USS Constitution Old Ironsides :: Print Thread

Group,

I've included a couple of Jim's post from SSL. I found these today by searching for Conny info. If interested, you can go to the Yahoo group and search for additional information on this topic. I personally would try to contact Jim for he may have copies of his posts. This is a very active ship modeling group and you can see this by the amount of posts there are. It will take some time to search the Yahoo site for the information. It's there you just need to weed through it. I don't need it, but have given the place and a couple of the posts on the topic. I say again, this was just beyond the scope of my ability or desire, so I settle for now to just build the MS Conny without kitbashing.

Happy modeling,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Seawa...t/message/53776

Re: Re: USS Constitution Plans

Hi, Mike...welcome to the land of confusion.<G>

I was wondering what version of Constitution you were aiming at for your
project; the configuration you chose will help you decide on the appropriate
sources.

There are two configurations that the current model kits cover, for the most
part, her look from 1812 and her configuration after the 1929 restoration. Her
current configuration is a derivation of the 1929 work, and the MS plans from
their kit is of this version. Blue Jacket, of course, is the one set of plans I
know showing her 1812 configuration. Most of the popular sources show the 1929
version, since that was almost the only source of plans for Constitution until
the Arnot set for Bluejacket.

As you have noted, the differences between the 1812 version and the 1929 version
are many, and different...so, if you intend to build a historically accurate
model you should decide on the era from which you want your model to represent.
If you pick a version, however, the plans and sources do make more sense,
although I wager there is far more information for the 1929 version than her
earlier configurations.

I agree with your observation regarding the relatively recent Anatomy of the
Ship volume on Constitution, and have commented on the inaccuracies in earlier
posts. Suffice to say, it is not a good source of her 1812 appearance, despite
the title of the book. There is just too much taken from the 1929 plan sources,
which clearly do not depict her 1812 appearance, and nothing using the
information available from the Hull Model of 1812 which is a very contemporary
and accurate rendition of her 1812 appearance. If you have access to photos of
the Hull model, if not access to the model itself at the Peabody museum, and are
attempting to model her 1812 appearance, then you have one of the best sources
of that configuration; Arnot's plans are pretty good in this respect as well,
but be careful as his plans seem to span the period 1812-1815 over which she had
a number of changes to both battery and her sail plan/masting and sparring that
need to be considered.

The practicum you refer to are, of course, based on the MS kit, and her current
appearance. By the way, it's my understanding there are two practicum, one for
the hull the other for the rigging, because of the size of practicum if both
were combined in one CD, probably just would not fit, given the size of each
practicum file.

Just be glad you're not trying to model her on an earlier configuration, the
sources available for that are scattered and not as easily found...if you are
looking at her earlier appearance, I might be able to suggest a few sources for
information, but it will require a bit of searching and some deductions based on
the sparse information out there.

I'd be very interested to know what configuration you are contemplating for your
model.

Hope some of this helps.

Cheers!
Jim Krauzlis
Copiague,
Long Island, New York
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Brown
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:44 AM
Subject: SSL: Re: USS Constitution Plans

Nathan:

I recently (March 2006) bought a copy of "The Anatomy of the Ship: USS
Constitution" from the Constitution Museum (store@...)
Code 2378 US$42.95. You should note there are inconsistencies/disagreements
between "The Anatomy of the Ship: USS Constitution", the MS plans, and the
Bluejacket Plans, If you want to really confuse yourself (I certainly
became increasingly confused), you might also want to look at "Old
Ironsides: An Illustrated History of USS Constitution" by Thomas Horgan
(1963: Yankee Publishing Inc. ISBN 0-911658-10-6)), and "Old Ironsides: The
Rise, Decline, and Resurrection of the USS Constitution" by Thomas C.
Gillmer (1993: International Marine/Ragged Mountain Press. ISBN
0-07-024564-9). I believe I got both of them from the Museum, too. These are
the ones I am using a primary references, but I am sure there are a number
of other references out there that other members will recommend.

Lauck St Shipyard (http://lauckstreetshipyard.com/college5.html) has two
CONSTITUTION practicums available, one for the hull and decks, the other for
masting and rigging (why there would be two separate ones, I don't know...)

Mike Brown

Carpe Caelum

Message #48619
Hi, Bob:

I am no "expert", frankly I don't know what makes one an "expert" as opposed to
the next guy, but I have researched Constitution over time and have become
familiar with many primary sources of information on the USF Constitution,
including those I mentioned in my post. To that extent, perhaps I am more
familiar with certain aspects of Constitution and the primary evidence out there
than the general public, but I am sure most casual modelers with a moderate
interest in Constitution are aware of the Hull model.

By the way, by "Bass" I am referring to an excellent monograph that was written
by the husband and wife team of William P. and Ethel L. Bass entitled
"Constitution, Super Frigate of many faces, Second Phase 1802-07", which was
published in 1981 by Shipresearch and printed by National Printing, Inc., both
of Melbourne, Florida. It's a restricted issue publication with a Library of
Congress Catalog Card #81-90041. There is an apt passage in the inner cover "A
long neglected story about a great ship." It was meant to be one of a number of
publications spanning the career of USF Constitution and builds upon the Corne
gauche of 1803 using contemporary logbook entries, journals kept by various
members of the crew, correspondence, etc., to in essence do a historical
forensic analysis of what Constitution looked like during her second commission
from 1802-1807, which included her service during the Barbary Wars. It is an
excellent example of how to do a thorough research project and provides a
tremendous resource of primary sources that one can look to in researching
Constitution...none of which was cited and was apparently ignored by Marquardt,
sadly.

The amazing thing about the items NOT included in the author's research is his
ignoring the Hull model of 1812, which is the single best primary source of
information for USF Constitution that Marquardt's book is said to be centered
upon. As you probably know, the Hull model was built by Hull's crew in the two
week period following the victory over Guerriere in July of 1812 as she returned
to port having suffered a bit of battle damage herself. Despite accounts to the
contrary, this model was never damaged by fire in an alleged "re-enactment" with
cannon's firing at an after battle party, there being no signs of charring or
burns outside or in the interior of the model. It depicts the USF Constitution
after the battle, so her quarterboats and davits are missing, having been shot
away, she shows no ship's wheel (also shot away), no spice boxes forward (shot
away) and no ship's bell (shot away)...she also is devoid of boarding nets,
which is interesting but may also be explained by her after battle
configuration.

What is also very important about the Hull model is she is rigged by the crew
and follows the rigging scheme denoted in Brady's 1843 edition of Kedge Anchor,
which covers earlier rigging practice (appropriate to the 1812 Constitution),
not the later 1875 edition that Marquardt seems to refer to. It is also in
accord with a Midshipman's report from 1817, and has been measured and verified
to be an exact 1/48th scale model of USF Constitution. How anyone who is even
moderately familiar with Constitution could ignore that model is beyond me.
Along the same lines, how anyone remotely familiar with Constitution would place
such great reliance upon the drawings from the 1929-1931 restoration, knowing
what we know today about her earlier configuration and seeing so many
deficiencies in the 1929 plans compared to her 1812 configuration, well, I just
have to scratch my hand and wonder. That's not to say those plans showing her
internal framing and lines measurements are without any worth, indeed, they
represent perhaps only the second time her lines were properly measured and
recorded (the earliest as-built plans being the drawings by C.F. Waldo showing
her half-breadth plans of the spar and gun decks (from 1819), and the full plan
of the orlop deck detailing the compartment layout (from 1816)) and do provide
credible evidence of her construction, keeping in mind she was been rebuilt and
restored a number of times over the years.

But, I digress.<G> My point is there are better sources for the 1812
configuration than those cited by Marquardt and any one looking at her
configuration in 1812 has to start with the Hull model, so his omission in this
regards is very surprising and tells me to be wary when using this book.

Cheers!
Jim Krauzlis
Copiague
Long Island
New York

----- Original Message -----
From: Powell
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 9:31 PM
Subject: SSL: Re: Re: RE: Re: Constitution

Jim,

I am afraid my review of the book was somewhat cursory since I had only had
it a short time.
I certainly believe you are more qualified than I to critique the accuracy
of the book. However,
I too was dissappointed in the lack of references.

I have Ty Martin's work and Arnot's Bluejacket plans and book. I am not
familiar with Bass.

Thank you for your instructive comments. I will certainly view the book in a
different light now that you have pointed some of the research problems. I
guess I had assumed Marquardt would have done a better job of research given
his "Eighteeth Century Rigs And Rigging" text. Now Iwonder if that book too
is suspect.

Regards
Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Krauzlis" <Jimkrauzlis@...>
To: <SeawaysShipmodelingList@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 7:46 PM
Subject: SSL: Re: RE: Re: Constitution

> John and Bob:
>
> Have you seen this new book? I got it last week and have been reading it.
> It was a birthday present to myself and I was excited to find out they
> finally came out with one of this fine lady.
>
> Well, I have to be honest, I have found quite a few problems with the
> research and conclusions made by the author. Now, I know how difficult it
> is to research such a subject, there are so many holes and sources to
> consider before making any determination of the proper configuration of
> the vessel. What I am finding, however, is the author has made very
> little reference to primary sources and very good secondary sources that
> are well know to those who have spent some time researching this vessel.
> There are very good, historically accurate books by Ty Martin and Bass,
> and a fantastic and accurate book as part of the Bluejacket kit which are
> not referred to; in fact, some of the author's conclusions are in direct
> conflict with the findings of these naval historians, as well as my own
> research. I fear he has placed too much reliance on secondary and third
> hand sources whose historical accuracy has been shown by subsequent
> research to be wrong.
>
> I could go into many instances, but one that really struck me was the
> apparent resurrection of the lore that she had a figurehead of Neptune
> upon her return from the Mediterranean following the Barbary Wars. The
> author claims she was fitted with a Neptune figurehead (no apparent
> reference for that statement) when it is pretty well settled now that
> there is no historical basis for that concept.
>
> The narrative and history section have many such errors which really casts
> doubt on the basis upon which the author approached this project. There
> is reliance on sources which are well beyond the period in question, that
> is, 1812, and actually reflect later modifications that did not exist in
> 1812. It actually seems the author took most of his information from the
> 1929 restoration and books written about that time, which is not an
> accurate representation of what we now know to be historic fact. The
> thing that bothers me the most is the complete failure to consider the
> Hull model built by the crew in 1812, and shown to be an accurate 1/48
> scale model of the ship as she appeared at that time, and a questionable
> analysis of the four contemporary paintings by Corne of her encounter with
> Guerriere under Hull. Another example: the waist area is shown by the
> author as having a single line of stanchions and a single canvas waist
> cloth, which does not match the Hull model's configuration. His drawings
> of the fife rails are wrong, showing squared rails where she actually had
> rounded ones, and having a fife rail at the mizzen when she actually had a
> spider bridle on the mast. He also shows a sky light on the quarterdeck
> which there is no support for during 1812 and his list of guns ignores a
> contemporaneous memorandum by a crew member from 1812. There are others,
> but I trust you get the idea.
>
> I am currently studying his rigging plans but the first thing I noticed is
> the utter lack of reference to any Bentinck shrouds, which we know she had
> and which are shown on the Hull model. I don't mean to rain on the
> parade, but these mistakes should be kept in mind when referring to this
> book.
>
> These are all my personal opinions based on my research over the years
> including contemporaneous, primary sources and research from others based
> on the same type of historical support. I fully appreciate the amount of
> time and effort the author must have invested in this book, and the
> difficulties of trying to pull together accurate information about this
> ship, since she has evolved quite a bit other the years, and the potential
> pitfalls of relying upon earlier books which seem to embrace ideas that
> have no historical basis in fact. It's not easy, but my feeling is the
> author would have done better to find out more about what was available
> from primary sources from the relevant period he was writing about (1812),
> not second and third hand sources which are out of date and inaccurate.
> He really should have been aware of not only the Hull model but also the
> work done by Ty Martin, Bass and others who have spent a good deal of
> their lives researching this ship, and upon whose work we can build upon
> with confidence.
>
> I'll get off of my soapbox now. <G>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Jim