kit manufacturers. I would argue that the Red Bay Galleon is a model that “Should be Built”.

Roger
 
Roger Pellett said:
Unfortunately Chapelle was not alive to see this sort of archeology based reconstruction.
Click to expand...
However, he wrote (in this same article):

While we learn more with each passing year, there are still so many vacant spots in our line of knowledge that we are as yet in no position to do much "reconstruction" on any large scale. In any case reconstruction can only be carried on when there is a mass of contemporary information available and is no job for an evening or two in the local library.

In some ways, this addresses both of the comments you make - timeless and behind the times.
 
When viewed in this stark relief Chapelle's statements were probably understood at the time to apply to a set of conditions. These were editorials in the Nautical Research Journal 3/3 and 4/4 which is published by the Nautical Research Guild. This was soon after the formation. The name that was chosen is telling. Those who requested this from him had standards and goals in line with his. However, I can well imagine that the type of disagreement that followed 3/3 would have given him cause to wonder if he had entered an all together wrong place.

Research is an academic endeavor. It involves specific standards. It reflects a serious intent.

Guild : noun. an organization of persons with related interests, goals, etc., especially one formed for mutual aid or protection. any of various medieval associations, as of merchants or artisans, organized to maintain standards and to protect the interests of its members, and that sometimes constituted a local governing body. from Google.

The founders by choosing this designation must have had serious aspirations and wished to be taken seriously by the accepted authorities.

What Chapelle wrote probably was intended for those whose ambition was to earn an actual guild level and to meet research standards. Discussion of what Chapelle's words and conditions mean is probably only relevant when guild and serious research aspirations apply. It does not mean that the standards have to have been achieved. It does mean that the desire and ambition be.

I pretty much agree with Chapelle. In the light of "If you wish to be X, then what you do should be Y." I do disagree about not exploring builds of vessels in the era before available plans. Those from the time with design instructions that have been left in print or manuscript. They just should be properly identified as the fantasy that they are. No name of a ship that ever existed must ever be applied. I see nothing wrong with taking on the role of a 15C. or 16C. or 17C. ship designer, giving your work a unique name and making it your presentation to the king and Navy Board. One of the most instructive exercises that I have done in all this was to follow Sir Anthony Deane's method to design a 1670 era first rate.

Dean
 
The Navy files in the Archives also contain a very complete lot of ships' boat plans and details; some of these would make very attractive models. The one drawback to this great source is that the index is in very poor shape and so it is necessary to visit the Archives in person and spend much time in search to accomplish a relatively satisfactory research on a ship of any fixed period. But, in spite of this, the source is invaluable and available in some way to all, either through personal visit or through the mails. With this huge source of material there is little excuse for us not having some attractive and useful models showing the development of American steamships

i agree with Chapelle there are massive resources available to build accurate models i disagree with the accessibility of that material.
for example i wanted to 3D model the salvages steam engine of the Indiana and build a diorama of the engine room The Smithsonian salvaged the engine and there are hundreds of 35mm slides and reports of the salvage operation. The engine itself is in a Smithsonian warehouse. First the warehouse is off limits to the public so the engine sits in a dark corner of some warehouse. As far as the archival information yes, it is available IF i make a trip to the Smithsonian at a cost of $2,000.00 in travel, hotel, meals and cost to have the material copied. A hobby builder or even a kit maker will not spend that kind of time and money. I understand Chapelle but it is just not practical for anyone or for the hobby at large to strive for accuracy.

to make the statements
ships that should not be built and ships that should be built is like someone walking up to a project and saying that is not how to do it then walk away without telling you HOW to do it.

i think 99% of kit builders have no idea how a real ship is built. Why fuss over the shape of a deadeye on a period ship kit like the Mayflower to be "historically accurate" when the entire model is make believe?

perhaps we all need to define "good enough"
 
And they’re not making it any easier. I read in an INA newsletter just a few days ago that the Smithsonian has “deassessed” all of the source materials that Chapelle used to make his drawings. The supposed good news is that they have been acquired by the Nautical Archeology Program at Texas A&M University. Why would the Smithsonian get rid of these and why did they not send them to the National Archives?

Roger
 
i do not know how the academic world works but i heard on the streets the academics are not going to give away information because it is worth money as publications. Why give it away when you can sell a book kind of thing.
The hobby of model ship building went down a blind alley even if a kit maker or serious builder wants to be accurate information is way too expensive or unavailable to the general public.
From Chapelle on down for the last 50 years hearing why is it always the same subjects done over and over just a different version. Because that is what the hobby can afford that's why.

Even now you see kits that advertise "based on admiralty plans or museum plans" is so general because those plans do not give any or very little information on how the ship was built. So based on original drawings is only a tiny percent the rest is all made up.
 
I don’t think that the academics are publishing to get the big $$$. My whaleback history book published via a recognized academic press has sold about 600 copies which II am told is good for such a specialized topic. Money wise, the person who prepared the book’s index has been paid more than I have.

I think that academics publish to promote their academic careers. The old expression “ Publish or Perish.”

Whatever their motivation, Chapelle’s materials landing at Texas A&M do not bode well for non-academic researchers.

Roger
 
Whatever their motivation, Chapelle’s materials landing at Texas A&M do not bode well for non-academic researchers.

once something goes into a private collection, historical society archive, University library or museum it has fallen into a black hole pretty much unreachable by the general public. Sure they tell you "Come on down and we will make the information available" but we are not going to do research for you.
 
All may not be lost with University archives. Our part time student glassware washers did not get paid much. Maybe a faculty member or two have undergrad wanna-be who are poor and would do the footwork for minimum wage?
 
there are steps in prepping a project from plan to building. Ship carpenters and master shipwrights did not have nor did they need "construction plans" as a matter of fact they did not even need a drawing at all, they could work from the numbers called offsets. They knew how to build a ship. what plans you get from a collection gives only the shape of the hull and the size of the ship maybe a deck layout and that's it. This is why so many model builders complain about instructions most are vague, you as the builder have to fill in the blanks. but if you do not know how the structure is built filling in the blanks is a huge problem. Another big problem even if you do get construction information on ship building a kit is nothing like how a real ship is built.
Now
Chapelle had high standards for model ship building from the shape of the hull to the finer details. Over the years people involved in the "hobby" of model ship building realized Chapelle set the bar to high so starting with Chapelle his lofty ideals were tweaked over the years how far do we compromise?
 
All may not be lost with University archives. Our part time student glassware washers did not get paid much. Maybe a faculty member or two have undergrad wanna-be who are poor and would do the footwork for minimum wage?

there are researchers for hire some libraries and museums will provide a list of researchers. but there is no go-to place that advertises researchers for hire that i know of so maybe there are.
 
a question is

can the actual information on ship and boat building be applied to ship kit building? Or is like trying to use a manual for a farm tractor to build a car both are kind of the same but not quite
 
My kit experience is limited to the old Yellow Box solid carved hulls. Those kits were mostly scratch except for the heavy work. The stuff that a pattern following lathe did. With detailed plans much could be done that was more than what the kit provided. The instructions were Campbell's Jackstay and following the bib on its last pages. You had to want it and do the work to get the information.
 
Topic 2 - part 2
Before we discuss what ship models ought to be made, I thought it might be valuable to look at the1961 (not 1960 - oops) publication by Chapelle:


The article focuses on the construction of a new model of Savannah for the United States National Museum. Previous to this, the Museum did have a model, but 'does not agree with published catalog description as to the side paddle wheels. Neither does it agree with the material in the Marestier report (1823), which is accepted as the only source for a contemporary picture of the Savanah.'

The old model was built about 1890-92 by the master shipwright and model builder Lawrence Jensen, under the supervision of Capt. Joseph Collins of the U.S. Fish Commission. Research for this particular model had been done by Collins, and in notes left behind he notes no contemporary representation of the steamship had then been found.

The new model was built based on the ship's plans as reconstructed by staff members of the Museum's division of transportation. Chapelle writes how the first step in the research was to obtain customhouse description of the ship. He then goes on with what today may be thought of as a literature review. He considers the possibility that Savannah was built as a Havre packet, but then dismisses the conjecture. He states 'no half-models or plans of packets built before 1832 could be found, offset tables of a Philadelphia-New Orleans packet of 1824-25 were obtained'. Note that Savannah crossed the Atlantic in 1819.

However, Chapelle / the staff obtain offsets for the Ohio built in late 1825; these were used to make drawings / plans of that ship. Ohio was similar in size to Savannah and Capelle writes that there are additional similarities to information recorded in Savannah's register.


The article now turns to the reconstruction of Savannah's plans. Chapelle writes: 'The first step in the reconstruction of the Savannah's plans was to block out the register dimensions on a scale of one-quarter inch to the foot indrawing and then to work out the profile, using the Ohio plan as a general guide.' A bit later he writes: 'The plan for the engine, drawn to the same scale as the profile plan was shifted about on the lower deck in the hull profile to determine where the engine and side paddle wheel shaft might be located.' He also notes ' ... the exact dimensions of the engine are uncertain. Nevertheless, they can be approximated with enough accuracy for our purpose.' Off and on there are comments on how the hull shape of Ohio can be used and / or modified for the purpose of the Savannah reconstruction.

Finally the article concludes with: 'The reconstruction described herein produced a plan for a model that complied to the fullest extent with all the known dimensions and descriptions of the Savannah that have yet been found. The result showed that the United States National Museum's old model could not be altered to agree with the known features of the Savannah and that a new model was therefore necessary.'


Before agreeing to lead this forum, I was not aware of the steamship Savannah, nor this interesting article written by Chapelle. I believe that Chapelle had endorsed the model; but I need to wonder - is this an example of 'The Ship Model That Should Not Be Built'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top