Dr PR

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?

Bob, I am glad it has been helpful. After wading through all this information I hoped that putting it here would be useful to someone else.

The upper drawing in post #41 is a "jackyard topsail." Leather's "Gaff Rig Handbook" says it was invented to get around rules for class racing where the gaff was limited in length. The gaff yard increased the sail area over what the other gaff topsails provided. Without the spar attached to the gaff and just the spar hoisted to the mast top it would be a "spar gaff topsail." This was also a way to increase the sail area and raise it higher to catch winds above the surface. Without either of the spars it is a gaff topsail - but I have found at least eight different gaff topsail configurations. I have posted quite a bit of information about schooner sails and rigging in the following link. Some of it may be of use in your build. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=750865

I have seen one reference where Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) was used for decking on a fairly recent build. It still grows in the Pacific Northwest, although almost all of the original native forests have been clearcut. I don't think it would be a good material for decking. Even here in Oregon where it is harvested we don't use it for decks or fencing that is exposed to the (wet) weather. It is a fairly soft wood and rots quickly. The blueprints for the Cleveland class cruisers of the late 1930s and 1940s say they had two inch laminated planking for the decks. The upper one inch was teak and the lower one inch was Douglas fir. I suspect this was common on all US Navy ships of the period. Douglas fir was cheaper and more readily available than teak. So the more durable teak was exposed to the elements and the Douglas fir was a filler. I have a piece of the teak deck from the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 that was removed before the ship was used as a target and sunk in 1999. So teak was still being used as late as 1979 when the ship was decommissioned. We replaced the decking in Japan in the early 1970s but I didn't pay any attention to the materials so I don't know if it was laminated.

I have read that sheer poles were introduced in the mid 1800s, so if your vessel dates back before about 1830 it wouldn't have had sheer poles. I seem to recall that I was able to adjust the individual strands of the lanyards that tie the deadeyes together to create a counter twist. Pulling one side (inboard or outboard) tighter creates a torque to twist the upper deadeye and shroud. This takes a lot of fiddling but I have two models where the deadeyes have remained aligned correctly for decades. After you get the deadeyes aligned and they have stayed that was for a few days you can paint the deadeyes and lanyards with varnish or clear paint (flat or satin) to hold things in place.

Gregg, I have had the same problem trying to decipher what different authors and plans mean by "mast length." Most authors just assume you can read their minds! I have encountered four different "mast lengths" in references on mast construction. This drawing shows what the terms "measured length," "hounded length," "deck to top" and "deck to hounds" mean. Measured length and hounded length are the two most commonly used terms for "mast length," although most authors just say "mast length" without actually saying which actual meaning they are using. The same ambiguity often applies to the "length" of the ship, with the three measurements shown in the drawing being used for the length of the ship. I can't see the tops of the masts in the image you posted, but I suspect the "measured length" is what they are talking about. It is the dowel length, and that has to include the measured length from the heel to the cap.

One way to hide the jaggies would be to cut one edge straight and put all the steps on the other edge. Then make the edge with the steps the inside edge that will be hidden by the overlapping plank. I need to make a small boat for my current build so I am watching with interest.

George, I have been experimenting with Minwax wood stains. I have been testing on a scrap of basswood that the masts were cut from. Since I was trying to match what I think is mahogany on the bowsprit - after it is sealed with clear shellac - I tried their red mahogany. After applying and waiting three minutes (according to instructions on the can) I wiped it off. It came out dark brown with no reddish tint, nothing like the color on the can! Then I tried Minwax cherry stain. Again the color on the can was close to what I wanted, and the instructions said I could apply multiple coats to get a darker color. However, I was careless and bought a can of their "gel stain." It is like brown jello. After applying it I had a very close match to what I wanted, but after wiping it off almost no color remained. Maybe a very, very pale hint of brown. I have applied three coats and always got exactly the same result - almost no color. So much for Minwax stains! As you night expect I am a bit frustrated. I'll look up the stains you mentioned and maybe give them a try. But right now I am just thinking of getting some acrylic paints and mixing up a suitable color.

Even in the modern US Navy some color schemes were the prerogative of the Captain, or even the bosun's mates. For example, on some ships the capstans, catheads or chain pipes were painted red on the port side and green on the starboard. On other ships they might be deck grey. Awnings might be grey or white, etc. On the OK City Captain Howell ran a no nonsense warship grey ship. We got a new Executive Officer who wanted to replace the grey canvas with white, with lots of frills and McNanara's lace, and paint all the plumbing a rainbow of colors. "Rodney," Captain Howell replied, "you want to turn my ship into a circus boat!" White awnings in particular were a bad idea on an oil or coal burning ship, especially if it spends time in harbor with other ships. They "blow stacks" during the mid watches to clear soot out of the smoke pipes, and the soot settles on everything. White canvas has to be scrubbed every morning by the deck crews.

Jim. I have been thinking about that. The bulwark brown is more of a milk chocolate color - not quite as red as the mahogany. But I guess it would make sense to use that brown for the masts and bowsprit since it was already used on the vessel. Thinking in terms of the early 1800s and what was available (cheap) at the time, if they had the brown they could use it to seal the masts and bowsprits. I have some Minwax cherrywood gel stain that I will try on a scrap of the basswood dowel to see if it comes close to the bowsprit wood with clear shellac on it. It seems to be a bit lighter than the mahogany, but the can says I can apply multiple coats to get a darker stain. I'll see how that works out. If not, I can always paint the bowsprit black.

Thanks George and OldSalt 1950. The repair came out OK. Now there is a place for the gammoning ropes. On some ships there was a wide gap between the knee and the bowsprit, and the gammoning was tied across horizontally in that gap. But on many schooners the bowsprit seemed to rest on the knee as shown here, so the cross tie wasn't used. For a while I considered a bit fancier knee with a bit of scrolling at the forward end. But I decided that wasn't necessary. These little revenue cutters were pretty basic, with few frills. There are many small details I have to add to the hull and deck before it is ready for rigging. But my biggest problem now is deciding how to paint the masts and bowsprit. I have created a problem for myself. I used a piece of square dowel I had on hand for the bowsprit. I think it is mahogany that I bought at our local hobby shop decades ago. It has a nice medium brown color. When I started looking for matching wood for the masts I learned you can't import mahogany into the US any more - it has almost been exterminated from the Brazilian forests. I had to settle for square basswood dowels for the masts, and you can see in the picture how much lighter they are than the bowsprit. That's poor planning! I wanted to just finish the bowsprit and masts in a natural wood color, but so far I haven't found a stain that will darken the basswood masts to match the bowsprit. The Minwax red mahogany stain is way too dark, even if it is wiped off immediately after applying. I am considering the color scheme on the modern La Recouvrance and Pride of Baltimore II schooners. The bowsprit is painted black from heel to the cap, and the jib boom is a natural wood color. The lower masts are natural wood color from the deck up to the hounds. The cheeks, trestletrees and crosstrees, mast head and cap are black. The topmast is natural wood color, with the heel black on the La Recouvrance. The spars are natural wood color, with the yardarms (tips of the spars) black. So I would lose that nice natural mahogany color on the bowsprit but I will be able to stain the masts a darker wood color than the bare basswood without trying to match the bowsprit color. And I have lots of black paint!

Valeriy is obviously a very experienced model maker. In addition to the clean crisp lines I am impressed that he really understands the order that the assembly needs to go together. And he doesn't forget to clean off the dust before he takes his photos!