Gregory

OK that brings up my next observation. I never cared for the bright look of Syrens boxwood blocks, but there was not any alternative that came close to the shape/quality. Myself and others found that the boxwood did not take traditional wood stains very well. I experimented with Fiebing Leather Dye .. Just another option you might consider. The difference in color here is the lighting. With hindsight I would have polished them a bit more. I would like to get more of the look I see on contemporary models.

Are those the newer Printed blocks from Syren?

A steady feed is important also. Stopping can cause burns.

The top one would be a goal for me..

I’m at a loss by what you mean by “thick” . What are the dimensions of the stock, and what do you want to end up with?

I recall the variance on the Byrnes has been discussed before. Something like .005 at the back of the blade, so not easy to measure.

I just cut a 1/16 strip from a 1/4 sheet of cherry with no burning. This is with a Proxxon FET and a Malco .03 blade 3" 90t. ( CT303012000) It's a fairly used blade, but mostly for basswood strips. I noticed this piece of cherry was well seasoned and not particularly aromatic as it can sometimes be. I suspect if it has more sap it might have more of a tendency to scorch. I don't know if I do everything properly, but it works for me. I try to keep pressure against the fence right in front of the blade and avoid putting pressure on the blade itself. I keep the blade fully elevated for maximum tooth contact with the wood. I have had burning/scorching problems, but mostly with harder woods like mahogany and walnut, and older blades.

Chuck, I have always felt your Cheerful rig reflected what would have been actual practice for functionality and proportion. I don’t think anyone can go wrong by using it for reference. Is that Roger’s model mast way too tall, or is that just a perspective thing?

I would really enjoy seeing those. For some reason, the pics of Cheerful in the gallery suffered from poor lighting. Perhaps you could post yours in the Gallery?

Falkonet is out of Russia, so very hard to source right now. You might check on eBay from time to time..

A detail I like about the Thorsminde artifact is that the eyebolts are countersunk. we don’t see them modeled like that very often.

This is a contemporary(1775) drawing that has showed up in several discussions. An artefact from Thorsminde. This is a 3D reconstruction of the artifact carriage.

That certainly helps, but “steps” have been mentioned a couple of times. Is there another term that applies?

To follow along, I could use some labels. ”steps, brackets”?

Whipping is just the method of dressing the end of a rope. How to Tie a Common Whipping Knot? Tips, Uses & Video Steps Modeling it may not always be worth the effort depending on the scale you are working and the size of the rope.

I put CA (super glue) on the ends of rope. After it cures, I cut it at an angle with scalpel or clippers to create a point for threading through blocks or other holes.

Have you considered using drill bits to make uniform eyes and rings? That said your work looks really good so far..

@vossiewulf I think this recent post by DrPr gives a good idea about how rigging and mast/yard dimensions was established by the riggers. It doesn't help with the configuration of spreaders and other details, but I think following what you see on a contemporary model is a safe bet. If they are different, it doesn't necessarily mean one is wrong.

Good catch.. I was thinking the skylight looked different also.

Here is another curious observation about the images in the Science museum. The image on the far left has water line markers and you can see shot in the shot garlands. The other two images show no waterline markers, and instead of shot you see a powdery residue and there is also a chip out of the keel that has been repaired in the first image. FWIW , I suppose we are looking at some restoration work in the first image. I think the first image has an over-all cleaner appearance.

I think the inconsistency is a matter of method for the riggers of the time and how a model builder chose to model it. The mechanics of sail handling are well established across the type of sail whether cutter or frigate. It remained the same for a couple hundred years. The details that changed was mostly about where a block was tied off or how long a pendant was, etc.. The rake/height of a mast the length of a yard and the number of yards could be changed by the master of the boat. Paintings are probably a good source for what worked in that regard. There is a lot of variation across the several cutter models in the gallery, but the necessary ropes/lines are all there. I don't think you can go wrong by mixing the features you like. I like the simplicity of four shrouds (Cheerful), but I also like the look of the extra tackle on the backstay. I think the two sheaves in the lower yard add extra work that I can do without, and the instances of one sheave are well documented. My council would be to not get bogged down in minutia that has several different, right ways of doing it, as it can really take the joy out of the journey. The answer to those who say Petersson got it wrong, is that whoever rigged the model got it wrong, if indeed they did.

Cutter Trial 1790 The lines don't appear to be leading the same as with the subject model.

I managed to find that the model of cutter Trial in the Gallery has the two sheaves in the lower yard. I’ll post a snip later. I wonder if Chris modeled this in his kit?

I think the extra tackle on the backstay adds a little bling to a relatively sparse rig. It doesn’t seem illogical that it could provide extra tension when adjusting the stay.

Here is the information I posted in Oakheart's Speedy log. I found the model that Petersson derived his drawings from: Rigged model of a late 18th century naval Revenue Cutter . The pictures are very high resolution and provide some interesting detail. As we discussed above, It looks like the main stay does go over that collar as shown in his drawing but it looks more robust than the apparent band in the drawing with the actual band being below the collar. The stay itself has a lot of parceling and serving, so it looks workable as shown on the model. The double sheave on the lower yard is apparent, but the Petersson drawings doesn't show the purpose of the outboard sheave. I traced the line to a block at the top of the mast, and can't really tell where it leads down at the mast. I can't make out where it goes from there. I will take a closer look. The other end of the line is hooked through an eyebolt at the channel. I'm at a loss as to the function of this line. I questioned Chuck about this tackle shown by Petersson on the backstay when I was using the Cheerful rigging for my Resolution. Chuck said it was just wrong and didn't belong, and indeed it's not present on the Cheerful model. However, it is clearly present on this model, and I'm thinking it may a working/loading tackle. There is a lot of detail to be gleaned from those images at the Science Museum, and gives the opportunity to be a little different from all the other cutter models, while still being accurate as far as the contemporary model builder was accurate.