Dr PR

deckdog, Almost all topsail schooners have the same proportions of hull shape, beam, length, etc. However, topsail schooners with square sails on the foremast had the widest part of the beam more forward (closer to the fore mast) than pure fore-and-aft rigged schooners. This increased buoyancy forward under the heavier fore mast. The major difference in hulls seems to be the deadrise - the angle between horizontal and the hull surface transversely (side to side). Cargo vessels had a shallow angle giving them a more "U" shaped fuller midships section to increase cargo space. But vessels built for speed, such as slavers, privateers and blockade runners, had a pronounced "V" shape cross section below the waterline. This produced less drag and that increased speed. The proportions for masts and spars were also about the same for a given nation, but American Baltimore clippers of the late 1700s and early 1800s typically had taller masts and larger sail area than their British counterparts. The fore masts were also thicker than the main masts on topsail schooners. However, I think it is a safe bet that no two ships were alike, at least in the Americas, so you have a lot of leeway. You are right about having to rescale deck furnishings and cannons if you are modifying a kit designed for a larger scale. But many kits are assembled with whatever parts the manufacturer had on hand, and often things like cannons and anchors were way out of scale anyway.

Roger, "Fisherman's staysail" makes sense. Chapelle ("The American Fishing Schooners") shows various lengths of these four-sided sails on many of the east coast fishing vessels, dating back to the late 1700s. Looking through books dealing with schooners from other nations I can't find a single example of this type staysail. Ferrus, Chapelle shows the clews of these sails rigged to the main boom on some vessels, but it appears to be rigged to the main mast or shrouds on some shorter sails. If the clew line of one of the really large sails (like in the Westward photo) was rigged to the deck behind the main mast it would interfere with the outboard movement of the main boom. Attached to the boom I would think it wouldn't require as much handling. But that's just a guess. I have never sailed on one of these vessels.

The only power tools I have for modelling is a Dremel and a regular electric drill (poor man's lathe). However, there is one thing I really want - but I have to make room for it first. That is a small milling machine - something with very good bearings and little run out (wobble). It would be handy for making jigs and tools for modeling/ But I think the most useful feature is the ability to reposition the work piece for precision distances in a straight line. This would make drilling an accurate series of uniformly spaced holes as in pin rails, fife rails, etc. This is difficult to do by hand, especially with very tiny drills. And a milling machine is designed to be used as a router for making horizontal cuts (drill presses aren't designed for lateral forces, only vertical forces). If you like to work with sheet metal (brass, aluminum, thin steel, etc.) a metal brake is very handy for cutting precise edges and making repeatable bends. It is something that most modelers don't have, so you can get by without it. A soldering iron is very handy for working with brass (photo etch). Good high resolution 3D printers have come down in price to less than $200. These are really good for making complex parts like propellers, anchors, cannons and other small parts with lots of complex curves. BUT you have to be proficient at 3D CAD design and learning a new program can be a huge and frustrating time sink. I am not sure how good the 3D parts will hold up with time.

Some people make the rope coils separately from the actual rigging. You can adjust the rigging all you want, making temporary ties to the belaying points. Then after everything is set you cut off the excess lengths of the rigging lines and attach the rope coils to the belaying points.

The only rule I know is: Sand enough, but not too much! What is "enough?" That's for you to decide. What is "too much?" If you sand through the planking and make holes, that is too much!

There are two top sails between the masts. One is the gaff topsail. The peak is rigged to the fore topmast, the clew to the end of the fore gaff, and the tack pulled down at the jaws of the gaff by a line to the deck near the fore mast. The other sail is a variation on the main topmast staysail. The simple triangular staysail is rigged to the main topmast stay that runs from the top of the main topmast to somewhere at the top of the fore mast. The tack is rigged to the fore top, the peak to the top of the main topmast, and the clew is hauled down by a line to the deck near the main mast. I have seen quite a variety of these staysails similar to what is shown in your photo. These are four sided sails with the peak at the top of the main topmast, the throat where the main topmast stay attaches to the fore top, and the tack and clew lower down below the gaff. The clew is hauled down to a point on the main boom as in the photo you posted. Some of these four sided sails have the foot a short distance below the fore gaff, some extend half way down the foremast, and the one your photo shows seems to extend all the way down near the bottom of the fore mast. These sails were common on American fishing schooners and yachts. MacGregor ("The Schooner") calls these main topmast staysails and has a picture (page 44) showing a schooner flying two main topmast staysails, one normal triangular sail and a longer four sided version similar to the one in your photo, but you can't see where the longer sail clew is belayed. Chapelle ("The American Fishing Schooners") also refers to these sails as main topmast staysails. I wouldn't be surprised if these sails had another name, but If so I can't find it. I have posted a lot of information about schooner sail plans and rigging here: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=750865 See post #16 for a description of sail parts and how gaff topsails and main top staysails are rigged. I need to add this version of the main top staysail to my description of sails. The schooner in the photo is also carrying a main jackyard topsail, an interesting "cheat" to increase the total sail area beyond normal class racing rules. It is a very pretty ship! The racing schooners often flew as much canvas as could be hoisted. As Jack Aubry said "If necessary we'll use our pocket handkerchiefs!"

I use Microsoft's "3D Builder" program (free download) to repair faulty files. It works very well. I also use Chitubox (also free) for the slicer.

The symmetry difference started with the first planks outboard the king plank. On the port side the first butt joint is one "step" from the bow, and on the starboard side it is two "steps" from the bow. Therefore, if you follow the 1 in 4 stepping there can be no symmetry. The planks on both sides must be laid out the same with respect to the king plank if you want to have symmetrical planking. The king plank does not fit into the 1 in 4 plan. For what it is worth, not all ships with wooden decks had a "king plank." In the Cleveland class cruisers of WWII (that I am very familiar with) there was a seam between planks on the center line. I have no idea when the change from king plank to centerline seam started. But many modern boats have a king plank. As far as nibbing is concerned there seems to be two slightly different schemes. In both cases the purpose is to avoid angles at the ends of planks less than 45 degrees (no very sharp points that are susceptible to rot and tend to catch on ropes). Sometimes the width of the nib is 1/2 the plank width (again in the Clevelands) and sometimes it is 1/3 the plank width. Some people cut the nib perpendicular to the length of the plank and some seem to cut it perpendicular to the edge of the margin board (the waterway plank). Generally the planks were a standard length when delivered to the shipyard building site. But this might not be the length necessary to fit exactly between frames/deck beams. The butt ends of planks were cut to the centerline of a deck beam or frame. Any excess length was trimmed off. The first planks outboard the king plank would be nibbed into the margin/waterway plank and cut to fit the frame/deck beam nearest to the end of the plank. The second plank outboard would be placed so the aft end was one "step" (frame/deck beam) aft the end of the first plank, and so on. So there will be no short planks at the bow. The planking continues aft in this manner to the stern. There the planks are nibbed at the closest frame/deck beam or cut off at the stern waterway/margin plank. You should never have tiny sections of planking filling the gap between a nib and the waterway plank. Never! I hope this helps.

druxey, You make a very good point! And it complicates the problem. If the wood gets wet again (or high humidity) the fungus will spread. So the model should be kept in a dry place such as an enclosed case. But the case should be ventilated to avoid build up of gasses/fumes that would damage the model. My suggestion of using a sealed case with desiccant won't work. And if chlorine bleach (sodium hypochlorite) is used to remove the stain, the wood will out gas chlorine for some time. Chlorine is very reactive so you don't want that accumulating in the case!

Fungal spores are resistant to all ordinary treatments. They are inert - their metabolism is halted, waiting for the right conditions to "turn on" again. They can "wait" for decades. So the N2 treatment or other gasses or other mild treatments will have no effect. Only soaking with strong anti fungal agents (bleach is a good one) or high pressure steam will kill them, but neither of these treatments would be model friendly. The wood will be filled with inert spores waiting for more moisture to germinate and continue to decompose the wood. So keeping the model dry is imperative. It should be stored in a sealed case with desiccant. The desiccant should be replaced periodically. A humidity indicator inside the case can be used to indicate when the desiccant should be changed. Some desiccants change color (white to blue) when they should be replaced. If you are in good health I wouldn't worry much about the spores. The wood rotting fungi are not normal human pathogens. But they still can cause infections in people with an impaired immune system. More likely they will cause an allergic reaction.

I have an ancient (1970s) small Dremel Model 260 (they used to make two sizes) corded tool. It isn't the greatest but it works - heats up quickly. I also have their motor speed control, and like everyone has said it has low torque at low speeds. I do occasionally use it in the old (piece of junk) drill stand to mill various wooden shapes - such as cannon carriages. I also use this rig as a drill press to locate drilled hole more precisely than I can accomplish by hand with the Dremel or a pin vise.It is a test of my patience but it does work. But one of the best uses is cleaning up soldered joints. The steel wire brush at medium speeds will remove excess solder much better than a file or sand paper. But you have to be careful to not remove too much! The wire brushes can also be used to shine metal prior to soldering, blackening or painting. The low torque at low speeds is an advantage when working with wood, because at high speed it is very aggressive and can eat through softer woods very quickly. I sometimes use it to rough out wood prior to carving with knives and files. I also have used it as a poor man's lathe, but I also use a variable speed hand drill for this function. SO it is a useful modeling tool for a variety of operations. But I do use pin vises mostly for drilling holes.

Just drag the excel file or use the "choose file" option (seems to work best for some folks) to open a file window and select the file. It will be interesting to see how well it works.

Very nice!

Cool! I was Engineering/Supply Officer on MSI 2 (inshore minesweeper) It was 112 feet long. The write up about the MSB didn't mention MSIs, probably because the Navy only made two of them and they were worthless. I don't think I ever heard of MSBs. One reason is that they cancelled my orders to minesweeping school in Charleston and sent me (Ensign Fuzz) directly from OCS to the ship with no training! If I had gone to Charleston I surely would have seen the MSBs. You might be able to find records from the boat yard where they were built (John Trumpy & Sons, Annapolis, Maryland). Check with the museum at the Naval Academy. I found the complete blueprint set for the MSIs in the National Archives. One of these days I want to build a model of the USS Cape MSI-2.

I have a PhD in microbiology, specializing in fungal physiology, and I operated a medical mycology (pathogenic fungi) lab for a number of years. The grey stains look like dry rot - the same fungi that cause fences to turn gray with time. The fungi that cause this are dark grey to black (dematiaceae), and the stain runs deep into the wood. You can't wipe it off. Mark is right - there probably is more mold on the inside, but if the wood has been dry for a while it won't spread more. But be careful! There will be spores and some of the fungi are opportunistic pathogens and can cause infections if your immune system is weakened for any reason (illness, chemotherapy, etc.). Don't breathe the dust or spores! Wear a mask! You might be able to lighten the stain with kitchen bleach (sodium hypochlorite) or oxalic acid. Paint a bit on to the wood with a small brush and see what happens. Wash it off with water. Try it on a hidden place first if you can find one. This will not restore the original wood color, but may make the stain lighter and less noticeable. In any case the bleach will kill the fungus. You may need to remove any paint/varnish/shellac on the wood in order to get to the fungus. Come to think of it, that's what we were doing with holystoning our decks. We used a bleach (oxalic acid) to lighten the wood! So you will be following tradition! Could be some real nostalgia there. I wouldn't bet on this accomplishing much, but it might work.

Juraj, 1. The main difference between the fore and main topsails is the main and topmast stays (lines S, T and U in the drawing) and the gaff topping lift. These interfere with the fore topsail. When the ship tacks the sail and it's rigging have to be lifted over these lines. The main topsail does not have this problem with the stays, but must still be lifted over the topping lift.. For this reason many schooners just used a main top staysail that is much smaller than the one shown in your drawing and is positioned above the topping lift. 2. With just the one tack both sails would look the same. The bottom corner (tack) of both sails would blow against the gaffs. 3. The fore topsail would have tack lines running down to the deck. If there are two tack lines one (lee side) would be draped over the fore and fore top stays. The other windward (weather) stay would be pulled tight. Looks like they forgot to show the fore tack line(s) although there is a short curved line running up from the sail tack corner. 4. This is just a guess. The fore topsail may have two sheets attached to the clew corner of the sail, These pull the clew corner out to the end of the gaff, running through a block at the end of the gaff or a sheave in the gaff end. From there the sheet often ran forward to a single block attached to the bottom of the gaff jaws and then down to deck. In the rig shown in your drawings, because of the main to fore mast stays, the clew corner must be lifted over the stays when the ship changes course (tacking) to bring the wind to the other side. Two sheets would allow this to be done from the deck, pulling the slack line tight to haul the clew corner of the sail up and over the stays. So the slack sheet would be draped over the stays like the line you point to in the drawing. With two sheets and two tacks the sail could be shifted from one side, up and over the stays, and then back down on the other side just by hauling and slacking the proper combination of sheet and tack lines. One of the main advantages of the fore-and-aft rigging like on the schooners is that almost everything could be done from the deck without anyone going aloft. This was very important in the topsail schooners, especially in the over rigged (in British opinion) American schooners. They were very "top heavy" or "tender" and a sudden squall could just blow them over and capsize them. There are several records of this happening. So it was essential that they could shift or drop the topsails very quickly.

You need eye bolts and/or mast bands. There are (at least) three ways to do this. One way is to fashion eye bolts from wire, drill a hole in the mast, and glue the eye bolt in place. You can wrap a band around the mast and solder wire loops to it. Or you can drill through the band and mast and place the eye bolts as described above. For me the easiest way is to use a narrow strip of very thin brass shimstock and fold it around the mast, forming as many attachment points as needed. First bend the strip 2 to form a lug and then solder it 3. 4. Wrap it around the mast (M). 5. Fold and solder another tab. 6. Wrap the ends around the mast and fold them together. 7. Solder the ends together and cut off the excess strip. 8. Drill holes in the tabs and round off the corners. You can even shape them to look like eye bolts if you want to. If you need only one tab just wrap the strip around the mast, fold the ends together as in 6, solder and cut 7, and drill a hole 8. You can belay to the tabs directly, or in your case attach the block strops to the tabs. Here is an example of a two lug band on the end of a dolphin striker. I have been using this method for decades. It takes a bit of practice to get the tabs spaced correctly around the mast. But it is very strong - you won't be pulling these "eye bolts" out of the mast! Before trying this I did try to use individual wire loop "eye bolts" and they sometimes pulled out of the holes in the masts when I tightened the rigging.

I'm not sure it is a "good call" but it certainly is Schooner's choice. These large latrines are shown on a number of plans for topsail schooners of the mid 1800s. The revenue cutter Joe Lane (1851) is a good example (Howard Chapelle, "The History of American Sailing Ships," Bonanza Books, New York, 1935, Plate VIII between pages 205-206). Chapelle's plan is taken from Coast Guard drawings, and the hull looks very much like your model of the Harvey. Joe Lane was 100 feet long between the perpendiculars, and that would make a 1:50 model about two feet long at the water line. I have also seen these privies placed at the stern. When they stopped building heads on ships there were no longer "heads" for the crews. They had to have something so these latrines or outhouses appeared on some ships. I have photos of a late 1800s schooner Wawona that had a fore deck above the windlass, and it had seats of ease along the bulwark under this fore deck. There are a lot of drawings of these vessels that do not have these privies. I suspect that smaller vessels just had buckets for crew use, but I do not have a reference for that. So you can do pretty much whatever you want. For further discussion of schooner heads see this thread: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29060-schooner-heads-1700s-through-1800s/?do=findComment&comment=829120 As for the 5 mm planking (9.8 inches at 1:50) I faced the same problem on my 1:48 Baltimore clipper. Some vessels did use pretty wide deck planks, but 10 inches does seem a bit large. I decided to use the 5 mm planking and it looks pretty good. Here are links to what I experimented with and ended up doing: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=602855 https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=603771 https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=605072 Since you are making a mid-1800s model you can realistically use the nibbing method I used. This came into use about 1830-1840 and was still in use more than a century and a half later. Before that planking (deck and hull) was often "hooked" and that is much more difficult to implement.

It would help if you said what type ship you are modeling. Rigging can be very different on different type of ships. But since you mentioned a book by Underhill, I looked in his "Masting and Rigging of the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier." Figure 24 (page 24 in my copy) shows brails attached to the leech (aft side) of the sail at three points and the brail blocks attached to the mast at three points - also stated in the text. However this is for a mast with the gaff permanently attached to a swivel below the mast top (late 1800s configuration). The sail is taken in to the mast by the brails. This arrangement wouldn't work if your gaff can be raised and lowered on the mast to set or take in the sail as was common in earlier periods and on many types of vessels. In Plate 10 (page 50 in my copy) he shows the metal main mast of a barque, and it shows a mast band with lugs for brail blocks and a jackstay. Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models" (page 325) shows a different arrangement for brail blocks for gaff sail on the mizzen mast where the gaff is lowered down the mast to take in the sail. Three brails are attached to the leech of the sail as before, but the brail blocks are attached to the gaff at three points. In this case the brails would draw the sail up to the gaff. Lees "Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War" (page 109) shows rigging for the mizzen brails similar to what Mondfeld shows. Lever's "The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" (page 63 Fig. 346) shows the same arrangement as Mondfeld and Lees, but states that the blocks are spaced on the gaff at the same distance from the peak as the cringles (where the brails attach) are spaced on the leech.

juhu I can see where the descriptions you posted could be confusing. I had to tread them a couple of times to understand them (mostly). The gaff topsails had three points where lines were attached. The halliard at the top/peak corner was used to raise the sail. The clew corner was at the end of the gaff, and the sheet line pulled the bottom side (foot) sail out from the mast to the end of the gaff. The tack was the lower corner near the mast, and the tack line pulled the bottom of the sail down. The vessel could have one or two tack lines. With two tack lines one would run down to deck on one side of the gaff and the other tack line would lead down on the opposite side of the gaff. Ideally the tack corner of the sail would be hauled down on the up wind (weather) side of the gaff. The weather side tack line would be pulled tight and the tack line on the Lee (downwind) side would be slackened. In this way the weather tack would take some of the strain on the mast caused by the force of the wind, acting somewhat like a running stay. The lower part of the sail would be blown against the gaff. Then when the vessel changed course to bring the wind in from the other side of the ship (tacking) the tack of the sail would be hauled up and over the gaff, and the other tack line (now upwind) would be pulled tight and the lee side line slackened. However, some vessels rigged only one tack line to one side of the gaff. On some ships the line would be hauled up and over the gaff when the ship changed course, but on other vessels they didn't bother to pull it up and over the gaff when the ship changed course. The instructions suggest that only one tack line be rigged on the model. The instructions say to attach the standing part of the clew line to the bottom mast hoop and the running part lead through fairleads at each corner of the sail. This is described in Howard Chapelle's "The American Fishing Schooner" (W. W. Norton & Co., New York and London,1973) on page 475. This is an excellent reference for American fishing schooners of the late 1800s and 1900s. It shows the clew line fastened to the lowest mast hoop. The line then lead down and thorough a single block at the tack corner of the sail. From there it ran through a single block at the clew corner of the sail, and then up through a single block at the peak corner of the sail. Then it lead down to the deck. The line was strung through rope loops (lizard fairleads) spaced along the edges of the sail so it would not tangle with other parts of the rigging. When the halliard, sheet and tack lines were slackened and the clew line pulled tight it would pull the three corners of the sail to the bottom hoop, causing the sail to collapse into a ball like a "string purse" (a bag with the top drawn together by a draw string). Then a rope (gasket) could be tied around the sail to furl it to the mast head. This apparently was common on the fishing schooners. The instructions say the clew lines lead down to deck on the port side. A less complicated arrangement was used on earlier schooners. The clew line was fastened to the clew corner of the sail and lead up thorough a block at the head of the sail and back down to the deck - this line hauled the clew of the sail back to the mast for furling the sail. This line was needed only on vessels that had the topsail leech side (closest to the mast) attached to the mast with hoops. These sails were furled to the mast when not set. The sheet was loosened and the clew line pulled the clew corner of the sail in toward the mast. At the same time the halliard was loosened so the clew line also pulled the top of the sail down toward the mast cap. The tack(s) was also loosened, allowing the sail to be gathered into a ball near the lower mast head. For topsails where the leech side was not attached to the mast the clew was not needed. All lines were slackened and the sail was lowered to the deck when it was not flying. I have posted a lot of information about fore-and-aft sails and rigging in this thread: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=750865 If this doesn't clear things up post more questions.

I have used rub-on letters as masks for painting. I needed a font and color (silver) that apparently wasn't made at the time. I did find black letters of the correct font and size. I painted the surface silver, and after it had dried thoroughly I placed the letters. Then I sprayed the background color (black) on the surface. When it had dried I peeled off the rub-on letters and I had silver lettering! There are several advantages to this method. One, the lettering won't peel off at some time in the future. Second, the painted letters had no apparent thickness, unlike the rub-ons whose thickness was way out of scale for the painted letters on the original. And because good paints were used there isn't much chance the colors will fade.

Mark, Thanks. Those are very good illustrations of the round and square tuck. When I tried to decipher some of the descriptions I found I ran into a lot of new terminology that I was unfamiliar with that made the descriptions incomprehensible. So I did a bit of research and compiled a lot of information from nine sources on wooden ship building. I thought this information might be useful to others so I have put it together in this drawing. The key term that came up over and over was wing transom. It is the rear most horizontal beam. It is set into the stern post and extends out to the fashion pieces. Below this are several other transoms called first, second, third, etc. that support the planking and strengthen the stern. These transoms may support planking of internal decks, and are then called deck transoms. The part of the aft end of the ship below the wing transom is the tuck or buttocks. The part above is the stern. However some authors say the part immediately above the wing transom is the counter, and it extends up to the lower window frames (if any). In this case the stern extends from the counter to the top rail. The counter is divided into a lower counter, which is a concave part of the planking that extends the stern back past the rudder post. The rudder post passes through an opening in the lower counter. The upper counter extends above the knuckle between lower and upper counters to the lowest window frame (if there is one). The stern is framed by the vertical counter timbers that rest on the wing transom. The taffrail (tafferel) is the upper part of the stern above the windows or counter. However some authors also use taffrail to mean the rail across the top of the stern, and this is common usage on modern vessels. The fashion pieces are the aft most complete frames that determine the shape of the hull at the stern. They attach to the stern post at the keel and the ends of the transoms, and extend up to the top rail. I have noticed that it is common to use the term fashion pieces interchangeably with quarter badge, but none of the authors I read agree with this usage. Quarter badges are curved pieces that attach outboard of the ends of the side planking and extend the width of the stern, giving the stern a rounded appearance from astern. On vessels with quarter galleries the structure of the gallery serves the purpose of the quarter badge. This all applies to ships before the mid 1800s. After this the shape of the sterns of ships changed radically, with round and elliptical sterns and eventually the elliptical transom. But even with these changes the same names and functions of the framing were still used. References Davis, Charles G., Ship Models How to Build Them, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1953. Desmond, Charles, Wooden Ship-Building, The Rudder Publishing Co., New York, 1919. Dressel, Donald, Planking Techniques for Model Ship Builders, Tab Books, New York, 1988. Falconer, William, Universal Dictionary of the Marine, T. Caldwell, London, 1769. Landstrom, Bjorn, Sailing Ships, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, NY, 1969. Marquardt, Karl Heinz, The Global Schooner, Naval Institute Press, Annappolis, 2003. McCann, Armitage, Ship Model Making, Norman Henley Publishing Co., New York, 1926. Mondfeld, Wolfram, Historic Ship Models, Sterling Publishing Co., New York, 1989. Steffy, Richard, Illustrated Glossary of Ship and Boat Terms, Oxford University Press, 2013.

I tried one more stain, a Minwax oil based "gunstock" color. The color closely matches the color of the wood I used for the bowsprit after it is coated with shellac. I applied it to the four sides (left) of the test dowel that the masts were cut from, and let it stay on for 3, 5 10 and 15 minutes on different sides before wiping it off. I also did this with the red mahogany stain (right). The cherry stain (middle) was applied for 3 and 6 minutes, overlapping. Allowing the stain to remain on the wood longer produced little or no visible differences. The results were horrible in all cases. Punt! The reason I wanted to stain the basswood masts was to try to match the color of the bowsprit wood. I have decided to just paint the bowsprit, masts and spars. Then there will be no problem getting matching colors. Besides, at 1:48 scale the wood grain wouldn't be visible anyway.

Many excellent examples have been shown, illustrating the many ways sails may be handled and operational states ships may be in. There is one other consideration - much of the running rigging is not aloft if the sail is not aloft (flying or furled). But the running rigging makes up a majority of the lines in the rigging. So if you don't put sails on the model the rigging can look pretty sparse. An option is to place the running rigging aloft, but bring together the ends of the lines that normally attach to the sails. For example, the jib halliard (hoists the sail) can be brought down and hooked to the jib downhaul (pulls the sail down) so the lines are rigged and waiting for the sail to be brought up and attached. So the sail is not in the way of viewing your handiwork but most of the rigging is in place. A lot of the running rigging can be modeled this way. It just depends on what you want to see. If sails and rigging are not your cup of tea you may want to just model the hull with minimal or no masts and rigging.

Please excuse my ignorance, but I have seen several discussions of "round tuck" and "square tuck" and they are all as clear as mud. What is the part that is curved in a round tuck? There are "stern pieces" and "transoms" and these terms seem to be used interchangeably. There is the aft most, more or less vertical planking below the rail that is sometimes decorated and carries the vessel's name. It is usually called the transom in modern vessels. It can be flat or curved from side to side. Then there is the transverse (side to side) planking below the stern piece/transom that extends down and forward to the stern post that the rudder post usually passes through. The planking below the stern is sometimes shown flat or curved (along the centerline). I initially interpreted this to be the "flat or "round" tuck. But it can also be flat or curved transversely, with the part at the centerline more aft than at the sides. So is this the curve of the round tuck? But then I learned that some people say the "round" or "square" tuck had nothing to do with the curvature of the transom or stern piece but was the way the fore and aft planking terminated at the bottom of the planking below the stern (whether curved or flat either vertically and/or transversely). So there are four possible curvatures that could be interpreted by a novice as "round," and very few (if any) writers seem to understand the potential for confusion and just assume everyone knows what they are thinking. Some might call this "functional illiteracy" or the inability to communicate effectively. So can someone tell me what is the common or "official" names for: 1. The more or less vertical piece that extends up to the top rail? It is typically made of horizontal planking that may be flat or curved transversely (side to side). 2. The angled planking below this piece (that the rudder post usually passes through) that can be flat or curved vertically along the centerline, and flat or curved horizontally transversely? 3. An accurate description of round tuck and square tuck and how it relates to 1 and 2?