USS Constitution 1797 by The Bitter End - 1/76.8 - 44 Gun Frigate - heavily modified kit

[The BItter End]

Note: These guns turned out to be way too big and I end up 3D printing these with normal FDM later in the build. I left this process in as casting may still be a viable option for some folks more crafty than I.

Guns!

So this has proven to be a real challenge. I turned one barrel on the lathe with reasonable success but I know I won’t be able to consistently repeat this with perfect results another 29 times so I decided to go down the road of casting with some very mixed results. Here is the update so far.

I wanted to make my molds with Oyumaru or blue stuff, but I cannot find either in South Africa. So, I went for 2 other options. The first was a 2-part liquid silicon that would be poured around the cannon and then cut away to release the blank and then secured with elastic bands to re pour the liquid resin into it. This did not work at all...

Without the benefit of a vacuum pump to extract all the bubbles it created a mold full of imperfections. The elastic bank required to keep the soft silicon together distorted the mold and therefore produced a frankly, rubbish result. The resin also left flakes inside the mold that would be very difficult to clean and finally the resin itself was very brittle and weak (this is clearly just the resin I used, and I am not judging all resins). Here you can see the results of lots of struggling.

Next up was making molds from thermal plastic. This process involved heating the product in boiling water. Pressing the cannon blank into the product until it was half in the material, then cooling the product in the freezer and then pressing a second lump of product on top of the cannon to make the second half of the mold. Here you can see what this looked like.

I then pressed Milliput into the 2 halves and joined them back together while it set (note the indexing holes and protrusions in the 2 halves of the mold.

This produced a reasonable result as shown below. The issue was that the mold struggles to release the material, and it seems like the quality deteriorates after each attempt as the mold degrades. I do have a few ideas to improve this, and I will report back.

I then made a little jig to file in the notch for the trunnions. As per the suggestion of Marcus, trunnions add an additional layer of complication to casting which I am not able to overcome.

I then added the trunnions and primed the 2-sample cannon with a grey primer.

I then finished them off with some black paint and this is where I find myself.

I did get the feeling that these carriages (built to the specifications mentioned in a previous post) were a bit on the small size. The carriages on the hull model also appear to be proportionally larger but I have also found examples in other research where the ratio between cannon and carriage seems equally disproportionate. Like this example of the constitutions 32 pounders from 1858.

My plan is to keep experimenting and seeing what works. This means:

· Trying to produce a thinner more flexible thermal plastic mold with what i have already.

· Trying to create a better silicon mold by changing the ratios of parts A and B of the mix

· Trying to buy Oyumaru and having it imported into South Africa

· Trying a mold made from other materials like silicone and corn starch.

 

[The BItter End]

I Just realized that I somehow managed to mess up the spacing of the gun ports on the spar deck and they have to be gutted and redone. The gaps between the forward and aft gun ports are 34mm at scale. When I went to mark out the gun ports in the waist, I realized that the maximum amount of space I could possibly allocate between ports while still having 5 ports is 24mm... essentially a 30% error. I could potentially live with this with some minor tweaking, but the problem goes deeper....

The gun ports on the gun deck must be both equally distributed and centered between the gun ports on the deck above. This error on the spar deck means that the ports at the gun deck level would also have to be bunched at the waist area.

I did vaguely consider just leaving it as is, but I realized that I am still only in the infancy of this build and I will put a thousand plus hours into micro measurements of perfection knowing full well that the bones are all wrong.

Wish me luck. I hope this can be fixed without destroying all that has been done so far,

 

[The BItter End]

Note: Post by @Marcus.K.

[For landlubbers and newbies in Constitutions early configuration:

Be aware that the configuration on spar deck changed between the beginning in 1797 to maybe about 1809/10 for which we have a sketch presumably by Rodgers - showing still the original and equally between the gun deck ports distributed 7 gun ports in the quarter deck ...

Don´t be confused by that boat hanging in the davit ... but I think one can see that the quarterdeck gun ports still are in between the gun deck gun ports, right?

... while the latter in 1812 the Isaac Hull model already shows the 8 wider carronade spar deck gun ports which are - naturally - not perfectly fitting in between the gun ports.

We know that the ship received in 1810(?)/11 the 16 new 32-pounder carronades. It is very likely that the quarterdeck bulwarks were modified by then or maybe later in 1811 in Washington´s Navy Yard, when Isaac Hull took over the command and organized the refit. But that´s not very likely as the ship would have had no spar deck battery while traveling from Boston to Washington without the modification of the too small and too few gun ports. Possible - but not very likely.

So just in case someone wonders, the early configuration differed a bit. And what we see today is still the 8 wider "Carronade" gunports per side along the quarterdeck.

Haiko, you sure know that the ship also did not yet have the "16th" "gun port" in the bow - which in fact is a bridle port - not for guns and which - when it was cut by Bainbridge into the hull in - was it end of 1812? - were even a bit smaller than the 15 gun ports on gun deck level. .. just in case.

Interesting maybe:

It seems the ship in Rodgers’s sketch seems to show upper gun lids on gun deck level. Which pretty sure wasn´t the case in 1797 and at least until 1804/05 when Cornè did his beautiful paintings. In those days the ship had detachable gun port lids.

But maybe the sketch shows detachable - but mounted and opened - gun port lids.

We assume them to be detachable at least until 1812 - as the 1812 Hull model again is shown in "battle configuration" without the detachable gun port lids (except the 2 most forward ports - where waves might be an issue even in good weather). Even in 1817 Ware Side view - no fixed gun ports yet.]

[What was your reference point for locating your gunports? The MS kit plans?]

I am using the traced Doughty plans for my gun port location. This is a very different arrangement to the MS Plans. Seven gun ports per side on the quarter deck and then another 8 open ports forward. I originally had partial bulwarks in the bow but now that I have ripped them off I am considering leaving those totally open.... we shall see.

I am going to go with the gun port layout on the doughty plans while assuming that the quarter deck has bulwarks and perhaps a totally open deck from the quarter deck forward (I will message you directly about this so as to not bore everyone too much with my questions.

As you mentioned, the doughty plan also seems to show a very neatly spaced set of gun ports on the gun deck which fall directly between the gun ports of the spar deck (this is really why I am now redoing the spar deck ports.

Just a side note, I see the very forward gun port on the Antczak model (which is supposedly the as built configuration) appears to show hinged single gun port lids (I too think this is incorrect) on all ports except for the forward most port which shows a split lid. A confusing little set of choices. This gun port also appears to be spaced a little closer to the precious gun port than in the doughty drawings or indeed any of the paintings where this port can be seen (Damn Cornes’ cloud of smoke).

 

[The BItter End]

It seems the ship in Rodgers’s sketch seems to show upper gun lids on gun deck level. Which pretty sure wasn´t the case in 1797 and at least until 1804/05 when Cornè did his beautiful paintings. In those days the ship had detachable gun port lids.

But maybe the sketch shows detachable - but mounted and opened - gun port lids.

We assume them to be detachable at least until 1812 - as the 1812 Hull model again is shown in "battle configuration" without the detachable gun port lids (except the 2 most forward ports - where waves might be an issue even in good weather). Even in 1817 Ware Side view - no fixed gun ports yet.]

[What was your reference point for locating your gunports? The MS kit plans?]

I am using the traced Doughty plans for my gun port location. This is a very different arrangement to the MS Plans. Seven gun ports per side on the quarter deck and then another 8 open ports forward. I originally had partial bulwarks in the bow but now that I have ripped them off I am considering leaving those totally open.... we shall see.

I am going to go with the gun port layout on the doughty plans while assuming that the quarter deck has bulwarks and perhaps a totally open deck from the quarter deck forward (I will message you directly about this so as to not bore everyone too much with my questions.

As you mentioned, the doughty plan also seems to show a very neatly spaced set of gun ports on the gun deck which fall directly between the gun ports of the spar deck (this is really why I am now redoing the spar deck ports.

Just a side note, I see the very forward gun port on the Antczak model (which is supposedly the as built configuration) appears to show hinged single gun port lids (I too think this is incorrect) on all ports except for the forward most port which shows a split lid. A confusing little set of choices. This gun port also appears to be spaced a little closer to the precious gun port than in the doughty drawings or indeed any of the paintings where this port can be seen (Damn Cornes’ cloud of smoke).

 

[The BItter End]

I was trying to find photos of Antczak´s beautiful model. I remember we talked about it in our PN conversation - and I remember seeing more photos than the ones I find right now. He did an exceptionally beautiful model, with a lot of very good, very interesting and very likely features for the 1797 concept (as I believe it was - of course nobody knows for sure). But we noticed then and here again some strange features, which most likely did not exist or differ. The port with the red shutters is the "16th port" below the cat head - which must be that "bridle port" I referred to in one of my previous posts. THIS - most likely - wasn´t existing until about 1812, when Bainbridge prepared the third 1812-15 war cruise - just after Hull came back from his defeat of HMS Guerriere. I am searching for my documents - but I can’t find the sources for this statement! Someone able to help me on that?

The bridle Port - when added - was smaller than the gun ports following (as there is another later mentioning in one of the logs that the bridle ports were cut to the size of the gun ports - indicating that they were smaller before) - and I don´t find THAT sources either! Need to read my Martin´s "Close up"!! It for sure would have had a lid to be closed - as it was the one most affected by waves from the bow, but I do not believe that it existed in the early years.

If you compare it with the Doughty Plan, you will find the very first gun port is just one before the fore mast channels. Below the cat head: no opening in the layout - and most likely not in the later existing ship.

I compared the 1819 Ware Deck Plan with the 1849 Pook Gun Deck Plan and you can see the Bridle Port (red marked) in 1819 - being a tiny little bit smaller than the Gun Port #1 (green marked) - while in 1849 the bridle port hat the same size.

You also can imagine that any gun there would not have room to run inwards - considering the bow sprit sitting in the center of the deck. No "chase gun" on gun deck level.

Here you have a bigger shot of the 1819 Ware Plan - and you see the position and size of the Bridle Port.

In a comparison of Doughty’s plan, Gillmer’s reconstruction of the 1797 status, Cornè’s 1803 painting and Pook’s 1849 side view, we can see: in 1803 there seemed to be no Bridle port - although I admit: Cornè’s bow area is a bit awkward. He seemed to have issues with perspective and dimensions here.. So, it is not a proof - but certain evidence I would give to Cornè.

My conclusion: I would rather NOT show an opening below the cat head. In my opinion (until I change it) the first Gun port is the one just forward the fore mast channel.]

 

[The BItter End]

After the very demoralizing step of pulling off all my spar deck gun ports I managed to make some progress again. I don’t know how exactly I managed to mess up the gun port placement so badly. Something about measuring once and cutting twice...I can't quite recall...anyway. I won't bore you too much with the repeat process but here are the basics...

I couldn’t find any drawings of step 1 in the plans:

Then repeating the process that was completed in a previous post but this time measuring very carefully and this resulted in a far longer waist than before and slightly more elegant lines.

For Framing the gun ports of the gun deck, I began by marking out the locations of the gun port on the strake just below the plank shear in pencil. These gun ports are 3.1ft by 3.1ft at full size according to the Doughty plans, 12.3mm at scale. which is slightly larger than the spar deck gun ports.

For all reasonable purposes these are located directly centered between the gun ports of the spar deck. Here you can see the pencil marks as well as the X on the frames which need to be removed to accommodate the gun port.

 

[The BItter End]

[Is it just me or are the gun deck ports slightly concave vertically? The Spar deck ports look great.]

Firstly, thank you and secondly, I think you are both observant and correct. The way in which I sanded these seem to have resulted in the concave appearance that you are seeing. I am hoping that I can eliminate this with the 2 layers of planking I must still add over them. I must actually take a look at the Lord drawings and see what exactly the profile should be but it's definitely not like that. I hope this can all be ironed out

I couldn't ignore this observation. Some heavy sanding has leveled things out quite a bit and I'm hoping the planking will. Solve the rest. I can't stress enough how much I appreciate the feedback. This is how one avoids looking at a model with 500 hours in it and realizing you made a silly mistake at hour 20

 

[The BItter End]

After quite a long break from this build log it is finally time for an update. This is going to be a long one for a number of reasons so please be patient. Hopefully there is something in here for everyone.

I left my last post with the intention of planking the hull but I somehow got sidetracked by possibly this biggest challenge of this build…the stern.

As I am sure you all know by now, my intention is to try and build this vessel as she was when she was originally launched in 1797. Little did I know just how impossible this task would be. What you will see below is a combination of compromises, guesses and historical accuracy which I hope does a fair job of representing the spirit of how she would have appeared on the date of her launch.

I cannot stress enough just how much of a role @Marcus.K. has played in this process. Without his patience and input (thousands of texts and over 600 shared images on whatsapp) this stern would have looked very very different. Many hours of discussion in the early hours of the morning before we went to work or Saturday afternoons while we had some time to relax have completely changed the way in which I see this project, the ship and Marcus himself. Many times we have come to a decision only to realize our mistakes and start again. I think we both learned a great deal during this project and I look forward to working with him until she is ready for launch and beyond. I have gained an enormous amount from my time shared with Marcus, but by far my greatest reward has been his friendship. Thank you Marcus

One final note before I begin. This stern changed many times during this process. I will not include all of the failed attempts and as far as possible only show the “final version” of each step. There may be subtle or obvious changes between versions, but the 3 images below are the very final permutation.

There are several sources which we used for reference including eyewitness description, the writing of Tyrone G. Martin, general information about the styles and attitudes at the time and several artworks. That being said, our main sources were the 1804 painting by Michele Felice Corne depicting the constitution at the bombardment of Tripoli and the so-called Isaac Hull model which was built by sailors sometime near the period of the great chase in 1812 and presented as a gift to Captain Hull.

Neither of these is a flawless source for a number of reasons and therefore require a large amount of interpretation. The painting by Corne is both somewhat unclear and borders on propaganda in many ways and is clearly riddled with inaccuracy. The hull model on the other hand was built several years after ger launch by sailors who had limitations of their own as well as time constraints to complete the model. There is, however, truth in both and teasing this from the sources was a big art of the journey.

One other simple yet notable source was the only real description of how the stern was meant to appear:

“The Secretary of War, James McHenry, proposed that the sterns of all six original frigates "should be all alike to show they belong to one family and represented by an Eagle in the Center with the Constellations around him, supported on each Quarter by the figures of Liberty and Justice." [Brewington, M. V. Ship Carvers of North America. New York: Dover Publications”

As mentioned before, this is simply one interpretation which should hopefully show the elements of the constitution stern at the time which are most important. I look forward to all input on what might have been done differently but I hope that all can see the method to our madness.

Below is a numbered reference image (in a rather strange order) which I will use to summarize the build and decision-making process.

1. Overall shape of stern

2. Lady Justice

3. Decorative arch

4. Great crest of the United states

5. “Real” windows

6. Lady Liberty

7. Quarter gallery decoration

8. Window decoration painted

9. Name “CONSTITUTION”

10. Window Decoration Carved

11. False Window

12. Hause Hole and wreath

13. Painted banner

1: Overall shape of stern

This was determined by simply comparing the shapes of the stern on the hull model and Corne painting. Then the images were mirrored and overlayed they produced a surprisingly similar outline.

I began by tracing this outline and creating a template which I glued to a 6mm plank of pear wood.


Once this was cut out, I then repeated the process for the second layer of the stern. And finally planked over all of this with a layer of pear wood. Hause holes were then marked and drilled out. There is a certain belief that these hause holes may not have been open but it is clear that these served an important function and were almost always shown as open in contemporary models of other vessels. The final step was to steam and bend the whole assembly to produce the gentle curve the stern has.




Once this basic shape had been made I added the uprights between the windows. I got this spacing from the ratios on the hull model

5: “Real” windows

The decision to make this a 6 window configuration was due to the clear 6 window setup in the Corne painting and the hull model. There is also a reference as follows:

“8 Oct 1812 -- Five "drops" (carvings) replaced between stern windows. [Navy Agent Amos Binney Summary Statement (with enclosures), 1-31 Oct 1812, RG217, 4th Auditor's Accounts, Alphabetical Series, Box 39, DNA.]”

This clearly shows that there were 6 windows in the stern at least around 1812.

The 6 real panes of glass as opposed to the possible 4 shown in the hull model was a choice made mostly due to the representation in the Corne painting and the known style of the time.

The first order of business was to frame the outside of the windows and then install the internal frames. This was done with lime wood, a decision I deeply regret, it resulted in a very fluffy finish which was hard to fix. I allowed the wood to protrude to the back of the transom and be sanded flush later.

It can also be seen in this photo that I sanded a taper below the windows and added a rough trim below the edge.

Determining the color of the window frames was a difficult process. I originally painted them white but found the result to be too stark and the white paint too unforgiving

I then settled on a dark red brown with some red highlights to create depth.

It is also almost impossible to see but I installed a clear plastic sheet behind the windows to represent glass. An effect far more visible in real life.

10: Window Decoration Carved

Decisions on how exactly to execute these decorations were difficult, there is very little visible info on this. We ultimately decided to follow the general style of the time more than something specific. The outer drops were made by rolling out Milliput on a layer of wax paper, I then coated the Milliput in a thin layer of olive oil and made a small punch using a folded section of soft drink can. This I then used to punch out leaves. Once these had dried, I glued them down onto a sheet of wax paper with superglue into the desired shape and sanded the entire decoration flat and thinner before placing it on the stern (the image below shows the decoration before sanding).

The center window drops were made by making a slight modification to a image found by Marcus which is period appropriate. (number 6)

This was the result of the modification for the 5 drops:




These were then printed at the correct scale, glued to a piece of pear wood and carved.

These vertical wreaths were painted yellow and flanked by window trim

7: Quarter gallery decoration

The quarter galley decorations were done in much the same way as the outer window decorations. In this case however, some additional Milliput elements were added to fill out to space, some simple balls to represent fruit and some other minor embellishments.

3: Decorative arch

This arch was another situation where information was very scarce, the corne painting appears to show some sort of lighter embellishment. The hull model shows this as a blank space.

The first step was to bend 2 thin pieces of pear wood. I found this was best achieved by first using CA glue to secure one end of the arch and then applying wood glue and clamping the arch in place.

This was then filled with a decoration created by cutting up various leftover pieces of brass etched parts from my Pegasus and flooding them with silver solder to connect them and build up 3 dimensional structure as shown in Xkens build log.

4: Great crest of the United states and 13: Painted banner

This particular element took a vast amount of research to nail down.

I believe one can safely assume that the eagle appeared on the stern and one would hope it would be in this location. There is a reference to Constellation’s requiring their appearance on the stern and I believe I see something like clouds on the hull stern and possibly even in the Corne painting. The great seal of the United States appeared as follows from 1782:

It officially evolved to a seal looking like this in 1825:

I realized that my date isn’t quite right, but I like to think that this evolution was a gradual one and an eagle similar to this may have been carved onto the stern. There are numerous eagles of this style which can be found at the time. Below a great example:

One interesting quirk of the eagle of the Constitution on the Hull model is that it appears to be facing “sinister” (viewer right) the normal convention for the seal is for the eagle to be facing “dexter” viewer left. The eagle represented is somewhat unclear and it is possible that the item which appears to me to be the head and neck may well be the scroll it carries but who knows! The eagle does however face sinister from at least 1908 on the restored Constitution, so I went with this design.

Above the eagle I placed clouds carved from pear wood and a sphere above the eagle showing the 13 stars representing the 13 states. A little tidbit of information is that there were already 17 states at this stage but that is neither here nor there.

On the Corne painting it appears that there is some white in the area of the eagle, this could well be the banner the eagle holds. This also presented one of 2 opportunities to show that the decoration on the stern may well have been at least partially painted. I opted to paint this banner using white paint with a small amount of red to indicate the text, followed by a light brushing of yellow to blend the color into the rest of the stern.

2: Lady Justice and 6: Lady Liberty

These elements were copied from baroque style art for their basic shape and carved in pear. Lady Justice holds a sword and mirrored shield with a mask below her feet.

Lady Liberty holds a chalice feeding the eagle (another possible motivation for the sinister facing eagle) and she has a sword below her feet. These ladies were painted yellow as with the rest of the elements but the shield was given a light white coat to show the mirrored shield.

Once all these parts had been glued to the transom with a combination of wood glue and CA glue the whole was spraypainted black using Rustoleum matt black primer.

9: Name “CONSTITUTION”

The name of the ship was apparently painted on the stern. There is limited evidence to work from so I simply copied a popular style from the time. This was a pretty laborious process but it was made easier by printing the name at the correct size and then taping it just above the place where the name should go. This allowed me to copy eat letter directly in its correct position. The font I used is called Castellar with a single space between letters. It’s not perfect but good enough at a distance.

8: Window decoration painted

This little element isn’t too exciting; it was just another opportunity to show that the decoration of the stern may well have been a hybrid carving and painting scenario. These are meant to represent small “bows” used to tie the decorations to the arch close to the top of the window.

12: Hause Holes and wreath

The Hause holes were surrounded by wreaths made with the same technique as the outer window decorations. Their position was a subject of some debate, and I moved them 3 times. Ultimately their final location was the result of a combination of practical considerations, historical evidence and aesthetics.

Final position on the vessel:

The final placement of the stern on the vessel was determined by looking at Corne, Hull and some other contemporary models.

This placement required the removal of a small amount of the bulwark and removing the stern planking which was then glued directly to the transom to allow for the curvature of the stern. At a later date the taffrail will be installed, but that is a project for another day.

I think this post has only touched the surface of what was done on this portion of the build. If anyone would like more information about something specific or more detail on how the various parts were made please feel free to ask.

 

[The BItter End]

Note: Post by @Marcus.K.

[This is the first time I see that last photo - with the stern at the hull - and it´s just incredible!!

What a beautiful sight!

I said it before and I have to repeat it here: this cross-hemispherical cooperation is a lot of fun and how you, T.B.E. realized for what I before just had a rough idea was and still is a miracle. I have to state that T.B.E. really had to shorten that explanation about how we found the presented layout. As he mentioned - it was a journey for several weeks with a lot of exchange of information, concerns, rethinking, again studying the sources, even finding new ones (!), rethinking the old interpretation. Just as an example: T.B.E. did not like the appearance of the white window frames - and while discussing the possible alternatives and their likelihood we recognized that the 1803 Cornè painting - done before the 1804 Tripoli’s-paintings showing that stern! - showed red window frames in the galleries. Accidentally we stepped over another representation of the ship which - it seems - by now has not been identified as USS Constitution. And even if it is not Constitution - the similarities are really obvious! - it at least shows that red windows on a big American frigate are a likely alternative:

This is a painting in Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, MA, USA. It was done by Felice Cornè in 1803 - the year he did that famous side view.

Even if the ship was just intended as a "typical" American frigate - it shows red window frames we believe the ship had in its earlier years. From historian point of view, it is not a proof - as both sources are Cornè and one of the sources even does not for sure represent Old Ironsides. But we think in a case like this, where not that many sources are available the principle of Occam’s Razor must be valid.

Or if you take the name "Constitution" on the ship’s stern: Cornè showed it like this:

and in his 1803 side view - he presented the name like that below the ship:



William Bass (Author of "Old Ironsides - Super frigates of the many faces") calls this font "roman". And what T.B.E. did by hand to represent this on the model is just incredible!

I will as soon as possible try to recollect and write down that interesting journey and our findings in @uss frolick "stern view" -thread - as we did not only reconstruct the 1797 stern in more details - but also found out more about the 1812 stern worth sharing.

What impressed both of us a lot: when we were "theoretically" considering the likelihood of this or that detail - found a decision based on pure ration ... and T.B.E. realized it on the model: it always added an even better balance and beauty to the structure as if that new feature really belonged to that position! As if the beauty itself wanted to be proof. This focus on "function", "likelihood" and "ratio" leads to a very credible and plausible design - which also has the beauty of a baroque stern.]

[Those similarities are very interesting, but Corne's East India Marine Hall ship painting does not fly a pennant, the mark of a naval vessel in commission, but what appears to be a big merchant house flag. It could be one of the big Salem East-Indiamen like the Belisarius, America, or Grand Turk. The (third) America was the former 28-gun French Corvette La Blonde.]

 

[The BItter End]

As a side note, What Marcus shared about the window color and the East India Marine Hall, is a great example of just how many facets there were to this investigation and how many things we looked at and discussed. In fact i completely forgot to mention that we also looked at the color shown in the quarter galleries in the 1803 painting by Corne. This was in fact the final color used to color match the stern windows.

 

[The BItter End]

Note: Post by @Marcus.K.

[Hey, you nearly got me. That flag seemed really to indicate: "not a warship” ... but. The photo of that painting was not done very well - as the flags are partly covered by reflections of the flashlight. If you see another representation of that scene - on the book cover of George H. Schwartz´s interesting book, you´ll notice a pennant on top. I guess this indicates: Navy ship in duty - maybe "greeting" the Society with that 2nd flag?

A men-o-war? ... with guns stored inside?

I believe to remember having read in Tyrone Martins "a most fortunate ship" that during the early travels of Old Ironsides the guns were stored completely inside - which caused a lot of issues concerning the available space on the gun deck - although the guns were a bit shorter than needed for the battle. Later then the configuration was changed and the gun ports (still not hinged but removeable) got this split which allowed the guns to be stored "outside" while having the ports closed and sealed. That - and the dark shadow Cornè chose to set the side into - would explain the lack of guns at the ships side.

A thesis ... What do you think, Ladies, Gentlemen?

Also very interesting is that design of the US Flag at the stern. I know there were many different ones during the times - depending on how many states joined the union - and of course the early "finding phase".. but I never saw anything like that?]

 

[The BItter End]

Just an update to show the first planking. There is nothing of historical significance here except for the fact that one can now more clearly see the 1707 spacing of the gun ports, which are evenly spaced below the gun ports above and the absence of a bridle port.

As some of you may know I am going with a double planking approach, the first layer being done with the supplied timber(fairly nasty stuff) and the second with pear wood (still to be cut from logs which are drying).

This approach has 2 main benefits, the first being the creation of a smooth stable shaped hull to secure the pear wood to and the second being an opportunity to learn a bit about planking. This being my second build this was much needed to hone my skills before the final planking.

I did the starboard side "correctly" besides the fact that I used single runs of planking as far as possible instead of the correct length planks as in the final layer. I did however attempt to taper the planks correctly etc. This went pretty well on the Starboard side but I somehow messed up the process on the port side and developed a strange curve in the planking. At this point I decided that it didn’t make sense to keep torturing myself and completed the final planking with full width planks.

My next step is to plank below the stern gallery and then move onto the final hull planking.

All this being said...does anyone know where I can find a good complete planking tutorial. I have seen Chuck’s great videos but they begin after the hull has been marked as far as I can tell.

 

[The BItter End]

After a bit of a break, I dove right back into planking and quickly ran into some problems and then some more problems.

Firstly, the wale.



In my attempt to pursue historical accuracy I did a little research on what the wale might have appeared like in 1797 and came across the following very confusing information...

1. The 1926 Lord cross section drawings: Starboard side (presumably showing what the restorers were meant to build to). Note only one lip on the wale upper edge

2. 1926 Lord cross section, same drawing, Port side, presumably as found?? smooth hull no Step on the wale

3. Yet another Lord drawing showing an upper and a lower step with a protrusion of 1 to 1.5 inches

4. The hull model from 1812 showing what appears to be a totally smooth hull....this model pays a lot of attention to other details so it would surprise me if this feature was there but was not shown in some form.

5. And finally, the Humphreys plans which appear to show some wort of wale like markings but that is by no means definite

It is of course possible that the wale was there but was just so insignificant in protrusion that it was not shown on any of the paintings or drawings of the ship from the time, while in reality still being there. The fact that Lord included this feature may also simply have been a byproduct of the fact that he simply expected it to be there based on standard practice.

I am personally unable to find any feature or piece of text which indicated the stepped wale other than the one version of the Lord drawing.

I would love to hear your views and perspectives on this.

How should the wale be represented?! Should it be there at all? And if it is, an upper and lower ledge or just the upper.

 

[The BItter End]

Note: Post by @Marcus.K.

[I checked with the AI assistant I use most frequently, Grok. I asked him if he knew definitively whether or not the 1797 version of The Constitution had wales.

Here's his response:

"Yes, the original 1797 USS Constitution definitively included wales as a key structural element in its hull construction.

Wales—thick, longitudinal strakes of heavy planking—were standard in 18th-century warship design to reinforce the hull against stresses from guns, rigging, and sea conditions. For Constitution specifically, contemporary records from her builder, George Claghorn, and Secretary of War James McHenry confirm their installation during final assembly at Edmund Hartt's Boston shipyard. In a January 1797 progress report to Congress, McHenry noted: "The whole of the frame is raised and is ready for planking; the wales are prepared, and it is expected will be on and fastened this month."ca2519 This places the wales' fastening just before her October 1797 launch.

As launched, the hull featured a broad yellow ocher band painted from near the hawse holes down to the top of the main wales, with the bends (lower hull) tarred black below and the upper works black above.6e94d2 Gun ports were positioned at the gun deck level and above the wales, with the original gun streak (a reinforced strake for port sills) running from just above the wales to the upper gun port sills.

Disagreements in model plans or historian interpretations might stem from later refits (e.g., 1803–1804 or 1812) that altered planking details, simplified diagrams in some drafts, or debates over exact thicknesses/locations. However, primary sources leave no doubt about their presence in the 1797 build. If you're referencing a specific thread on Model Ship World, feel free to share the link for more tailored advice!"]

[Oh, Gentlemen, pls. be very careful with Karl-Heinz Marquardt´s Constitution. Marquardt did a lot of very interesting and excellent research in many fields of ancient sailing vessels. His A ot S Constitution book is unfortunately not a highlight - and I have the impression that its - unfortunately - perfect presentation and the huge impact of the author´s name did damage a lot to the general view on the ship and caused a lot of errors to so many good model builders.

Let me pls. try to help here.

First of all: there is of course no doubt that the ship had wales - as I understood Haiko he is looking for how to shape the upper and lower edge of them: an invisible transition between the heavy wales and the thinner planking – achieved by gradually diminishing the thickness at the edges – or a sharp transition with a distinct arris or a chamfer.

Second: that section cuts you showed, Haiko, are from one drawing - in which - in the gun deck level - two texts explain the content of each half:

Left side is "Port side - present construction and arrangement" - so this is what Lord found in 1925-26 from the 1906 renovation.

Right side of the drawing: "Starboard side - proposed re-construction" ..

Above the header of that drawing #34535 is a text explaining that the drawing is based on "considerable research" and even if the text on gun deck says "Proposed reconstruction" we need to be careful - as the final result differed.

These are the two half section cuts to showed in your post, Haiko. And below you find the text right of that section cuts - above the drawings header.

This next photo done in 1927 shows what Lord was finding from the 1906 renovation:

I believe we can not identify for sure which planks were the thicker wales - and which were just planks, can you?

But there is another drawing - #35208 - in which Lord seems to represent the "from Specifications .. Joshua Humphrey "as the note close to Lords signature explains. Unfortunately I cannot read that text above the header.

And then there is this last section cut of the Lord Restoration (I know about) #24472 - done in 1931 "as finished" - which represents what we would find in 1931 .

I did not (yet) find any representation of the ship in which the wales would look like the British "puzzle" with these short "pentagon"-shaped pieces as Marquardt shows in his unfortunately beautiful book. It is much more likely that the US Frigates had - from beginning until today - more simple but robust and long planks as wales as there never was lack of long wooden planks in the US - in contrary to their British cousins - which had to deal with shortage of wood in the 1800s.

Looking through all the representation I collected of US Frigate Constitution or her sister ships I never could identify an "edge" of the wales. Either it was that tiny that it was not obvious enough - or it just wasn´t existing. Here an example for 1871:

The artist did show all kind of ugly things - like that ****-ramp on the bow or the tiny air vent in the quarter gallery. Many strange and ugly details. Would he miss distiguisable wales?

Or here: in 1857:

No wales visible - which does not at all mean they did not exist. Just: there is no edge notable.

Another approach - from technical point of view: An edge would make no sense - neither on top nor on bottom side of the wales. On bottom side it would just increase friction in the water.

On top and on bottom side it also would be endangered to get damaged, while doing what wales have to do: being a bumper for any object floating against the ship’s hull. And if an edge was damaged, the wood would be in much more danger to start rotting. So high risk.

And how to repair it? You had to remove a plank out of the hull!

What would be the benefit of a sharp edge? ... or even a chamfered edge? Technically it would make no sense to have the wales not smoothened to the planks. Any other feature to protect the hull from impacting objects like fender strakes for the loading or for the action with the boats - or billboards for protecting the hull from the anchors. Those were added on top of the planks - and were easy to remove if damaged or rotten.

In my opinion those planks being the wales were just thicker - but you would not be able to differentiate them - except maybe by a bit wider? - but I don´t see evidence for that either. I would not represent them in the ship as an extra layer or as thicker planks with a distinguishable edge.]

[Here is what I have for 35208

]

[Would you agree the note says:

This plan has been drawn as a matter of record and comparison with Navy Yard Boston Midship Section Plan No 34526 BU C.S.A No 130241 which has been approved by that bureau subject to checking and revision to bring it in accord with additional data as may come to the attention of the commandant before any work is authorized and or started.

Plan A ?? per original specification is not to be strictly followed in reconstruction.

Some features will however be incorporated viz.: height of main hatch coamings, diagonal riders chamfering edges of wales and black strakes installation of third strakes etc.]

[But in general - to come back to Haiko´s need - it is hard to guestimate the right detail design for Old Ironsides in its earlier appearance. As we have only the verbal descriptions and main dimensions of most main components (and it is very likely that those dimensions were the "delivery dimensions") in Humphreys 1794 "specifications" and only rare and not very precise paintings in her earlier years. As Haiko pointed out already: the 1803 and 1804-05 Cornè paintings are too tiny to show a detail like edges on wales. The 1803 Roux paintings do not show distinguishable thicker planks. The earliest serious source is the Isaac Hull model which the crew did build for their beloved captain in 1812. And beside some odd details it turns out that someone tried hard to represent a lot of tiny little details which may not be too important - but caused for sure efforts for the builders. That they did NOT represent wales or black streaks with edges might have to tell something.

Or course there is still a certain uncertainty - and I guess there still will be one for a very long time.

I am not sure - as Royal or any other Navy is not my field - but I would not be surprised if the representation of wales with "sharp edges" in British Admiralty Models or even drawings might be a way to point on an important feature - which in real life would be smoothened. As they were an important feature to stabilize the framing and protect the hull I would not be surprised if Admiralty wanted to be able to exactly see their position and shape. I think we are all used to "see" them .. and this may be misleading due to my above-mentioned arguments.]

 

[The BItter End]

I have decided to buy myself a little extra time before I have to make a final decision on the wales by planking down to where the Wale should begin and rough sanding this back. This will give me the option to have a thicker squared, smooth or chamfered wale depending on what I decide.

For those that care I am leaning in the direction of doing a chamfered wale mostly because I would like the color scheme to match that of the admiralty models and the Antczak model. This can be done with a smooth wale but I believe the paint effect will be better if the paint is applied to a slightly raised wale as opposed to a smooth hull. Below is a photo of the scheme for reference e. I realize this is a strange deviation for this drive for historical accuracy, but I cannot bring myself to paint over the hand-cut pear planks.

Due to my lack of skill and the fact that I am cutting these planks on a 20-year-old 2kW table saw I really struggled to get consistent plank thicknesses. I therefore started very rough and over-thick and sanded back. The first planking allows for very effective pinning of the planks together to eliminate some of the smaller gaps.

A very rough result:

Which was largely remedied by rough sanding with 80 grit sandpaper. The finish is still rough-sanded and will later be sanded down to a far finer grit and sealed.

Any defects will also be filled with a sawdust and glue filler and the imperfections in the upper edge of the bulwark painted over as in the Antczak model above and hidden under the plank sheer strip so I am not too concerned about minor defects in these areas,

I hope to produce a far nicer result once this is all cleaned up properly so please don't judge too hard.

For those interested in the minutiae of my decision-making process my planking was chosen as follows.

The average width was in the region of 10inches, there was some variation according to Lord’s drawings, but these are minor enough to not be worth replicating. This translated to a 3.3mm wide strip.

As for planking pattern and length, I went with a 4-butt shift pattern with the additional element of not allowing and butt to fall directly above or below a gun port it was within 2 strakes of a gunport. The offset between butts was 6ft which I achieved by marking out the butt lines on the first planking at 24mm intervals and having butts land on these marks. This is a planking style which I got from HMS victory reconstruction specifications, I appreciate that this is not necessarily what would have been used across the pond but its good enough for me in the absence of other information.

The records show that average hull plank length was around 40ft(159mm). I used this length as my baseline but always went upwards in plank length not downwards when a deviation from the 4-butt pattern was required. I chose to do this as a minor nod to the fact that American ship builders had access to far better timber resources than their European counterparts so I guessed they would have access to longer planks.

If anyone happens to want a copy of the planking spec, I used to feel free to give me a shout and ill send it over.

PS. I just realized that I messed up the 4-butt shift. The last plank is incorrect and its butt advances 2 beams to the bow instead of moving 3 beams back. Luckily it is only one incorrect strake before I can "reset" the pattern below the wale planking. but I don't think I can justify removing that strake. If anyone has a way to justify my mistake, please let me know. I know this error, no matter how invisible to most views, will bother me forever.

 

[The BItter End]

So, after a little more than a month of various challenges to get the second hull planking done I am finally finished(besides the actual finishing which I will probably be doing with Osmo Polyx as suggested by @Mike Y)

The first decision I had to make was of course the wale. I used a combination of the specification of Joshua Humphreys from 1794 and the Painting for Corne from 1803 for most of the process as there is very little other information about the wale available. The Lord drawings from 1926 largely just added confusion and I mostly disregarded these.

1. Height of wale

Humphreys specifies 2 critical pieces of information to determine how to position the upper edge of the wale.

Firstly: Height from top of the whale to port sill 3 – 3 ½(3ft 3 1/2inches) = 39 inches

Secondly: Black Streaks 5 in number the first & second 5 ½ inch thick 3rd 5 ¼ in, 4th 5 inch and the 5th 4 ½ inch thick by 10 inch wide at the upper edge of the black streak to be mitered down to a level in order to carry the water out of the seam plank between the black streak & string to be 3 ½ inch thick

This is slightly confusing and contradictory. 5 streaks of 10 inches would equate to a distance of 50 inches between the lower sill of the gun port and the top of the wale. Based on the spacing shown in the Corne painting from 1803 and the possibility that the uppermost black streak was cut by the gun port I decided to go with 4 planks of 10 inches below the wale(4x3.3mm at scale)

2. Projection and width of wale.

Humphreys goes on to specify as follows:

Main wales Six streaks on each side 7 inch thick & 10 inch wide

and

Thick stuff under the wale 1st streak 6-inch-thick 2nd 5 ½ inch 3rd 5 inch and 4th 4 ½ inch running plank in the bottom 4 inch thick to be not less than 6 feet scarph nor less than 4 strakes between every two bolts on the same timber.

From this (and the reference to the thickest black streak above the wale being 5 1/2inches) we can easily conclude that the wale must be 6 strakes with an upper projection of 1 1/2inches (0.5mm at scale) and a lower projection of 1inch (0.3mm at scale).

This was achieved by first sanding back the upper portion of the bulwarks slightly more than needed and then beginning the planking again to be sanded later. The wale planking was done with a uniform width, tapering only began on planking below the wale. The desired effect can be seen below

Before commencing with planking of the wale, I did both layers of stern planking below the transom. This allowed for the top planking to be laid over the stern planks producing a reasonably neat finish. I neglected to take photos as I should have but both layers can be seen in the following photos:

Once my undocumented wale planking had been done, I began with the tapered planks. These were calculated using the standard method which I used in my deck planking where the available space for planking is divided by the number of planks which must fit in each space to determine plank widths. There are many excellent guides on this so I won’t bore you with my cumbersome attempts to explain this process. The tapering was achieved with this simple bolt together jig made from aluminum mounting rails. The narrowest and widest point of each plank is marked, and these 2 points are then aligned with the straight edge of the aluminum, they are then tightened down with a homemade hand wrench and cut back to the aluminum with a hand plane.

Here are a few overview shots of my planking progress, nothing much to share here except for the fact that the first planking and a million push pins allowed me to avoid all pre bending and limited my bending work to a simple steam with a cheap Chinese steamer before pinning each plank to the hull.

My issues came right at the end of my planking, where I realized that I had not been as accurate with my measurements and cutting as I should have been. This required some drop strakes which would have made many naval architects turn in their graves. I was happy to accept this failure as it is very hidden from sight and was an interesting little expedition into drop strakes and how they (don't) work.

This was followed by lots and lots of planing and sanding.

Gaps were filled with a 3 part mixture of oak colored water based wood filler, wood glue and the sawdust from sanding to create a filling medium which matched the planking fairly closely.

It was at this point that I actually decided to show the lower edge of the wale too. This was achieved by gluing a long strip of lime wood to the hull at the appropriate position and then sanding away the required 0.3mm step before using steam to remove this strip. The result was acceptable considering I will in all likelihood, be painting this wale.

The final step was to cut a small molding to cover the joint between the planking of the stern counter and the hull. This was achieved by cutting the profile into a scalpel blade and clamping my workpiece in the aluminum plank clamp. This was then scraped to reveal a suitable profile.

A couple of final photos, a little more sanding needed and a coat of osmo and I think the result should be acceptable. The wale and above will be painted at a later stage. Please let me know if anyone has any pointers for this process or how to get the most out of the current state of affairs.

 

[The BItter End]

[Amazing result, especially given that you had to manufacture your own planks on a table saw. Even more impressive is the that you didn't ruin your plane blades on that aluminum plank plaining jig. I never in a million years would have considered using the plan to level and shape the planks once they were on the hull. (Fishtail chisel would have been my choice).]

It was an interesting learning curve. I actually thought that this aluminum jig may damage the plane, especially when it started taking small slivers of metal off the jig with the first few planks. Unbelievably once the jig had settled this stopped happening and I managed to shape all 460+ planks without even adjusting or sharpening the blade a single time. I suspect the dragging motion on the return stroke redressed the blade every time... Also, that was a real cheap little plane so I didn't feel too bad about risking it.

As for shaping on the hull, this was only the very rough shaping, some of my planks were way over thickness, maybe 2.5mm or even more. Most of the shaping was done with 80 grit sandpaper.

I addressed a few small items when I had the free time and I have opted to show them in a few separate posts for simplicity’s sake.

 

[The BItter End]

Starting off with the controversial air vents.

Tyrone Martin and many other constitution experts disagree on the exact nature of the small unidentified squares shown on the Felice corner 1803 painting of the constitution. There are essentially 2 main theories as far as I can tell, the first being air vents (and the theory which I am most drawn to and the second being that they are the ends of reinforcing bars inside the vessel.

Beginning with the latter, it seems that these bars only came into use around 1850 and there is no mention of them in any documentation relating to the constitution before that time period.

There is also the matter of design, it is hard for me to imagine that a reinforcing plate of this nature would be designed to fall on a single strake of planking when simply making the plate marginally wider would result in a significant increase in stress distribution.

In terms of an argument for these being air vents we can look to 3 somewhat circumstantial pieces of evidence.

It is mentioned in the ships logs that air vents were added, the language isn't definitive but it implies that there were already air vents prior to 1810. See below from "Close up” referring to ships logs

It is well documented that ships of this period employed air vents, and it would be surprising if constitution didn't have some ventilation.

And finally, there is a painting of the Frigate President (Sister ship to Constitution) by Antoine Roux which clearly shows very similarly positioned rectangles as air vents in the open position (below channels)

In our Corne painting we see a very similar article.

The rectangles in question can be seen in the upper portion of the wale, I therefore positioned them in the same strake along the entire length of the wale, 1 strake below the top of the wale. Another matter of interest is the fact that these air vents are not equally spaced along the length of the wale. When we alight the drawings of the deck beams with knees made by C.F. Waldo in 1819 we can immediately see why. The deck beams below are not evenly spaces and all aft facing knees are at an angle. Taking this into consideration allows air vent placement which matches the irregular spacing on the Corne painting with surprising fidelity. Below is the placement of vents what I went with.

The actual modeling of the vents was pretty basic and I am not entirely happy with the result. The average size shown appears to be around 10 inches by 12-14 inches and I therefore make this out in position with pencil; I then scribed the outer edges of the vent with a vernier set to the correct width and then outlined the frame with a chisel. There is no obvious latching or hinge visible on any of the available artwork, and I therefore decided to leave the vents as a simple rectangle. Here you can see a marked vent as well as a completed one.

And a slightly wider shot of the completed vents. The final effect with the painted wale can be seen in the upcoming posts.

 

[The BItter End]

Scuppers!

Another interesting little feature is the ships scuppers; there is almost no evidence for the existence of scuppers on the constitution except for the fact that clearly ships needed these and some references to scuppers in the ships logs such as

“a Ball came through the scupper hole of the ships side which is lined with lead & the particles of lead wounded him in innumerable places.” (Surgeon Amos Evans Medical Day Book, March 16, 1812 – August 27, 1812, Amos A. Evans Collection, vol. 1, William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan).

I decided to go for 8 scuppers per side in total. Firstly because @Marcus.K. found a reference to 16 cast scuppers (I don't have this reference, and I apologize if I got this wrong) and the paintings by Antoine Roux of the president where he shows 3 round scuppers on the spar deck and 5 oval or race track shaped scuppers on the gun deck. In the absence of any other evidence, I decided that this layout was as good as any and essentially copied this placement. There were also some telltale signs from corner 1803 which I used for placement, but I would be lying if I were to pretend this was anything other than a slightly educated guess. The scuppers can be identified by the faint streaks of dirt below them.

In terms of scupper height I went with what Roux shows (1 strake above air vents, along with a logical placement relative to the deck above based on standard designs for the time as seen in this beautiful drawing (in the drawing it can be seen that the scupper mouth is flush, I chose to show the flange protruding as it is a nice way to show their presence and the flared lead mouth may well have been so in certain designs):

To create the scuppers, I rough cut some pair wood into rectangles and squares of the right size, I then shaped the outer edge and drilled holes into their centers and filed to shape. This yielded a pretty decent result with minimal effort.

There positions were then marked on the hull and appropriate holes drilled and filed to accommodate them.

 

[The BItter End]

[I had to search for it myself. The reference for the 16 cast scuppers is only in my paper-version of Tyrone Martin´s "A Close up" from 2008. It contains a bit more information than the online version from 2003.

"May 1813: ship fitted with 16 cast scuppers" .. from a "T. & R. Howe´s"-bill 14. May 1813.

What may be a "casted scupper"?

This is an example of a casted part, which might have been what the text talked about. The shown lid is a casted "scupper valve" found in the collection of the Royal Museum Greewich. Of course the "cast scupper" may also just refer to a stub end of the scupper - being made as cast part.

But as the "casted scuppers" are mentioned to be fitted in 1814 we may assume that previously to that date there wasn´t any "casted" part. Which allows Haiko to not need to guess or show anything like this.

Why only in the center of the ship - around the ship´s waist? .. in most of the cases the waist of the deck is usually the most deepest point on the deck

Principle sketch of sheer - midship being the deepest point where water would flow to .

And also, the side´s lowest point is in the area of the waist - as due to the shape of the hull these are the lowest points on downwind sides of the ship in case of stronger winds. Guess where the "deepest" point of the deck is right now? Where would you need the scuppers now? (Flying P-Liner: Pamir in 1905)

For USS Constitution we think we also saw hints in Cornè´s 1803 painting we used as a reference:

Here you see a detail view on the painting. Marked with blue are 2 "dark spots" - which are in positions we see as comparable with Roux´s President Paintings. The left one being just below the main channel, the forward one between gun 5 and 6. Just the center one would be .. either

a) missing in the painting by accident ... or ...

b) that ring we see where that rope runs through, was a misinterpretation of Cornè in his sketch -

c) wasn´t THERE ... and we had only 2 scuppers in the spar deck level - and 6 in the gun deck level.

As c) seemed not very likely - you would want a scupper in the center! We decided that a) or b) are valid .. and therefore there would be an opening needed in between those two dark spots ..

Haiko marked the spot:

Funny coincident: that Ring in the center? ... is were we would expect a 3rd scupper?.. right?

Hm.. option b) most likely?

As we by now have found 3 positions - comparable to Roux´s President - we can assume the other 5 scuppers to be placed somewhere on the gun deck level as we see it in the Roux paintings - even if we can´t see them in Cornè´s painting. They would be a bit lower where the gun deck itself would be. And they might be - just as Roux shows it - one plank above the air vents.

This is (partly) a very weak chain of evidence, we agree .. but .. its the best we can offer for this essential feature for now.