Snug Harbor Johnny

The saw you picture is still FAR superior to the "Chicago Tool" mini-saw sold at Harbor Freight - which has no fence, no fine tooth blade, and an odd sized arbor that I had to search the web to find a fine enough blade to fit it and cut modeling wood. Its a bit of a pain to use, so I'd like to try and at least find the one shown to 'step up' from what I have now. And I dare say that it will be somewhat less expensive than a $2,000 Byrnes saw - if you can find one at that price on eBay.

Superb job on your Bluenose 2 build ! As its on my future list, your modifications will be a great guide. I noted what you said about the original blocks, and your decision to use Syren blocks - and they look good as you stropped them. I also noted what Rob Wiederrich observed about the blocks one can get from a Revell 1:96 C.S., Thermie or Connie kit, the bodies of which measure about 0.140", or about 3.5mm. He has made use of them on several of his clippers. The single blocks come with either one molded becket or two. The double blocks have 2 beckets, of course, one can be clipped off if not needed in an application. These look like internally stropped blocks. At 1:96 they are a tad oversized, representing about a 13" block at that scale. At 1:75 (of the Bluenose 2) they'd be pretty close - representing about 10". So I'm pondering (for future reference) the practicality of using painted Revell blocks at 1:75, v/s slightly larger wood blocks that must be individually stropped. 'Just a thought.

Looking at the picture Rob posted and noting that the launch of the Staghound was in December of 1850, it did not appear to have a split topsail initially ... so was likely retrofitted by the mid 1850s (see below). I also note that in the very first picture shown in this topic, sails are furled with 'clews to the mast' in Navy fashion ... Rob noted elsewhere that commercial ships positioned the 'mouse ears' (dangling clews) near the end of the yards, or perhaps a quarter to a third of the way from the end. In 1841 an American, Captain Forbes, devised a means of dividing this Sail horizontally into 2 parts. The doubling of the Lower & Top Masts was made longer than usual and an extra Yard was added below the Cap which could then be raised or lowered on its Parral between the Cap and the Top. Above this, the now shortened Topsail was lowered to the Cap as before. This was the origin of the Double Topsail, later to be followed by the Double Topgallant. Donald McKay fitted this Arrangement on the famous Great Republic. This simple Division of the Sail was easier to work, and quicker, than the old Single Topsail as the Upper Topsail Yard could be Lowered from the Deck and its Sail then fell in front of the Lower portion and was blanketed by it, the men then going aloft to Furl it. Another American Shipmaster, Captain Howes, next brought out an improvement on this arrangement in 1853. In his version, the new Lower Topsail Yard was fixed to the Lower Mast Cap with a movable Crane and was additionally supported by an Iron Bar from the Top. It would not move Up or Down, however. The Upper Topsail on its still Hoisting Yard had its foot cut without any Roach and was Laced directly to the Jackstay on the Lower Topsail Yard without any gap, thus presenting an appearance as of a Single Topsail. The Upper Sail could be lowered quickly, thus saving the arduous task of Reefing as with the Single Topsail, although it still had to be Taken-in & Furled. This was but a step from the true Double Topsail 1st adopted in British Clippers in 1865 with the Ariel, whereby the 2-Sails were separate Entities, with a slight gap between them. In Howes‘ Rig, when the Upper portion was Furled on its own Yard, its foot was still Laced to the Lower Yard. With the true Double Topsails, however, the Upper was Furled completely on its own Yard. Occasionally some Captains still Laced their Upper Topsails down as close as possible to the Lower Yards. The Double Topsails & Double Topgallants were the arrangements that persisted until modern times. Aside

Ahoy, and welcome to the forum ! Square rigged ships take a little study to understand how the rigging works (form follows function). One might consider the Artesania Latina 'Bluenose 2' kit of a fore-and-aft rigged schooner (1:75 scale). NOTE: instructions must be downloaded and printed out yourself, and they are not the best. However, there is at least one complete build on the forum to completion where every aspect is covered in detail. There are also builds of Bluenose 1, which is similar to the second ship.

Most in the U.S. think Australia is just some big island down under somewhere ... but fail to comprehend that if one overlays maps of the U.S. and Australia, they are about the same size - around 3 million square miles each. Brisbane to Perth is as far as Washington D.C. is to Los Angeles as the Galah flies - both decent walkabouts. OK, if we throw in Alaska (except for 3 months, mostly a frozen wasteland with prospectors, wildlife and rugged settlers ... hmmmm, a miniature Australia - only cold?), the U.S, might be a larger. Just having a look at the partial map Steven posted gives respect for your Continent's size, scope and variety of terrain and ecosystems. Now Texans think they're big, but Texas is definitely smaller than New South Wales.

How do you like this scratch-build beauty my Dad made ? Only in telescope making did I exceed his skills, otherwise he was the best at everything he put his hand to.

'Had a look at 2mm deadeyes among my misc. components ... those holes for the lacings are Sooooo small, that my smallest scale rope (so far made of three twisted single strands of Gutermann poly thread) will not go through - so only a single thread could work. And even then, I might have to ream the holes with a wire drill. Arthur Godfrey - Jack DANiels, that's tiny work. That having been said, you've nudged me to try a method of stropping a 2.2mm demi-round bead with my small scale rope (aprox 0.010" , representing 1" rope at 1:100 scale). I might try twisting only 2 threads on the Rope Rocket and see if the resultant size is closer to 0.006". Step one is to put the line through the bead block, seen below (slightly out of focus) - easy enough to do. ('Bought a new little camera, but haven't tried it yet.) Step two is tying a taught line hitch ... my 'go to' slip knot for Scouting. Step 3 is to snug the hitch to the bead. Then a small bit of CA is applied with a pin point to 'set' the hitch so the loose end can be trimmed flush (or nearly so) with a beader's flush cutter. That doesn't look too bad, and there is plenty of room for a line to pass through the sheave. Hmmmm, now I'm thinking that perhaps a 'genuine' hangman's noose might look a little better, at the expense of being harder to tie at this scale versus the taught line hitch. I dug out a few 2.5mm single sheaves (from the Crafty Sailor - they are similar to H.I.S. Models laser cut walnut blocks) to try. I note that these blocks are far superior to the ordinary sort one gets in many affordable kits, but the cheaper ones can be improved with a little shaping as shown elsewhere on the forum. First, tie the noose. Then pull the noose around a block ... a little tricky with so small a piece - and the block will often twist so the knot part of the noose is on the side of the block (versus the end). But that is fixed by twisting the block within the tightened noose with tweezers. A tough of CA and trim the short end. Side view ... again, the rope could be finer. The front view of the block ... the top hole of the sheave (there are two holes provided as made) is still small, but not as small as the holes in a 2mm deadeye. The top hole will be easier to ream, as needed. This is 'proof of concept' for stropping bead or wooden blocks with your line-of-choice, without the need of any holding jig, although It does take some dexterity and patience. 'Guess if I want a becket on the bottom of the block, a single link of the smallest chain available would be threaded on the line before tying the knot-of-choice, and positioned once the knot is fixed (then dabbed with CA). Thanks, Keith, for the 'nudge'. This will help from here on out. Johnny

I've resolved NOT to accumulate any more in stash (unless gifted), having bought an A.L. Bluenose 2 not long ago (there's a story associated with that). Four older inherited kits (2 were incomplete and I had no interest in building the others) have already been 'parted out' to my materials stock of planking and fittings. Two plastic kits went to kids last Christmas, and there are 2 plastic kits that will be going to teenagers this Christmas - the scale is too small and I'm favoring wood over plastic. This should leave 1 present restoration, 2 ships in progress and a stash of 5 ... representing, what, about 10 - 12 years of work ahead? I'm not making firm plans beyond that, but we'll see how things go.

I accompanied the Admiral to a couple of bead shows, and found some neat 'demi-round' Czech beads in acceptable brown shades - and the sizes ranged (as I measured them with Verniers) 2mm, 2.2mm, 2.3mm, 3mm and 4mm (with 1mm being about 40 thousandths - 0.040"). The demi-round form means that the beads are not spherical like most beads, but 'flattened' - albeit the wrong way for a pulley, but I still preferable to dead-round. They vary greatly in numerical "size", as different countries use different nomenclature ... so measuring them gives their actual size. I can't imagine how small your #24 beads are ... There are a couple yellow beads in the picture that are larger - perhaps 2mm - so my guess is that the darker beads are around 1mm ! EDIT: 'Checked further up in your postings and found that, indeed, we're dealing with 1mm beads. Incdredible ! The intent to use these for a 1:96 model rather than to try and strop 'true scale' wood block or to give-in to the temptation of going way out-of-scale. A 6" bunt block (aprox 150mm) should be 1.5mm 'true scale' at 1:100 (close enough to 1:96 for my purposes) OK, my smallest bead is 2mm - which would be 8" at 1:100 - not too far out of scale. I ordered some 2mm wood blocks just to try ... OMG the hole in it is tiny, and stropping that size is maddening - at least for me.

I've thought about this problem, and imagined planking the stern above where the major rub wale (extra thick, thin strake?) by first making paper templates of the shape of each successive plank - starting with the highest plank (just under the gunwale). It would be shaped something like a 'horseshoe', and the exact shape determined by successive trial fittings of the paper template (modified and re-made as needed). Then a plank would have to be cut out by jig saw from flat stock, soaked/heated and then bent around. Then planking would proceed from the top down, staggering butt joints. The planking would be from the top down the entire length of the hull, but only going down as far as the rub strake, which could then be fitted (if not already done) - then the top so-many scale feet of the hull would be done, and the rest of the hull is considered 'separately planked', with the planks going fore-and-aft and bending up to but against the rub strake is what might be considered a pseudo-round tuck ... not unlike one of the photos you posted.

Stunning and inspiring ... and very instructive for those who would follow with either Bluenose or Bluenose II !

An interesting challenge ... best of luck !

215' x 12 (inches per foot) = 2580" full scale hull (O.A.L. as opposed to 'between perpendiculars' ... a different bugaboo). 2580 divided by 32 (your hull) = 80.625 ... call it 1:80. You may be better off with a slightly larger model to work on. EDIT: - additional info. 'Seems the T (according to a public source) was 212' "between perpendiculars" (Wikipedia states the CS as 212 1/2' registered length, implying between perpendiculars) Three other sources note these same distances as being between perpendiculars. ... This is an interesting point, sometimes misunderstood (as I had done before). The "perpendiculars" (used as a standard concept of registered vessel length) consist of a vertical line where the cutwater at the bow meets the waterline (not sure whether this is laden or unladen, as it would make a difference depending on the angle of the cutwater), and another vertical line that is the centerline of the steering post. The distance between these vertical lines ("perpendiculars" meaning 90 degrees to the waterline) is measured. I took out the Revell 1:96 T hull half and measured about 25 1/2" along the point where the exposed planking meets the molded copper plates from the cutwater to the sternpost. Hmmmm, if multiplied by 96, I get 2448", which is only 204'. So something is wrong. If I multiply the 25 1/2 inches by 100, I get 2550" full size. Divide by 12 to get ... 212.5' (the model hull was made for CS), or about 1:100 scale between perpendiculars. Now if the kit designers (Revell CS & T) were using the "length on deck" (stern to the forecastle point, which does not include the bowsprit, which if added to the length on deck would give the O.A.L.) to figure the model scale, 212.5 x 12 = 2550, divided by 96 = 26.56". So I measure their model hull's 'on deck' dimension to about (here it comes) ... 26 1/2 inches ! This is an "Ah-ha" moment. The Revell kits are 1:96 if the registered length is taken for an "on deck" measurement. Ok, one can quibble or niggle over the difference between 1:96 and 1:100 ... I actually use 1:100, since its easy to do the math for fittings: e.g. an 8" block (about 200mm) is 2mm at 1:00 - and blocks most often come in millimeter sizes. Working with 2mm blocks is a pain, and many modelers get go a bit oversize here and there so a 3mm block can 'pass' for an 8" block on a 1:100 model. I digress ... IF Simon's model is about 32" stern to the knight head (more or less the 'on deck' measurement), so deduct 1/2" to be safe to get 31.5", and the difference between on deck and between perpendiculars is about 96% (25.5 divided by 26.5 = .962), then the between perpendicular value on his model should be about 30 1/4" (30.72). The full size is 212' x 12 = 2544", then divide by 30.25 to get ... drumroll ... 84.1 So my guess of the model scale is about 1:84, which is still a good scale.

Ahoy Tom, I like your method, in that dealing with brass wire railing (especially if there are two or three levels of railing) can be a real pain ... as seen in some other builds. There are problems with kinking, etc. that I wondered about. Certainly with any straight run, (especially in relatively small scale - my project is at 1:100) the thread can be tensioned as desired before 'setting' the entire length with CA - then it can be painted. OK, so what about railings that are bent around a curve for the stern? (That is, if one does not want to have straight segments going around - which is not all that bad in itself.) A curved block of balsa can be made (with slight grooves that the stanchions will fit into) as a 'form', and if covered with waxed paper glued to the form (with a VERY thin topping of petroleum jelly) the rope (thread) railings won't stick to the form when CA is applied. They will cure and remain curved when the form is removed. Note that there the curve is still 'set' in sections to permit the form(s) to be removed - since trying to do the whole thing at once might 'lock' the form inside the horseshoe shaped run.

You provide a step-by-step 'instruction manual' on your excellent resurrection of the Mary Rose. One that helps me with ideas on my presently suspended Great Harry build. Of note is that there are heavier strakes at intervals going up the stern castle (reinforcement, no doubt) with lapped clapboards in between. There appears to be a 'gallery' level where a row of lunettes (or other shaped portals from which weapons would be fired) are to be placed. This band could be planked differently than the lapstrake clapboards above and below. These 'bands' of planking between reinforcing rails makes the 'layer cake' decorations seen on the Anthony Roll (and elsewhere) make sense. The top deck level allows for spaced shields. Your build log is a wonder o behold. Fair sailing, Johnny

Actually, Spock was paraphrasing a Sherlock Holmes quote written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Of course Spock said, "Logic is little bird tweeting in meadow. Logic is a bunch of pretty flowers - that smell bad."

You've done a SUPER job on the Beagle with keen attention to detail and execution - KUDOS. I like how the deck planking turned out, and reviewed your build from the beginning to see the process how you dealt with the trouble many have with pencil graphite getting the deck dirty. Perhaps the varnish 'sealed' loose graphite, so it cleaned up after scraping. I also saw how you later scraped off the deck some more to remove the dark 'dots' at the butt joints - with further improvement in appearance. (Holystoning with glass !) I may experiment with applying graphite to planking edges and then just sealing the edges sparingly with varnish applied with a mini swab often used for fine paint details. That might pre-seal the edge before planking and prevent graphite getting on the surface in the first place ... but this is only in the 'idea' stage and untried. We know that trying to 'paint' plank edges with anything risks 'bleeding' into the plank itself - something that can't be fixed. Some have used the black thread between each plank method - again, something I have not done yet. But your method of glass scraping is way cool. 'Also looked at your coppering process - and there are many methods shown in the forum. Yours did well on the Beagle.

I've seen photos of the antique model before, and questioned a number of details that don't seem right for the 'Big T' ... yup; the completely walled in forecastle with no windless is definitely not typical, there is an aft cargo hatch (that is, an opening for a hatch - the model is mostly not decked) where there is none on the Hume model (or line drawings - plans that are available) where there should be a capstan, the entries (companionways) have flat tops (instead of bowed to either side) on the rear cabin are 'offset' from each other (rather than be on the centerline) ... ... there is something that looks like a chicken coop ( a-la the one on the C.S.) behind the forward cabin as well as some other structure in front of the main cargo hatch, There are slight channel extensions to the gunwale for the deadeyes (which are not on the Hume model ... and the entire gunwale may have been a little wider than average, so any rubbing against anything would not affect the deadeyes) - and they are 'mirrored' by mini-channels below them where the chainplates pass through, which are not on the Hume model. Note also the nice angle of the stern right up to the gunwale. ... there should be some bulwark around the poop deck (what, 'knee high' or a little less, and you can see big differences what is on deck.

There are a couple of things I've wondered about regarding Thermopylae - these relate to the model by Hulme (some text pasted below) This magnificent model of the famous tea and wool clipper "Thermopylae" was made by one of Australia's most important maritime historians, authors, ship modellers, and experts on clippers, Cyril Hume (1900-1984). Clippers were extremely fast sailing ships of the 19th built to carry expensive perishable cargo quickly around the world. They were low in the water and carried enormous amounts of sail. The term clipper, coined in 1830, was used because such ships clipped or moved swiftly. Cyril Hume first became interested in clippers when he was unemployed in Sydney during the Great Depression. He began ship modeling as a hobby to occupy his enforced leisure hours, but it quickly developed in to a lifelong pursuit. He combined to an exceptional degree, the technical skill of a craftsman and the historical accuracy of a scholar. Even in the late 1930s he sought out former sailors from the actual "Thermopylae" to ensure all the details were meticulously correct and true to scale. The rigging on his model is so painstakingly accurate in scale that a single strand of human hair was used for the signal halliards. Tiny water barrels on deck have individually-coopered staves and one of the blocks, which is less than 1/16th of an inch in length, has a working sheave. Cyril Hume became a world authority on the clipper ship era and gained international acclaim. "Thermopylae" took some 8,000 hours to complete and is believed to represent the crowning achievement of his model making career. There are many images of this model available, and I note that the anchor chains drape on the deck very far astern before going below deck. Of course there is a capstan located aft of the main mast that may have taken up the chain. I've not seen this sort of arrangement on any other clipper thus far, and wondered what your opinion was. I also note there is no cargo hatch aft of the main mast, in agreement with deck plans from other sources. The shape of the companionway covers on the aft cabin differ from what is seen on other models. So the question is, should the Hulme model be considered 'definitive' on Thermopylae? With respect, Johnny Edit: This makes the prospect of busting (somewhat) the Revell 1:96 version even more daunting. 'Very difficult to extend the aft deck the way it should be while trying to use the HIS Model wood deck overlay (I've never been able to paint plastic decking well enough to resemble wood the way the best practitioners have).

Being a Thermie Groupie, its wonderful to see how you are doing this scratch build. There are many photos of models that bristle with cannon, drip with ornate carvings and have a vast spider's web (or spaghetti bowl) of rigging - and they are wonderful to behold - yet I find great beauty in the clean lines of a well planked hull with enough additional detail above deck as needed to represent the original. Rather than be distracted by a display of modeling virtuosity I'm incapable of (but there's no harm in that, just as there is no harm in listening to a virtuoso rendition on a musical instrument ... a man can dream, can't he?) I find as much enjoyment from good basic modeling work, and there is much to find (and learn form) on MSW !

I'm still agog at how incredibly impressive your scratch build is going.

'Finally 'simplified' my procedure of hank making ... just four times around the pencil before tying - then three wraps (starting behind the coil) with the end of the third wrap passing through the loop of the second. The CA sets the shape they need to have to look right on the 1:100 brass belaying pins. The first few I'll replace with the new version so they'll appear about the same - even though each one is unique on close inspection, just as hanging coils tend to be. With tons of 'good weather' tasks to do, I'm doing very little in the shipyard ... 'have to make hay while the sun shines. Below are the first 30 made - with 120 more to go. I thought the U.S. Coast Guard Eagle looked like the Gorch Fock ... 'seems we got her as war reparation (after Googling a little to find this out) - I've pasted some info below on the 'Gorch Fock' class of training ships built in the 30s. The GF was designed and mostly complete before the Nazi take-over. Eagle commenced its existence in Nazi Germany as Horst Wessel, a ship of the Gorch Fock class. Horst Wessel was an improvement on the original design. She was larger in dimension and her spars were all steel, unlike Gorch Fock's wooden yards. SSS Horst Wessel began life as Schiff ("ship") 508 at Blohm & Voss in Hamburg, Germany in 1936.[4] Her keel was laid on 15 February, she was launched on 13 June, completed on 16 September, and commissioned on 17 September. She was the second ship in the class to be built, following the class namesake Gorch Fock. Rudolf Hess gave the speech at her launch in the presence of Adolf Hitler, and Horst Wessel's mother christened the new ship with a bottle of champagne.[5] The name was given in tribute to SA leader Horst Wessel, who had been accorded martyr status by the Nazi Party. He also wrote the song which came to be known as "Horst-Wessel-Lied", which was later used as the Nazi party's anthem (banned in Germany and Austria after the war). Shortly after work began on Horst Wessel, the Blohm & Voss shipyard laid the keel of the German battleship Bismarck, which was labeled Schiff 509.[6] SSS Horst Wessel served as the flagship of the Kriegsmarine sail training fleet, which consisted of Gorch Fock, Albert Leo Schlageter, and Horst Wessel. (Mircea was also built in 1937 for the Romanian Navy, and work began on a fifth ship called Herbert Norkus, but was stopped with the outbreak of war.) Note: The Albert Leo Schlageter now serves as the Portugese trainer Sagres. As the 3rd ship with this name in the Portugese Navy, she is sometimes referred to as the Sagres III. The Mircea was taken by the Russians for a while, then returned to Romania where she is still in service. The Russians also had the Gorch Fock, which eventually came back to Germany after they had built the Gorch Fock II .

I know someone so 'into' this that he's run the 'Longship Company' since the 70s. Pictured below is the third (and best built) boat, presently located in southern Maryland on the Potomac estuary 9an offshoot of the Chesapeake Bay. 'Thought you's like to see it.

Thus far, I've never been the first to say "Welcome" to a new forum member ... but I'll say it anyway - Welcome!