Volume INumber 2

Summer,2003

CONTENTSBuilding a Banks Dory ....................1Book Reviews .................................. 3Brig Niagara (Part 2) .......................5Practica-lly Speaking.......................9Carving in the Round .................... 11A Ship Model Cradle ..................... 12

Building a 1:48 Representationof a Banks Dory

By Robert F. Craig

In the glorious days of sailing fishing schooners a singlecommodity was held in the utmost regard – the dory, or asthey were sometimes called, the shop boat. It did not matterif the schooner was fishing for ground fish on the GrandBanks, halibut off Iceland or mackerel in Long Island Sound;the dory was an essential part of her equipment. We areprobably all familiar with a schooner sailing out ofGloucester, Massachusetts or Lunenburg, Nova Scotia withtwo nests of five toseven dories eachsitting on the maindeck, or the picture ofdory mates haulingtheir trawls, as theyspent hours, often outof sight of the mothership, on the openocean. Less familiar, perhaps, is the crew of a seiner settingand pursing their mackerel net with a 40 foot seine boat atone end of the seine and a 14 foot dory at the other. What-ever image fills your imagination; these 12-16 foot boatswere a mainstay of the fishing industry until the advent of thesteam trawler and beyond.

Drop line fishing from the deck of a schooner wascommon practice until the middle of the 19th century. Atabout this time dory fishing replaced the drop line as thepreferred fishing technique. Fishing from a dory gave theadvantage of setting trawls with hundreds of baited hooks,

thereby covering awider range ofocean bottom,increasing the sizeof the catch andpotentiallyreducing the timeat sea.

In this issue of Warships to Workboats, we look atthat most basic of workboats, the ubiquitous dory. Madecheaply by the thousands out of thin sheets of inexpensivewood, they still managed to become the backbone of manynations’ fishing fleets in the 19th and early 20th century,feeding millions with fish caught on handlines or in nets. BobCraig walks us through part one of building a scale modeldory for display on a model mackerel schooner, and ArtHerrick complements this nicely with an overview of booksabout dories, both full sized and small scale.

Also in this issue we continue Joel Sanborn’s accountof the history and rebirth of the US Brig Niagara. Joelrecounts some of the difficulties involved in correctlyidentifying the sunken hulls in Misery Bay, PA, and speculateson which wreck might be the Niagara (and which are not).

Master modeler David Antscherl contributes an essayon the history of Practica (or practicums), and gives us histhoughts on creating his wonderful Swan-class practicum.

Bill Short continues his series on carving with adental drill, this time moving beyond flat carvings, intothree dimensions. We’re all hoping that our dentists don’tread Bill’s articles and start feeling creative!

Once again, we’d like to give special thanks to JohnRose, of WorldNet Communications, who provides ahome for the Warriors and this publication. Be sure tovisit him at www.wnonline.net.

Why “The Whiskey Strake”? After planking the hullof a wooden boat, the builders would celebrate the finalstrake with a bit of whiskey. This column is usuallywritten last, fills out the final hole in the issue, and we’recertainly ready for a bit o’whiskey. Cheers!

-The Editors

The Whiskey Strake

2

The design of the dory came to maturity in the late 19th

century. They were built by the hundreds by such firms asHiggins and Gifford of Gloucester and Hiram Lowell ofAmesbury, Massachusetts. The advantages of this type ofships boat were many: they were light, strong, inexpensive,and could be nested; were stable when laden; rowed rela-tively easily; could be sailed; and had a large capacity forcargo.

While building a 1:48 representation of the Noank,Connecticut mackerel seiner Benjamin W. Latham, it becameobvious to me the model needed a dory to make her lookmore realistic and bring a measure of life to her deck. Idecided to build a dory using the plank-on-frame technique.Below is a description of how this 1/4-inch scale 14-footdory was constructed.

The lines of the dory were based on a drawing pro-vided in the plans set for the Model Shipways Benjamin W.Latham kit. The schooner model was based on this kit,although little of the original kit was used in the actualconstruction. Erik A. R. Ronnberg Jr., drew the plans set,including a rendition of a 14-foot dory as well as a 40-footseine boat (the seine boat will likely be another project).Additionally, material was taken from Howard Chapelle’sAmerican Small Sailing Craft: Their Design, Development, andConstruction (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1951).

The approach was quite simple: carve a plug to theinside dimensions of the planking; saw slots to receive theframes, transom knee and stem knee; and go to town. To layout the plug, a piece of poplar was cut to the approximatedimensions of the hull, allowing about an extra inch above

the gunwale. The frame positions, chine and sheer half-breadth offsets, centerline, transom angle and stem profilewere drawn on the block. Using a 4-inch table saw, slotswere cut for the bottom frames and a groove was run downthe centerline to facilitate setting up the transom and stem knees.

Once the layout was complete and the slots cut, thetransom angle was cut using a 10-inch table saw. The nextoperation was to cut the outline of the sheer and stem profileon a band saw followed by sanding to the outline of thesheer. To facilitate holding the plug, a 1½-inch piece of 3/4-inch stock was glued and nailed to the top of the plug. Nextthe shape of the plug was carefully carved to conform to theinside planking dimensions of the boat. To accomplish this avery sharp 1¼-inch chisel was used to pare the sides of theplug, making sure the sides remained straight. An alternativeapproach could be taken by lofting a series of waterlines,building the plug ‘bread and butter’ fashion and carving tothe half breadth points on each waterline lift.

With the plug completed to this stage the rocker of thebottom was added and the slots cut to receive the sideframes, transom knee, stem knee and to complete the slotsfor the bottom frames. These slots were cut with a dovetailsaw using a piece of frame stock as a guide to determine thedepth of cut. Figure 1. shows the plug in final form. Alsoseen are the bottom plank and transom, as well as thetransom and stem knees. After completing the plug it wasrubbed with silicone to help prevent glue from sticking to it.

In building the model some compromises were madeto make construction easier. The scantlings of the 14-foot

Higgins and Gifford dory were quite light. Frames were 1 x2-inch at the chine tapering to 1¾-inch at the gunwale.Planking was 9/16-inch on the topsides and 1-inch on thebottom. Making scale stock to correspond to the correctthickness would produce a very fragile model, so the frameswere enlarged to 1¾ x 3-inches and the planking thicknessincreased to 1¼-inch. The result is a stiff, strong model thatlooks close to scale. The frames were made of cherry andthe planking of poplar. In the original dory I made, theplanking was white pine, which worked quite well, but wasreally too soft and easily damaged, thus the selection ofpoplar.

Another compromise was lapping and gluing the sideand bottom frames together. Higgins and Gifford used a

Next: planking the dory.Robert F. Craig, Danvers, MA, USA

3

Workboats

Books: A Look at Sources ofInformation on Dories

by Art Herrick

Bob Craig's Banks Dory certainly complements his verynice model of the 1902 BENJAMIN W. LATHAM, riggedas a mackerel fisherman ... A New England fishing schooneris not complete without a Banks Dory. I’ll be lookingforward to Bob's postings when he builds the LATHAM's40 ft seine boat.

I’d like to offer some dory construction comments,and suggest some relevant reference books, for those of youbuilding or thinking of building New England fishingschooners, hopefully equipped with Banks Dories.

THE DORY MODEL BOOKWooden Boat BooksPO Box 78, Brooklin, ME 046161997, 83 pages, soft-cover..

Since Bob built his dory overa solid wooden plug, let me startwith a book by Harold “Dyna-mite” Payson. The book coversthe detailed large scale model

construction of three dory types, but the one we would bespecifically interested in is the 14-foot Banks Dory, as built byHiggins & Gifford in Gloucester, MA, in 1881.

Shown are a builder's type plan, complete with a Tableof Offsets, dimensioned drawing of her 8 ft oars, and adetailed drawing of the Dory Scoop [bailing scoop that Bobhas mentioned]. A second model drawing is of the patternsthat Dynamite used to build the model, including the fourlapstrake planking strakes. There is a step by step text describ-ing the building the solid wooden hull plug and the model'sconstruction over the plug. The construction steps areillustrated by close up photos. Even though Dynamite builthis model to 1:12 scale, the same construction methods couldbe used for a 1:48 model, if one takes the plans in the bookand has them reduced to 1:48.

The other two dory types that are covered, are aFriendship, ME, early 1900s, 13-foot Jonnie Wink(Winkapaw) Clam Dory [mast and sail plan are shown], anda 1930s Friendship, ME, 12-foot O.A.L. Dory Skiff [with afull transom stern for mounting an outboard motor]. This“how-to do-it” book is a jewel for us model shipwrights,with accurate dory design information, and easily understoodand complete model building information! Dynamite,besides being a more than competent model shipwright, is asmall craft boat builder and has owned and worked a dory

patented clip that held the bottom and side frame piecestogether. A pair of these frame halves was lapped andfastened along the bottom to form a complete frame. Figure2. shows the plug with the frames in place during gluing.Each frame piece is wedged against the other using flattoothpicks that have been tapered to make a sharp wedge.After the glue was dry the frames were trimmed and thebevels sanded to conform to the shape of the plug, leavingthem slightly proud of the plug surface.

With the frames complete, the transom, transom kneeand the stem knee were glued to the bottom plank. This

assembly was then glued to the bottom frames and held inplace by a pin through the transom and wedges at the stemknee, see Figure 3. Once the glue had set the bottom wasfaired to shape maintaining the bevel of the frames. At thispoint the stem knee and transom were beveled to receive theplanking. I am a great fan of emery boards and much of thesanding on the model was done using these handy tools.However, to make sure the stem knee and transom bevelswere as straight as possible I used a flat needle file to formthem.

is a joint publication of the Modelshipwrights and WarriorGroups. For information on the groups, please see ourwebsites:www.users.zetnet.co.uk/modelshipwrights/msw/www.warriorgroup.org/

Editors ....................... Tom Babbin (babbint@attbi.com)Neb Kehoe (nebk@together.net)Bill Short (short@tamcotec.com)

Libations .................. Horatio Nelson (LN@trafalgar.org)

Warships to

4

while lobstering as a boy, as well as having built them.Note: It is normal practice to give a Dory's descriptive

length measurement as the length of the rockered flatbottom, not the overall length of the dory (O.A.L.).

THE DORY BOOKInternational Marine Publishers,Camden, ME1978, 275 pages, hard-cover.

Probably the “Bible” fordetailed dory constructioninformation is the late JohnGardner's THE DORY BOOK.PART ONE, History of theDory, covers A Search For

Beginnings, The Batteau Ancestors, and The Bank DoryEmerges. PART TWO, How to Build a Dory, covers DoryLaydown (lofting), Dory Construction, and New (modern)Materials. PART THREE, Dory Plans, covers 3 Batteaudesigns, 14 Dory Designs, and 6 Dory Skiff designs, ofwhich the 12-foot Bank Dory Design is the one mostpertinent to this article. The plans are all detailed buildersdrawings, which include tables of offset, and are augmentedby descriptive text.

Note: Gardner refers to our subject dory as a ‘BankDory,’ not a ‘Banks Dory.’ Can anyone comment on thisnomenclature difference? I always have thought that theBanks Dory design was named after the Grand Banks fishinggrounds off the Canadian and New England coasts. There isalso Georges Bank and Stellwagon Bank of the NewEngland coast where the dories were used for fishing .... so Istill come up with a plural ‘Banks.’

If one wishes to bypass the shaping of a plug inbuilding a dory model, back in the mid 1980s there was ashort-lived quarterly magazine “SCALE WOOD CRAFT”(only seven issues), published by Richard West, Harbor Press,PO Box 510, Georgetown, CT, 06829. In Issue 1, Autumn1984, there began a 2 Part article BUILDING THE BANKSDORY, by Jack Putnam, pages 24 to 31, which was contin-ued in Issue 2, Summer 1985, pages 12 to 19.

The project is based on John Gardner's 12-foot BankDory plans from page 144 of his book, reviewed above.Building the model dory to 1:12 , the article carries themodeler through lofting and drawing the model plans fromGardner's builders drawing, and constructing the modelupside down on a building board, basically duplicating theactual building process used on a full size dory. The onedifference being that the stem, the five frames and transomare positioned by a plywood “strongback”, installed verticallyon the building board on the dory's centerline. The dory's

bottom is installed, and the dory lapstrake planked. Atemplate for the garboard plank is shown on Gardner'sdrawing, but the shape of the other three planks will have tobe developed by spiling.

The “how-to-build” text is well written, and the articlecontains 28 close-up photographs to illustrate the text. If youare lucky enough to find the two issues of this 1980s maga-zine, they will give you an alternate method of building adory model.

Note: In John Gardner's book, reviewed above, onpages 88 to 93, there is an excellent detailed demonstrationof the spiling method of obtaining the shape of doryplanking - text and step by step illustrations.

For photographic reference to dories and seineboats Irefer you to AMERICAN FISHERMEN, by Albert Cook

Church, W.W. Norton & Com-pany, Inc., New York, 1940, 191pages, hardbound, made up ofcaptioned photographs; withSection 4 (31 pages) specificallycovering the mackeral fishery.There are a number of pictureswhere you can note the innerconstruction of the seine boatsand note how the seine nets areloaded in the boats. An importantpicture (#154) for us model

shipwrights shows the seineboat lashed in against the star-board gunwale, and the Banks dory stowed inside the seineboat, wedged in with some fish gutting boxes. With the seineboat stowed on deck, the seine net would be stowed ondeck, out of the boat. .... NEAT DETAILS !

From the caption for photo #154 ... “There's littleroom to spare aboard a seiner and when making passage toor from Gloucester the decks are well taken up with theseineboats, dories, seines, and gear stowed in every availableplace.”

Another important picture is #159, which shows theseine boat, fully loaded with the seine and the boat's crewaboard, being towed just off the schooner's hull, beingrigged up to a boat boom, mounted horizontally justforward of the port foremast chains. The boat boom wasanother little known detail, at least to me, when I noticed it ingoing through the book in preparation for this article.

Happy dory building... hope I have been informative.

Art Herrick, Westmoreland, New Hampshire, USAartships@cheshire.net

5

Brig Niagara-a Metamorphosis (Part 2)

by Joel B. Sanborn

PEACE As to the construction methods or techniquesused in building the two American brigs, Capt. ArthurSinclair, who succeeded Perry as squadron commander, feltthe British ships he had under his control as prize vessels werebetter constructed, and that the brigs would last only a fewyears as they were built of green wood of assorted speciesnot carefully selected. He also complained of their inability tocarry sufficient ballast because of their shallow draft, andalmost lost them in storms in the Fall of 1814. He hadconcerns about their structural integrity as well, since theywere built without any knees, L-shaped timbers, usually cutfrom crotches or at the joint of the trunk and the roots,where the natural shape of the wood gave great strength.The use of natural grown knees also requires great care inselecting the timbers, and a fair amount of time finding andshaping them. Both the brigs were run up in a great hurryand time was not taken to fit knees into them. Their hullswere thereby weakened, especially at the junction of the deckand the side of the hull, which is where most of the knees ina wooden ship were placed. At the conclusion of hostilities,all four vessels with which we are concerned were repairedprior to scuttling them for preservation, or rather Sinclairintended to repair them all, but Niagara was instead sent onfurther missions, and then served as receiving ship for theNaval Station at Erie for some years, acting as a floatingbarracks for the garrison. The other three vessels, brigLawrence, and ships Detroit and Queen Charlotte were repairedand subsequently scuttled, in 1815, in Little Bay, or as itbecame popularly known, Misery Bay, as it was the burial sitefor many of the sick and wounded in the aftermath of theBattle of 1813 and the succeeding winter. Niagara served asreceiving ship until 1820 when she had become so rotten thatit was felt she could no longer be repaired, and she wasgrounded in shallow water, also in Little Bay. In 1835, all fourvessels were sold, the buyer intending to use them as mer-chant vessels. Only two were taken for this use, both of themfrom among the group sunk beneath the waters of the Bay.The vessel grounded near the shore (Niagara) had beenscavenged by souvenir hunters and there was little of herremaining. Of the other three, Detroit was converted for themerchant service, and in 1841 was bought by a concern inBuffalo intending to use her public destruction as a publicitystunt for a hotel, but she was instead renamed Veto and sentover Niagara Falls in a protest against President Tyler’sadministration. The second vessel raised, identified on legaldocuments pertaining to the sale as a brig, but called QueenCharlotte was stranded at Buffalo by a flood in 1844 and she

was subsequently burned for the iron she contained. News-paper accounts of the time also identify her as a brig, built asand when stated above (in Part 1). The third vessel which hadbeen scuttled in 1815 was raised in 1835 and inspected butshe was deemed to be too shallow and was moreover stillexhibiting battle damage and she was returned to the bottomof (now) Misery Bay. The stranded vessel, (Niagara) althoughsuffering further from the attentions of souvenir hunters, wasraised and taken to Philadelphia to be exhibited as Lawrenceon the occasion of the Centenary Exhibition, 1876. The hallin which she was displayed burned and she was destroyed.

CONFUSION It will perhaps be noticed that someequivocating or lack of precision of language has been usedwhen describing the raisings of 1835. The vessel returned tothe bay was described as shallow and damaged from thebattle. Lawrence sailed the season following the battle toMichilimackinac, a trading post or fort in the Straits ofMackinac (see map in Part 1), with the squadron, and it seemsunlikely she was not made sea-worthy before this cruise.Queen Charlotte was jury-rigged enough to get from Put-in-Bay to Erie where she remained. The vessel taken wasstranded 9 years later, at which time her draft was given aseleven feet. This is the exact draft given for Lawrence andNiagara, Queen Charlotte had a draft of twelve feet . The vesseltaken and stranded was described as a brig, with two masts.Lawrence and Niagara were brigs, Queen Charlotte was ship-rigged, with three masts. When questioned on this point, theexperts of the Seaways Shipmodeling List expressed theopinion that to re-rig a vessel from ship to brig as a jury-rigwould probably not have been done as it would haveentailed major structural changes, two new mast steps andnew partners, strengthened framing members where themasts passed through the deck. The keel length for the 1844stranded vessel is given as ninety-two feet. Assuming she wasbuilt on the same model as Detroit, a deep-water, ocean-going model, this keel length would indicate a deck lengthsomewhat in excess of 115 or 120 feet, as the plans intendedfor Detroit show a keel length of eighty-two feet for a decklength of 110 feet. Lawrence and Niagara have been recon-structed as having a deck length of 115 feet. It should benoted that the stranded vessel of 1844 is given a beam oftwenty-six feet, whereas all four vessels under considerationhad beams in excess of this mark, although Queen Charlotte isindicated as being the narrowest at 27.6 feet (8 meters).Detroit is indicated as 28 and a half feet, Lawrence and Niagaraas 30 feet in the beam. There are enough discrepanciesbetween the vessel stranded at Buffalo in 1844 and thereported appearance of Queen Charlotte to raise grave suspi-cions as to her true identity.

RESURRECTION In 1913, the one remaining vesselin Misery Bay was raised and restored, and this vessel of

1913 is the basis for all subsequent reconstructions,including the present-day replica Brig Niagara sailing fromErie, PA. When preparing plans for a restoration of therelic, Howard I. Chapelle, noted marine historian, hadtrouble reconciling the armament known to have beencarried on Niagara with the size of the vessel he had towork with, and the gunport spacing known to have beenon the vessel of 1913. He couldn’t fit in enough gunportsand still keep the same port spacing. There wasn’t enoughboat for the ‘bang’ he knew was supposed to be there.Queen Charlotte was armed, in the summer preceding theBattle of Lake Erie, with 18 carronades, nine ports to aside. She fought the battle with a smaller armament,having given some of her guns to help arm Detroit.Lawrence and Niagara were armed with 2 long guns and18 carronades, ten ports to a side. Using the ten footspacing shown by the raised vessel, this requires ninety feetplus one port (about two feet) for the ports. Queen

Charlotte’seighteencarronadesat ten feetO/C,require 82feet ofport andspace.QueenCharlotte isgiven alength ondeck of

101 ft. (30 meters). That would leave nine feet of decklength to be portioned out before and abaft the line ofthe ports if the ten foot spacing and 20-gun armament isadhered to. Had Chapelle been working with the 115 footdeck length of Lawrence and Niagara, he would have had23 feet of deck left after putting in the ports. Nine portsper side is a much better fit at ten feet O/C for the vesselof 1913. The vessel raised in 1913 exhibits dagger knees,knees installed between the deck beams and the side, withthe ‘arm’ on the hull at an angle to the vertical. Lawrenceand Niagara have been shown to have been built withoutany knees. The questions raised about the identification ofthe stranded vessel of 1844 as Queen Charlotte, the problemregarding the number of gunports compared to thelength of the 1913 vessel, and the presence of daggerknees on the 1913 vessel versus none on Lawrence andNiagara lead to one logical conclusion, that the vesselraised in 1835 and stranded in 1844 was Lawrence and thevessel raised in 1913, and subsequently restored, was QueenCharlotte.

METAMORPHOSIS In 1986 the relic of 1913 hadcome to be in such a state of rottenness and disrepair that itwas decided to completely rebuild her with new material tosuch an extant that the new vessel could be used as a sailingambassador for the City of Erie and the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania. The intent was further that the rebuilt U.S. BrigNiagara should present as far as possible and as far as couldbe determined the appearance and performance of theoriginal Niagara. Mr. Melbourne Smith, of the InternationalHistorical Watercraft Society was chosen to design and buildthe new vessel. It was determined that there was no originalmaterial remaining in the vessel as she existed at that time, andfurther that due to the many rebuildings she had undergone,without regard for maintaining the integrity of the originalsizes or placement of timbers, that there was no informationremaining which could be of use in any reconstruction to heroriginal state. Some timbers had been preserved as they hadbeen removed, during the rebuildings, and these wereexamined. Most of the identifiable portions were lower hullframing members. Mr. Smith designed what this authorbelieves to be the best representation of Niagara, at least inthe hull and rigging, which we are likely to get, barring theunearthing of further documentation, such as plans from thebuilders. The Browns, Noah and Adam, were asked toforward to the Navy Department any plans of the vesselsbuilt at Erie. If they did so, none have yet come to light. Indesigning this 1990 vessel, Mr. Smith referenced the photostaken at the time of the raising of the vessel in 1913, which-ever vessel that may have been. He also referenced themeasurements taken and described at the time. The vesselwas measured at 116 feet length, exactly where is not known.It should be noted that in photos of the time there appear tobe 6 to 8 strakes still attached to the sternpost, and about thesame to the stem. While this would seem to allow an accuratedetermination in regard to the angle of the sternpost, if notthe height, there is barely enough remaining of the stem toestablish the start of the gripe, let alone the height or theshape of the stem and cutwater.

If the vessel had a stem and cutwater consistent withRoyal Navy practice for deep water vessels, as seems likelysince Detroit was to have been built to an approved set ofplans, then the deck at the bows would be quite a bit shorterthan if she was given a cutwater consistent with other vesselsbuilt by the Browns, such as Eagle, which has been found inLake Champlain and measured and a set of plans recon-structed. The Browns also built Prince de Neufchatel, which wascaptured and measured in an Admiralty dockyard, and herplans survive. She shows a similar rake of the stem to Eagle.The illustration also compares the shape of the cutwarer andthe rake of the sternpost of a deep water design with vesselsbuilt by the Browns, specifically Prince de Neufchatel. Again theBrown designs make for a longer deck than the normal

6

The author’s model in progress of the recon-structed Niagara, showing gunport spacing.

Royal Navy practice. This author believes that either shape ofstem and cutwater could be reconstructed from the remainsof the 1913 vessel, as shown in the illustration. It also wouldseem possible, considering the limited support given to thesternpost by the small amount of structure remaining, thatthe angles determined in 1913 by measurement of the reliccould be reflecting distortion damage, at least enough to callinto question the reliability of the data from that date. Therewould seem to be room for error of ten feet or so, and thatis enough to take the 1913 vessel out of consideration forNiagara and place her firmly in the range of size for QueenCharlotte. A similar condition exists for the beam of 30 feetgiven in 1913 for this vessel. There survived about 60 feet ofbulwark, on one side only, while the other side extendedabout halfway or a bit more to the turn of the bilge. Therewas no deck structure remaining to tie the sides together, andthe section ofbulwark wasdetached priorto raising, andrepositionedafter the vesselwas raised.Considering thedifficulty experi-enced in ship-yards in turningout a vessel withthe beamrequired by thedesign, due to‘spreading’ ofthe top timbers while on the stocks, it seems quite possiblethat the vessel could have spread, and that an error in estimat-ing the beam by a few feet was made. Four feet less than themeasurement estimated would match Queen Charlotte.

Tonnage is a slippery number in the times beforedisplacement became the standard. It is inaccurate at best torefer to a vessel’s ‘weight’, and when this term appears, itraises questions about the writer’s detailed knowledge. Avessel displaces a certain volume of water at a certain draft.This is the displacement number and it is expressed in tonsof water. Mr. Smith makes reference to a figure for tonnagefor Niagara of 492 60/95 tons. This figure comes fromNoah Brown who, as builder, should know. That the numberis expressed as a whole number and a fraction of 95thsindicates the method used to arrive at the number. A Britishbuilder would have arrived at a number and fractions of94ths. There is a formula using the keel, beam and either 95or 94 to arrive at a number. It was accepted as a ‘tonnage’for a vessel, and probably most closely reflects what wouldbe today a vessel’s displacement. Other ‘tonnage’ numbers

were reached by the use of various formulae and they areused to indicate the amount of cargo a vessel should be ableto carry. This number is also expressed in tons, or tonsburden, but it is a volume of the hold of the vessel, and isnot dependent on the location of the waterline. It descendsfrom the use of ‘tuns’ or barrels of a standard size in whichcargo was shipped. Many vessels were listed by their tonnageusing this cargo number as it related to their ability to carrygoods. Obviously, a vessel will displace its own weight ofwater, plus any cargo she is carrying. The tons burden of avessel will always be significantly less than the displacement.The length of the keel of a vessel is used in calculating thesetonnages, and knowing how that was measured, from whereto where, is of great importance when trying to comparetwo or more vessels. The formulae changed with time andpurpose as well, sometimes being used for tax or customs

purposes, somay have been‘fudged’ onoccasion in anattempt to evadethe excise man.This introduces afurther compli-cation. The brigsNiagara andLawrence were tobe built as 300ton vessels. GivenNoah Brown’sbuilder’s tons of492 60/95 and

the order for 300 ton vessels, it would seem that the 300 tonfigure is a cargo number not a displacement number. This isthe same ‘tons’ as given for Detroit, while Queen Charlotte wasof 200 tons. The shallower draft of the two brigs is prob-ably the cause for their ending up with a figure of 260 tons,and also for their being of less tonnage than Detroit, as allthree are much of a size otherwise, length, breadth andarmament being quite close between the three vessels. It ispossible that when the three vessels scuttled in Little/MiseryBay were inspected for possible use as merchant craft in1835, that the two larger vessels were taken as being morefitted for the purpose, and the smallest returned to the Bay.This third vessel was described as shallow and shot up fromthe battle. Lawrence and Detroit were about the same lengthand breadth and were pierced for the same number of guns(20) and it may be that the shorter (by 15 feet or so) andnarrower (by 3 or 4 feet) Queen Charlotte was returned to thewaters of the Bay. It has been shown that Lawrence, the oneAmerican brig which was scuttled in 1815, cruised toMichilimackinac the summer following the battle, and was

7

Comparison of shapes possible to reconstruct from the remains of the 1913 vessel.(No scale).

presumably repaired for that trip and the rest of that season,so should not show battle damage. The two British vesselswere got over the bar and never left, being scuttled in theBay. They were jury-rigged to get them to Erie over thewinter following the battle. They had no need to be repairedto tip-top condition, and would have shown much of theirdamage still. The confusion of identity includes Niagara,beached in the shallows in 1820 and thereafter torn apart bysouvenir hunters, she was presumed by 1913 to be in 20 feetof water, while Lawrence, scuttled in 20 feet of water in 1815was presumed to be in shallow water and being preyed uponby the scavengers by 1835. All of the above leads this authorto conclude that the vessel raised as Niagara in 1913 was infact Queen Charlotte. Some of the data put forth at the time,and used by succeeding historians seems at times to be wish-fulfillment, such as determining the dimensions of the vesselto match those of the target vessel when there was so verylittle remaining of the vessel. The trouble reconciling thenumber of ports found and measured on the fragment ofbulwark remaining with the size of the vessel and the numberof guns known to have been mounted on the Americanbrigs is another indicator that the vessel raised never wasintended to have that number of ports. A purely subjectivepoint is that the photos which this author has seen in repro-duction of the vessel raised in 1876 from the shallows ofMisery Bay and taken to Philadelphia seem to show asomewhat larger vessel than the photos seem to show of the1913 vessel. Photos of the 1913 vessel clearly show she hadbeen built with dagger knees, which we have seen were notused in the American brigs. Given the doubts expressedabove, it may surprise some that this author believes that Mr.Melbourne Smith has created, in the 1990 replica Niagara, avessel as close as we are likely to come to the original, as faras hull shape and rig. She has the shape which the Brownsgave others of their work, Prince de Neufchatel and Eagleparticularly. She has a rig consistent with other U.S. Navybrigs of her time, and she would have been sparred andrigged by regular Navy personnel. She is shallow draft, elevenfeet as was the original when loaded for battle. She appar-ently handles magnificently, given her high-performancedesign, and requires a steady, experienced hand in control, asdid the brigs and small ships or sloops-of-war of the U.S.Navy of the time. Mr. Smith has refigured the spacing ofports and frames in the way of the ports. His work makeseminent good sense in this area, and this author believes noimprovement could be made. The possible exception is thatMr. Smith’s Niagara lacks bridle ports forward of therequisite number of gun ports. Bridle ports seem to havebeen standard equipment on warships, allowing easier accessto the ground tackle while getting the anchors aboard. Theynormally would not be assigned guns, but bow chasers could

be mounted in them if circumstances warranted. The hull atthe position of a bridle port has begun to approach the stemand the angle forward of a gun firing through a bridle port isgreatly improved over a gun at a broadside port. It ispossible that it was felt that the low bulwarks and the smallsize of the vessel generally made bridle ports unnecessary.

Joel Sanborn, Hanover, NH, USA

8

The bow area of the author’s Niagara model

BLOCK, (poulie, Fr.) a machine known in mechanicsby the name of pully, and used for various purposes in aship, particularly to increase the mechanical power of theropes employed in contracting, dilating, or traversing thesails.

The complicated blocks, or those which contain anumber of wheels, either have all the wheels to run uponone axis, (see plate I.) or have their shells so formed thatthe wheels are one above another. In the former shapethey approach nearest the figure of a cylinder, and in thelatter appear like two or more single blocks joinedtogether endways.

-From William Falconer’s Dictionary of the Marine,1780. Illustration from Darcy Lever’s The Young SeaOfficer’s Sheet Anchor, 1819.

9

The stern of the HMSAlfred from Hahn’s Shipsof the American Revolu-tion. Compare the upside-down building techniqueof Hahn’s with the sternof the Pegasus, below.

Practica-lly Speaking

By David Antscherl

Lately there’s been a lotof discussion about practicumsand their value to model-makers. I’ve been asked tocontribute my (admittedlybiased!) view on this subject.

Let’s begin by going backa bit. Years ago, when I wasgrowing up, there were veryfew good books on the subjectof ship modeling. I wellremember my excitement atfinding The Built-up Ship Modelby Charles Davis in my locallibrary. At age 10, that wasexactly what I wanted to do! Ayear later C. NepeanLongridge’s The Anatomy ofNelson’s Ships was published.Having just won a mathematicscompetition run by The Model Engineer magazine, I spent mywinnings on this book. It has held pride of place on mybookshelves ever since. Both books were a kind ofpracticum for me.

The Model Engineer merged with Ships and Ship Models ataround this time, and in it there were various ‘how to’ serieson specific ships written by R.J. Collins. I still have his 10articles on Myrmidon, a ship rigged sloop of 1781. Sometechniques were simplified (he preferred solid ‘lifts’ to thewaterline, plank on bulkhead above) but, by following hisinstructions, one could build a reasonably accurate riggedmodel at 1:72 scale (6’. 0” = 1”). This was, by any othername, a ‘practicum’. Of course, it was part of a magazineand not a stand-alone course, but I mention this to show thatthe idea is not new.

In the past twenty years a great number of ship model-ing magazines and plans have appeared. Harold Hahnpopularized conventionally framed models both by produc-ing plan sets with patterns, and by writing many articles formagazines on both sides of the Atlantic. The next develop-ment of this idea was by Rev. Romero, who was, I believe,the first to write a ‘stand-alone’ workshop manual for shipmodelers.

More recently, there has been an explosion of interest inmodel making, and the Internet has facilitated communica-

tion between modelers who had formerly been considered‘lone wolves’. In fact, you wouldn’t be reading this now if itwere not for electronic communication. As a result of e-publishing, it is now possible to produce and distributematerials at a reasonable cost to a worldwide audience. Theonly possible barriers remaining are those of economics andlanguage.

Practicums (or practica in the plural: either is correct)have definite advantages for the model maker. The principleone is that of being taken step by step through an extremelycomplex process. Also, the reader is mentored and some ofthe errors that he or she might make may be avoided. Aproven work method is usually presented.

The stem assembly of Greg Herbert’sPegasus, being built according to theSwan class practicum

There aredrawbacks too. Inmy own view, thebiggest weaknessof any practicumto date has beenthat it givesinstruction on aspecific subjectonly. The bigquestion is notwhether it is a‘good’ practicum– whatever thatmeans – but does the world need a zillion almost identicalmodels of the same ship? Also, does the practicum teachtransferable skills that can be used by the model-maker togive confidence to then launch out on his or her own, ratherthan become ‘hooked’ on a particular writer? And is thepracticum accurate, does it present items in logical sequence,and is the material clearly presented? These are matters thatneed to be considered.

Having considered the strengths and weaknesses ofexisting publications, when I was persuaded to write the Swanclass practicum I tried to avoid the problems that I perceivedin others’ efforts. The first and biggest issue was that ofsubject matter. I did not want to spawn yet another a fleet ofHMS Lookalikes. Fortunately the Swan class was quite numer-ous, and plans were available for several ships. Also, thedetails and techniques could easily be transferred to buildmany other ships of the period 1760 to 1800. The modelmaker then has a huge choice of subjects available fromplans at the National Maritime Museum in England, as wellas in other collections.

I wanted to avoid a dogmatic ‘there is only one way todo this’ approach. I prefer the ‘this works for me, butexperiment for yourself ’ attitude. Also, the amount of detailand finish should be up to the individual modeler’s taste.

10

Another thing: not everyone has the financial resources to buyan extensive array of power tools. Some writers insist that afully equipped workshop is essential. In my view it is not.Some things will just take a little longer when done the ‘lo-tech’ way by hand.

The photographs here, kindly supplied by GregHerbert, are of his model of Pegasus of 1776 based on theSwan class practicum. It is being built in exactly the same wayas the original ships were. You can see the model, right side

up, without any complicated jigs or fixtures. Also, the con-struction sequence is such that parts are finished while there’seasy access to them.

The other consideration was that of authenticity. If oneis going to devote years of work to a model, one might aswell try to get it as ‘right’ as possible. I have seen items inother practicums that are just plain wrong, and little researchis required to see that this is so. Please understand that I’mnot trying to slam any author, but it bothers me whensomething is presented as authoritative when it is not. What Iwrite is research-based, and if I’ve goofed I send outcorrection notices as soon as possible: I’m not infallible!

Also, I wanted to be able to personally mentor folkwhen they really needed help: the possibility of doing thisthough a web site now makes this easy. Lastly, I wantedpeople to be able to exceed their own expectations, think forthemselves, and become independent. My biggest hope is forparticipants to become mentors and to pass on their accu-mulated knowledge and skills to others in turn.

For more information about the Swan class practicum visit:http://www.swanpracticum.com/index.html

David Antscherl, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

The stern of the Pegasus. Note the right-side-up construc-tion, as contrasted with the Hahn method.

The bow of the Pegasus by Greg Herbert.

Did you know?-more nautical expressions

At Loggerheads - An iron ball attached to a longhandle was a loggerhead. When heated it was used to sealthe pitch in deck seams. It was sometimes a handy weaponfor quarrelling crewmen.

Fly-by-Night - A large sail used only for sailingdownwind and requiring rather little attention.

No Great Shakes - When casks became empty theywere “shaken” (taken apart) so the pieces, called shakes,could be stored in a small space. Shakes had very little value.

Give (someone) a Wide Berth - To anchor a shipfar enough away from another ship so that they did not hiteach other when they swung with the wind or tide.

Cut of His Jib - Warships many times had theirforesails or jib sails cut thinly so that they could maintainpoint and not be blown off course. Upon sighting thinforesails on a distant ship a captain might not like the cutof his jib and would then have an opportunity to escape.

Garbled - Garbling was the prohibited practice ofmixing rubbish with the cargo. A distorted, mixed upmessage was said to be garbled.

Chewing the Fat - “God made the vittles but thedevil made the cook,” was a popular saying used byseafaring men in the 19th century when salted beef was astaple of the diet aboard ship. This tough cured beef,suitable only for long voyages when nothing else was cheap

11

Your model could be next! If you arethinking about selling your model,visit us and discover why we have

become the internet’s premier modelbrokerage service. We need your

models, buyer demands are growing!

Please feel free to contactmoreybenton@tallshipmodels.com

if you have any questions at all.

WWW.TALLSHIPMODELS.COM

SOLD!!!!!!

Mike Draper’sSAN FELIPE

Mike Coffman’sCUTTY SARK

Wendy Thompson’sHMS VICTORY

Carving With a Dental Drill.-Carving in the Round (Part 6)

by Bill Short

Up to this point, this series of articles has dealt mainlywith bas-relief carvings which for the most part are flat onthe back, with raised three-dimensional surfaces of varyingdepths. Carving in the round takes this process a few stepsfurther and adds the ability to rotate the carving and see athree hundred and sixty degree perspective of the work. Onmy model of the Sovereign of the Seas, there are some beautifulcarvings of this type at the hances of the waist and ofcourse, the figurehead. My level of experience in carving isgrowing with each completed piece. Carving in the roundonce seemed a huge obstacle, but as I get nearer to the needfor this type of carving on my model, I am gaining theconfidence to attempt it.

When you think about it, you are just trying to carvewhat your eye can see. Take your hand for instance: if youtraced the outline of your hand on a piece of ¾” or 1”basswood and cut out the outline on a scroll saw, you are along way towards completing a carving in the round. Oncethat operation is completed, look at your index finger andyou confirm that it does not have sharp corners. If you nowbegin to remove the sharp edges on the wooden finger,similar to removing corners on a square rod of wood for amast, you begin to see the shape emerging. The mistake mostcarvers make is in not removing enough wood. Unlike yourfinger, the wooden finger is not tapered from where it joinsthe hand down to the tip, so more wood must be removedas you go towards the nail. You must leave extra wood at theknuckle locations as well. By now you are getting the idea ofthe process. A little at a time, you are looking at your realfinger and visualizing how it appears and transferring this tothe wood. Removing the excess wood that is not part of theshape of the finger reveals the shape inside the basswood.That is basically the process as I see it.

The first carving on my Sovereign that is very close tocarving in the round is located on the counter of the stern.The Prince of Wales Feathers date back to the 13th centuryand have been in continuous use by the reigning Prince sincethat time. I used the internet to do some research on thefeathers and began the process of sketching the outline Iwould use for the carving. It starts the same way we de-scribed carving your hand. The outline is drawn on theboxwood and then the outlying wood is removed from theblock to reveal the general shape of the carving.

or would keep as well (remember, there was no refrigera-tion), required prolonged chewing to make it edible. Menoften chewed one chunk for hours, just as if it were chewinggum and referred to this practice as “chewing the fat.”

Cup of Joe - Josephus Daniels (1862-1948) wasappointed Secretary of the Navy by President WoodrowWilson in 1913. Among his reforms of the Navy were:inaugurating the practice of making 100 Sailors from theFleet eligible for entrance into the Naval Academy; theintroduction of women into the service; and, the abolishmentof the officer’s wine mess. From that time on, the strongestdrink aboard Navy ships could only be coffee and over theyears, a cup of coffee became known as “a cup of Joe”.

12

You will notice that thefeathers are severely undercut toprovide dimensional depth to thecarving. The sides are also sculptedto provide detail when viewedfrom off-centre. Carving in theround presents another challenge inour ship modeling endeavors thatcan be surmounted with a littlethought and perseverance.

This concludes the series on carving with a dental drill.

Bill Short, Thornhill, Ontario, Canada

A Large Cradle for Ship ModelBuilding.

by Terry Lynock

This large cradle is a variation on a small cradle I builtfor normal construction work on models where the basic

hull is complete. At the time I built this cradle I had two bigschooner hulls to construct, one at 50" and the other at 55"and so a larger and more robust version was called for. Thelarge cradle has rails 24" long, which are pivoted andclamped by wing nuts at the bottom. Originally this cradle

had two pivotedarms under thekeel on the centreline for support,but these becamesomething of aliability becausethey wouldmove when Ididn’t want themto. As the central

foam channel was a success on the small cradle, I rebuilt thisone to the same pattern, scrapping the central rail with its twoarms and fitting a support for the foam channel.

With the removal of the keel support arms, the base ofthe cradle wasleft empty andso I built astorage drawerinto it which canbe accessedfrom either side;i.e. it opens toleft or righthaving a pullhandle bothsides. I havefound this cradle particularly useful for rigging etc. It will takeany hull from the smallest of just 12" up to 60" with no

problems, and the beam can be from 2" up to 12" depend-ing on lower hull shape.

Terry Lynock, Telford, Shropshire, U.K.