Dave Fellingham

I used the same technique to make boats for Esmeralda. Three boats, two with thwarts painted on clear plastic inserts. Zodiak hull is a portion of paper boat hull with bent wire for the inflatable pontoon. Floor boards obscure the Vee hulls in this view. Boats in place with oars on the thwarts. Macro-photography is so unforgiving. One of two more boats in an assembly with davits and inflatable life boat containers below. The track I raced on was in the basement of a pool hall. I (mis-)spent a lot of my time and paper route earnings in that place doing both. I was something of a junior hustler in those days. I also had a Mattel wood turning lathe. What a different time that was (50 years ago) when boys worked paper routes at as young as 12 and products were sold for use by children (with adult supervision assumed) that would have the nanny state banning them today to "protect" the users from assuming the responsibility for using the tool safely and learning valuable lessons in the process. It seems to me that both techniques have their uses. Vacu-forming seems to have limitations for very small parts due to the thickness of the plastic sheet where the paper mache can work a bit better. Both techniques work well for multiple copies of items. I haven't made a vacu-forming tray like the one shown yet but won't hesitate when the time comes.

I think vacu-forming would work very well. There are lots of how-to videos on YouTube, and with all the blister packaging and plastic containers that we all have to throw away there's no shortage of raw material. Paint the inside of a clear shell, like is done with R/C cars, and high gloss finishes become a piece of cake. I got one of these for Christmas some 50 years ago and used it to make custom slot car bodies.

I also looked for it. The publisher must be stupid to print so few copies when the demand is high enough to drive the price to several times what they sell it for.

The Nautical Research Guild holds a photographic model competition every 2 years. Here's a link to the entry information and competition rules for the most recent (entry closed in May). The only divisions in this competition are based on builders' skill levels. Entry requires NRG membership. http://www.thenrg.org/resources/PhotoContest/2015%20Competition%20Rules.pdf As far as SiBs go, it seems clear to me that poor glass would be very detrimental by obscuring the workmanship.

I'll do my part to keep this topic going. One reference book that I use constantly is "The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" by Darcy Lever, which has been continuously in print since its first edition in 1808. It is currently available in paperback, 8 1/2" x 11" format, 256 pages, from the usual sources for US$14.95. The book was originally written as a textbook of sorts for young officers "learning the ropes" on Royal Navy and East India Company ships. The book consists of extraordinary drawings on a page with text keyed to the drawing on the facing page and includes a comprehensive glossary. If I was restricted to only one reference book to use for building my SiBs I would choose this one. There are books by Bittlecombe ("The Art of Rigging" is one, 192 pages, US$7.95) that use the long out of copyright illustrations from Lever with text that is a bit easier to read and absorb than Lever's circa 1800 writing style, but I prefer Lever because the illustrations are much larger than the 5 1/2" x 8 1/2" format of Bittlecombe's books allow. If interested in modeling earlier than Lever, consider "The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, 1600 - 1720 by R. C. Anderson, 320 pages, paperback, 5 1/2" x 8 1/2", US$9.95.

Thanks, Gwyl, for moving this, we had inadvertently hijacked Alex Bellinger's Schooner Eagle build log, partly my fault. In case this topic seems as if you're coming into the middle of a discussion, the hijacking started here: http://www.bottledshipbuilder.com/index.php?/topic/103-schooner-eagle/#entry946

There's a topic about SiB books in the Odds and Ends forum. http://www.bottledshipbuilder.com/index.php?/topic/9-ships-in-bottles-books/?hl=books

Again from the same book by Chapelle, in the beginning of the Appendix, he briefly comments on the lack of standards for measuring masts when surveys were made. I assume that the men taking the measurements were likely to later be involved in the re-fit to follow so it didn't really matter - to them - how they were measured, but it causes problems for those who want to use that information 200 years later. In all the tables in Chapelle he says that where head lengths are listed for lower and topsail masts, and heads aren't listed for topgallant, royal and skysail masts, that mast is one piece. As you mentioned, four piece masts were very rare and were not used until much later. Correctly interpreting the data from such tables is an area of concern for me as well. I haven't looked at the three smaller frigates very closely either; if I ever decide to build one I'd start with the assumption that they didn't carry skysails unless I have good evidence to the contrary. To be honest, I'd be more inclined to build one of the ship-rigged sloops (Hornet, Wasp (#2), Frolic or Peacock) than Congress, Constellation or Chesapeake.

http://www.bottledshipbuilder.com/index.php?/topic/45-spirit-of-massachusetts/page-2#entry418

Thanks, Alex, for sharing with us. I admire your work and am sure we can all learn from it. I wasn't questioning your research on USSC - I knew beforehand that much of the information is conflicting - but it seemed a good place to start a brief discussion on research in general and to learn about the decisions you made when you built your model. I readily admit that I didn't look any further than the data in Chapelle's book and timelines for Constitution and President to verify that those surveys coincided with known opportunities for those surveys to have been taken. Thanks for taking my post in the spirit it was meant. I lean towards a view of her with skysails, more so in light of the supplemental information you just provided. I admit that I like the appearance better, but know I can't allow such personal inclinations to influence my decisions when the information isn't conclusive. When I excerpted from the 1803 and 1815 surveys of USSC I omitted the lengths of all spars but the yards. The 1803 survey lists the vertical spars as "fore, fore top, fore topgalt, fore pole", etc, while the 1815 survey lists "fore royal, fore skysail pole" (substituted for "fore pole") but doesn't list a length of a skysail yard. The 1815 survey confirms the skysail poles at the lengths you mentioned above. This survey also lists all the spar diameters and the lengths of the doublings ("heads" in the tables). If I decided that the time was right for me to build another USSC, this 1815 table would be my place to start for the sparring. BTW, Chapelle's "History of the American Sailing Navy" also has sparring tables for the United States in 1807 and 1815 that I overlooked. The tables follow the same pattern as those for USSC with the exception that the lengths of skysail yards are listed in the 1815 table for USSUS. There are sparring tables for Congress, Constellation and Chesapeake with no mention of "skysail poles" suggesting that they did not carry skysails, but the tables are dated soon after the ships' completions and, in view of the tables for their larger sisters, are not necessarily definitive. There is also a spar take-off of Chesapeake by the Royal Navy after her capture by Shannon that doesn't list royal yards suggesting that the royals may have been sent down when Chesapeake cleared for action. Some paintings and wood-cut prints of USSC in her actions against Guerriere, Java, and Cyane and Levant (and of United States v Macedonian) don't show royals (or skysails) - presumably for the same reason - while other depictions do. I've been following a discussion that has been going on for more than two years on Model Ship World regarding the number of stern gallery windows across the stern of the Constitution, when they changed and why, whether or not the underlying structure fits, comparisons between various artistic depictions, etc. It's been fun and educational following this discussion although much of the information is not conclusive, merely suggestive, and I doubt that a definitive timeline of the changes can ever be proved. However, the discussion seems a pretty good place to look for new primary and secondary sources of information on Constitution, and I found it useful for gaining an insight into how to better evaluate sources. I've started three Constitutions and finished two: a plastic Revell kit when I was 12, the large Revell kit when I was 26 (which was destroyed during a move when it was about 75% complete, my last attempt at a conventional static ship model before switching to SiBs) and an SiB that I realized had been too ambitious for my skills and techniques when finished and I wasn't very pleased with. USSC has long been on my list of possibles waiting for my confidence and skills to build it the way it deserves to catch up to my ambition. I think not yet but perhaps soon if a couple learning projects go well.

The internet. Research is a very important part of our work (to me it's the most important part). A lot of ship bottlers shoot themselves in the foot with only superficial research. I remember what research was like in the pre-internet days 40 years ago. In a year of letter writing, arranging inter-library loans, visiting nearby University libraries, etc. it was next to impossible to find the information that can be collected in an afternoon on the web.

USS Constitution went into ordinary at the end of the Quasi-War with France in July 1802, then was recommissioned in May 1803, surveyed and re-fit for action in the First Barbary War and left for Tripoli in August. At the end of the War of 1812, Constitution went to New York then to Boston where she underwent a complete survey for re-fitting before being placed in ordinary in January 1816. Table of yard dimensions taken in two surveys of Constitution. YARDS 1803 survey 1815 survey Fore 84’ 81’ “ topsail 60’ 62’ – 6” “ topgallant 40’ – 6” 45’ “ royal 29’ 28’ Main 92’ 95’ “ topsail 64’ 70’ – 6” “ topgallant 44’ 46’ “ royal 31’ 30’ Mizzen 64’ 75’ ” topsail 46’ 49’ “ topgallant 30’ 32’ “ royal 20’ – 6” 20’ Note that there is no mention of skysail yards. USS President was commissioned in 1800 and served in uneventful patrols during the last days of the Quasi-War with France. In 1801 a survey was done prior to assignment as flagship of a squadron of US warships going to Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis to convince the pirates controlling those cities to change their ransom demands for the release of US citizens and vessels being held. There is a notebook that belonged to Joshua Humphrey, a principal designer of the six frigates contracted by the US Navy in 1794. The notebook has spar dimensions listed for President which were used to generate a sail plan that wasn’t used but is one of the oldest existing drafts of any part of those six historic frigates. It seems to be a preliminary draft distributed to sailmakers for estimates, quotes or bids for supplying those sails well before the actual sparring had been determined. Table of yard dimensions of President. YARDS 1801 survey Humphrey’s notes Fore 81’ 80’ “ topsail 60’ 60’ “ topgallant 41’ 44’ – 6” “ royal 30’ 30’ “ skysail ---- 18’ Main 90’ – 6” 92’ “ topsail 66’ 69’ “ topgallant 44’ 45’ “ royal 32’ 30’ “ skysail ---- 20’ Mizzen 66’ 72’ ” topsail 45’ 45’ “ topgallant 32’ 40’ “ royal 24’ 26’ – 6” “ skysail ---- 13’ – 4” [Tables excerpted from spar tables in “The History of the American Sailing Navy: The Ships and Their Development” by Howard I. Chapelle, 1949, Appendix pp 484, 497-8] The USS President was captured in January 1815 and immediately entered Royal Navy service as HMS President until broken up in 1818. A direct copy was immediately ordered, launched in 1829 and commissioned in the Royal Navy in 1832. No RN records or images indicate that the original or copy had skysails while in British service or when the original was captured. The reason I mentioned the President is that the draft of her sail plan - which was not followed - was found in the 1830’s, re-titled as being of the Constitution (and of the United States for good measure) as part of the first public campaign to restore her at the news of the possible breakup of the beloved “Old Ironsides”. That draft, and its two re-titled versions, have inspired numerous erroneous paintings of all three of the large frigates of the early US Navy with skysails. The sail plan for President that was re-titled as Constitution. There are also numerous redrafts of this drawing for rigging and sail plans of all six of the first US Navy frigates, all with skysails. Recent photo of Constitution which the US Navy claims correctly depicts her as she appeared in the War of 1812, as far as can be determined. Note, no skysails. In May, Constitution left Boston for a major rebuild.

Nice, but too short. I especially liked your comment about the problem solving involved in each and every project; I feel the same way. I would have lost interest in building SiBs many years ago if it was easy. Dave

Many years ago I asked my dentist about the rotary bits he used. He gave me all I wanted from his accumulated bits that were too dull for teeth - and seemed glad to be rid of them. Most of them looked like ordinary ball end burrs. The bit shanks fit in my Dremel 1/8 inch collet.

I used beeswax once, many years ago. I found on control lines that it collected in the holes and prevented glue adhesion and that I couldn't glue sails to waxed stays.

I didn't have much luck stiffening thread with ca while experimenting - it tended to break rather than bend, making a sharp kink. Decided that repairing a kink would be harder than repairing a bump. I also tried thinned pva but the result wasn't as stiff as the varnish. I'll do some more experimenting the next time I need to do lines with a catenary.

The above link goes to a 404 error - it's a dead link. Here's the functional link

EZ line is available only in .010 inch and .020 inch diameter (0.25 mm and 0.5 mm) which are way too big for all but the largest stays at typical SiB sizes and scales. Most often ordinary sewing thread at .006 inch diameter (0.15 mm) is too large for reasonably close to scale running rigging. The EZ line might work as masts in micro SiBs instead of a brush bristle. The only way to get a realistic catenary in running rigging is the way Bob does it - with stiff wire - which is not practical on our SiBs. The only place it might work is on foot ropes on yards at large SiB sizes and scales. I attempted to get a realistic catenary in two topsail clew lines (see first photo in post #4, above) by stiffening the thread with acrylic matte varnish with only partial success and after hours of fiddling to get them to hang right. In that photo the starboard clew line has a decent catenary but the port side has a bump in it (partially concealed by the port topmast shrouds) that took what seemed like hours to only partially correct.

The Veevus fly tie thread does have some properties that are a little bit different from sewing thread. Like fly tie silk (which is now almost impossible to find because it's been replaced by synthetics) Veevus is rather stretchy and if care isn't taken during rigging (just relying on look and "feel") stresses on spars can get severe. I've taken to using mini clothespins (about 7/8 inch long by 1/8 inch thick / 22 mm by 3 mm) to weight the loose ends of my lines while rigging. I mentioned earlier that it's somewhat stiff and can be a little bit challenging to tie knots - a half hitch or single overhand knot usually won't stay if you drop the loose end while tying the second half hitch or overhand knot. Neither is no where near objectionable, just a bit of a surprise when accustomed to sewing thread.

Congratulations, Daniel! Well done. Re: the knot. Some people come up with ridiculous notions to look "smart" - no matter how illogical. I've even heard that we have the bottle blown around the finished model, never mind that these constructs of paper, thread and wood would burn up from the radiant heat just being within six inches of a blob of 1200F glass. They can't comprehend what can be accomplished with meticulous planning and careful work because they've never done anything more demanding than a computer shoot'em up. Take such comments as compliments because they come from people who are completely bewildered. Re: the white water. I somewhat agree with the observation, boats like this one are surprising clean through the water. Perhaps less white would work as well to convey movement without distracting from the model. You're developing a good eye for what works and what doesn't - trust it. Some builders never see what they've built for what it is, but only see what they want to see. You've never been like that and it shows in your work through a steady and rapid improvement from each project to the next. Keep it up.

I learned the left-handed version of Alan's suggestion back when I built static ship models - same idea, but measure X turns and divide that measurement by X (I usually measured 10 turns to keep the math simple). It takes a little bit of practice to get uniform snugness of turns, but any of these methods work well enough. I'm most comfortable with the calipers but I used calipers and micrometers frequently in my work. Dave

The water colors sound like a much better approach to coloring sails than weak tea or coffee, both of which are acidic and could contribute to long term deterioration of the sail material.

My first criteria for thread is its size at scale followed closely by color. Most sewing thread is .006 inch / 0.15 mm with some special purpose thread at .008 inch / 0.2 mm and .012 inch / 0.3 mm. Fly thread is sized by "oughts" as John mentioned with 16/0 being the finest and 6/0 the largest I've seen. The sizes are only comparable to other sizes by the same manufacturer. There are no real standards for size in thread, at least in the way they're sized for general purpose use. Measuring thread diameter with calipers or a micrometer is difficult because it crushes with either measuring tool. I lay a thread lengthwise on one of the caliper jaws then close the other until I feel a slight resistance and repeat several times until I get several repeated measurements. I greatly prefer Gutermann sewing thread because it looks the most like rope of the brands available in the US and seems to me to be less prone to fuzziness than Coats & Clark. Never use a no-name brand thread, it is guaranteed to be nothing but fuzz. In this photo you will see Coats & Clark black sewing thread for the two topmast stays. You probably notice they are rather fuzzy compared to the darker tan Gutermann thread in the running rigging. The lighter tan threads are Coats & Clark and I think you can clearly see the difference between it and the Gutermann. The shrouds and back stays are black Gutermann with 6/0 ratlines. The deadeye lanyards are fly thread about 10/0. The sails were sewn to their spars with 10/0 fly thread colored with a light tan art marker. I had to treat the same fly thread with thinned acrylic matte artist's varnish for the reef points in the sails to prevent them from unraveling. This brings up one downside to fly thread - it's relatively stiff causing loose ends, like these reef ties, to unravel at the slightest touch. The stiffness and springiness of fly thread can also make tying knots a bit of a challenge at times. Above the yard, parallel to the black stay, is the jib sail up-haul from 16/0 fly thread which measures about .002 inch / 0.05 mm. For size comparison, the deadeyes and most of the blocks are .040 inch / 1.0 mm in diameter and the rest are .032 inch / 0.8 mm. The main mast head with a black Coats & Clark stay, a tan Gutermann peak halyard and a fly thread gaff topsail up-haul. Note the fiddle block, a sister block made for two different size ropes. These four masts for another project at 1/640 scale are rigged with fly thread which will be used throughout. Here's a good example of the thickness of a coat of paint. The topmast shrouds were rigged with a continuous thread starting at a hole in the mast below the top, over the edge of the top, through another hole in the topmast, back down over the edge of the top, through the starting hole and repeated for the two or three pairs of shrouds needed. I painted the futtock shrouds to match the mast and simulated the turnbuckles (the 20th century equivalent of deadeyes used with wire rope) with a coat of white paint. Notice how much fatter the painted portions look than the black shrouds. There's also a bit of illusion going on here with the white. The foremast with some basic running rigging. Here's another example of the illusion. The very pale gray lines are the same size as the black but they don't look like they are. Also notice that the white spar tips look larger than the spar but they aren't. Bowsprit rigged entirely with fly thread. I replicated the solid steel rod bobstay with a piece of copper wire but didn't allow for the paint thickness in selecting the wire gauge so now it looks a bit too big.. One of the other three masts with the gaff rigged with peak, bridle and throat halyards. You may notice that I used sistered (double) thread blocks in the bridle halyards at the bridles and eye bolts at the mast, and that the bridle halyard line passes through an eye bolt and then becomes the throat halyard - kind of a cheat but this reduces the control lines needed by one at each mast. The two lines will continue through the boom and hull and out the neck. I've been using Veevus fly thread mostly because it's available in the widest variety of sizes and colors. It doesn't seem to have the draw-backs of the brands John has encountered. Most sizes are three strand except the 16/0 which is two strand. I don't think you can tell it's only two strand - and not twisted very tightly - in the two macro photos where I mentioned using it. I have separated the two strands, as an experiment, and they measure .001 inch / 0.025 mm - finer than human hair but haven't found a need to do that but may need to for the ratlines on the 1/640 scale model. .001 inch line comes to about 5/8 inch / 16 mm at this scale. Dave

I sent an e-mail to the museum requesting more information on the "fodder shop" bottle. If I get a response and it's helpful, I'll follow up on trying for more information on the 1806 bottle.

Upon an exploration of the Museo Del Vetro website, I discovered that the 1806 bottle by Capitan Fransesco Biondo is on display, contrary to what I said earlier. I also found that the museum has another bottle, by an unknown artist, assumed to be the same age (#7 on the list in the link). The description is of a "fodder shop" which I assume is a typo/translation error for "food ship." Somehow, a glass decanter or bottle, of sufficient quality on its own to be displayed in a glass museum, was used to model a warehouse full of bales of hay and sacks of feed seems improbable. A food ship seems more likely given that everything needed on the islands of Venice had to be brought in by ship, but a curious subject. If it is an SiB, that would be five out of six of the earliest SiBs in existence are clearly connected with Venice. I'm trying to find a photo. The guide book Daniel referenced is for this same museum and describes in some depth the displays in the main building and the numerous glass workshops associated with it. The museum hasn't changed much since 1869 (the date of the guide book) and it seems likely the 1806 Biondo bottle has been on permanent display since 1861, when the museum opened.