Jaager

I may well be totally wrong here, but:
Acrylics have looked to me like they have a sandy/dusty, pastel look to them.
Oil based paint seems to be more crisp with a more pure color look.
 
"fat over lean" means that oils can be used over the primer that you have.
I am not sure just how color alone can change a casting into a wood carving.
I wonder if the difference is that a casting is more rounded and smoother where two planes meet.
Perhaps actual carving with very sharp chisels done very lightly will produce a more angular look?
 
You would have to touch up the primer and the oil can be a bit transparent - and - for scale effect not at all glossy - a flatting agent.  Last month, Amazon was $10-15 less expensive than West Marine for their own flattening product.

I may well be totally wrong here, but:
Acrylics have looked to me like they have a sandy/dusty, pastel look to them.
Oil based paint seems to be more crisp with a more pure color look.
 
"fat over lean" means that oils can be used over the primer that you have.
I am not sure just how color alone can change a casting into a wood carving.
I wonder if the difference is that a casting is more rounded and smoother where two planes meet.
Perhaps actual carving with very sharp chisels done very lightly will produce a more angular look?
 
You would have to touch up the primer and the oil can be a bit transparent - and - for scale effect not at all glossy - a flatting agent.  Last month, Amazon was $10-15 less expensive than West Marine for their own flattening product.

I may well be totally wrong here, but:
Acrylics have looked to me like they have a sandy/dusty, pastel look to them.
Oil based paint seems to be more crisp with a more pure color look.
 
"fat over lean" means that oils can be used over the primer that you have.
I am not sure just how color alone can change a casting into a wood carving.
I wonder if the difference is that a casting is more rounded and smoother where two planes meet.
Perhaps actual carving with very sharp chisels done very lightly will produce a more angular look?
 
You would have to touch up the primer and the oil can be a bit transparent - and - for scale effect not at all glossy - a flatting agent.  Last month, Amazon was $10-15 less expensive than West Marine for their own flattening product.

It is unfortunate that Yellow Poplar/ Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) suffers in any way from confusion with any tree in the Aspen/ Cottonwood family (Populus sp.).  Both have relatively soft wood,  but Yellow poplar has fiber stability and a crisp edge and smooth surface that compares well with much harder  (also) closed pore species.  Its only negative characteristic is that it can not decide what color it wants to be.  Stain or paint or hide it inside and it will work as well as any of the more famous, favored, and certainly more expensive species with current cachet.
Wood from any of the trees in the Populus family is purely awful for our purposes.  It even exceeds the various species of Soft Maple in it awfulness.
 
When I look around the commons  area of my condo, and see all of the Sycamore trees (American Plane) -I mourn the missed opportunity to have Tulip Poplars in their place.  I grant that they would need harvesting eventually because the trunks can get large enough to conquer the street, but it is dead on straight and tall with large leaves that have the same shape as a tulip flower.

I think that the cold hard solution is to remove the malformed rigging sections and replace with new.  This time use either shellac or bookbinders PVA  (pH neutral) instead of CA.
A willingness to scrap subpar work and start over is a useful mindset and habit - especially for scratch build.   The short redo time will save a much longer time of feeling regret every time you look at the model.

I think that the cold hard solution is to remove the malformed rigging sections and replace with new.  This time use either shellac or bookbinders PVA  (pH neutral) instead of CA.
A willingness to scrap subpar work and start over is a useful mindset and habit - especially for scratch build.   The short redo time will save a much longer time of feeling regret every time you look at the model.

It is unfortunate that Yellow Poplar/ Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) suffers in any way from confusion with any tree in the Aspen/ Cottonwood family (Populus sp.).  Both have relatively soft wood,  but Yellow poplar has fiber stability and a crisp edge and smooth surface that compares well with much harder  (also) closed pore species.  Its only negative characteristic is that it can not decide what color it wants to be.  Stain or paint or hide it inside and it will work as well as any of the more famous, favored, and certainly more expensive species with current cachet.
Wood from any of the trees in the Populus family is purely awful for our purposes.  It even exceeds the various species of Soft Maple in it awfulness.
 
When I look around the commons  area of my condo, and see all of the Sycamore trees (American Plane) -I mourn the missed opportunity to have Tulip Poplars in their place.  I grant that they would need harvesting eventually because the trunks can get large enough to conquer the street, but it is dead on straight and tall with large leaves that have the same shape as a tulip flower.

Woods are like fish,  they have different names depending on where you live.  The poplar that Jaager mentions is called a Tulip Tree in Ohio, and I agree that it is a nice wood for modeling.  Here in Northern Minnesota “Poplar” refers to wood from the Aspen tree, or locally referred to as Popple.  These trees take over logged areas and are fast growing but don’t get very large.  The wood is used for paper pulp, but is now being stocked as poplar in the specialty lumber department of our local Menards store.  It is very soft and unsuitable for quality ship model work.
 
I have never built a POB kit but suspect that the wood supplied is not true Walnut.  American Black Walnut is my favorite wood for ship model cases.  It is a nice wood to work with, but not for the models themselves.

Melissa,
First,  good luck and good fortune in your experience with this.  May it provide the challenge and fulfillment that many of us find in researching and fabricating model ships from the Age of Sail and before.
 
My purpose with this is to ask / suggest   - given where you live, are you familiar with the book:  King William's War - Michael G. Laramie - Westholme Publishing - 2017.   While it is not exactly a page turner, it does fill what for me was a major vacuum in the history of North America.  It supplies a background that explains the attitudes, prejudice, and hostilities of the subsequent years.   Have you already read it?  Are you familiar with it?

I understand that sentiment; what are your expectations on how long you would like a project to take? I'm somewhat of a slow builder and it took me just over a year to complete the Alert. If you're looking for a smaller project than I would certainly consider the working boats for a first go.

Melissa,
First,  good luck and good fortune in your experience with this.  May it provide the challenge and fulfillment that many of us find in researching and fabricating model ships from the Age of Sail and before.
 
My purpose with this is to ask / suggest   - given where you live, are you familiar with the book:  King William's War - Michael G. Laramie - Westholme Publishing - 2017.   While it is not exactly a page turner, it does fill what for me was a major vacuum in the history of North America.  It supplies a background that explains the attitudes, prejudice, and hostilities of the subsequent years.   Have you already read it?  Are you familiar with it?

Melissa,
First,  good luck and good fortune in your experience with this.  May it provide the challenge and fulfillment that many of us find in researching and fabricating model ships from the Age of Sail and before.
 
My purpose with this is to ask / suggest   - given where you live, are you familiar with the book:  King William's War - Michael G. Laramie - Westholme Publishing - 2017.   While it is not exactly a page turner, it does fill what for me was a major vacuum in the history of North America.  It supplies a background that explains the attitudes, prejudice, and hostilities of the subsequent years.   Have you already read it?  Are you familiar with it?

Tim,
Sorry to continue with spending money and researching suggestions, but.............
You can learn a lot about "the method" in The Ships of the American Revolution and their models by Harold M. Hahn. ($13 for a used copy at Abe books) 
For a somewhat complete explanation from start to finish of "the method" , maybe consider continuing your search and check out the Beavers Prize build log here at MSW.   
 
Allan

His presentation in the NRJ is reprinted in:
Ship Modeler's Shop Notes, Vol. I
$3500

I am not going to confirm this, but I am reasonably sure that a search of the scratch build forum using the proper key word will turn up several demonstrations in various logs.
 
The price for the shop notes is reasonable and helps support the guild and probably this site,

Thomas,
Navy Board is a particular style of framing,  It is not what you built.  It is the framing with spaces in line with the timbers and in alternating frames depending on altitude above the keel.   Almost no one builds using this style.  It was dissected and explained in early issues of Model Shipwright and by Robert Bruckshaw -there is a PDF of his out there somewhere. ( Later, there was of course NAVY BOARD SHIP MODELS by John Franklin. )  I explored using it the frame St.Philippe.  The method requires that the floor and F1  be much longer than the actual timbers would have been.  The round up is so much that a wide plank is needed - worse than Hahn.  The very significant waste is not acceptable to me.   The original models had their frames sawn out of large thin boards.  It must have been nice to have Pear and Boxwood stock that was that large.  My guess is that it came from luxury carriage makers.  
 
I did my first framing using Black Walnut also.  I also would not use it again.  The pores are just not right.  I  built it in the attic of a poorly AC house during a Kentucky Summer.  The fingers were continuously stained purple.   It is a beautiful wood to be sure, but it not suited to our needs.
 
Your hull looks spectacular.   Since the term  has no exact meaning, you might as well call it Admiralty style.  Are you going to use full planking above the wale?
 
Personally, I enjoy the curves of open framing below the wale.  I also think the framing above the wale is too ugly to show.   The French ships are not as ugly, because they did not narrow the top timber widths very much if at all.  The narrowing and jogging of RN ship top timbers have all the visual appeal of showing the 2x4 framing of a house.

Charlie,
The ammonia that ship builders used to bend wood was anhydrous ammonia.  The pure stuff that is either gas or liquid under bending conditions depending on PV=nRT.  The glue (lignin) that holds wood fibers together is soluble in pure ammonia - but not ammonia dissolved in water.  Pure ammonia, is explosive, corrosive, and a poison.   Soaking wood strips in an ammonia solution just messes up the surface of the wood.  Actually dry heat will bend wood just as effectively as wet heat.  If the heat source has too high a temp, the water may buy sometime before the wood surface chars. 
Water and steam transfer heat more efficiently than air,  but on a model size  piece of wood, the difference is probably measurable, but not significant enough to matter. 
 
Now about bending a rail:    a rail is usually wide and relatively thin.  The bend is usually along the thick dimension instead of the thin one.  Wood resists this.  It will try to twist.   Even if you somehow manage to do it, the wood will forever try to straighten back out.  
The better way is to do what actual ship builders did.  Break the rail up into shorter segments and spill the bend from a wide plank.   Mass market kit suppliers tend not to provide the wood necessary to spill a rail.   The way to achieve this is to source a supply of wide and narrow rail wood from a 3rd party supplier.  Get a species that is more appropriate than the crap that most kits provide.  You will be pleasantly surprised at how much better scale appropriate species of wood, look and work and if the model calls for it allows for a molding to be scraped on the outer edge.

Charlie,
The ammonia that ship builders used to bend wood was anhydrous ammonia.  The pure stuff that is either gas or liquid under bending conditions depending on PV=nRT.  The glue (lignin) that holds wood fibers together is soluble in pure ammonia - but not ammonia dissolved in water.  Pure ammonia, is explosive, corrosive, and a poison.   Soaking wood strips in an ammonia solution just messes up the surface of the wood.  Actually dry heat will bend wood just as effectively as wet heat.  If the heat source has too high a temp, the water may buy sometime before the wood surface chars. 
Water and steam transfer heat more efficiently than air,  but on a model size  piece of wood, the difference is probably measurable, but not significant enough to matter. 
 
Now about bending a rail:    a rail is usually wide and relatively thin.  The bend is usually along the thick dimension instead of the thin one.  Wood resists this.  It will try to twist.   Even if you somehow manage to do it, the wood will forever try to straighten back out.  
The better way is to do what actual ship builders did.  Break the rail up into shorter segments and spill the bend from a wide plank.   Mass market kit suppliers tend not to provide the wood necessary to spill a rail.   The way to achieve this is to source a supply of wide and narrow rail wood from a 3rd party supplier.  Get a species that is more appropriate than the crap that most kits provide.  You will be pleasantly surprised at how much better scale appropriate species of wood, look and work and if the model calls for it allows for a molding to be scraped on the outer edge.

His presentation in the NRJ is reprinted in:
Ship Modeler's Shop Notes, Vol. I
$3500

I guess that what I am sort of  suggesting is that it may prove helpful if
:
Admiralty style had a definitive and commonly agreed upon meaning.
 
The sub section of POF where the hidden internal parts - hooks, riders, knees, temporary rooms, magazines etc. are modeled had a specific name.

I guess that what I am sort of  suggesting is that it may prove helpful if
:
Admiralty style had a definitive and commonly agreed upon meaning.
 
The sub section of POF where the hidden internal parts - hooks, riders, knees, temporary rooms, magazines etc. are modeled had a specific name.

Right... the hull framing is a good thing.  Hahn left off much of the planking on one side and cut away the framing (not all, he left some as support) so one could see inside the hull.  He even added crewman.   Nothing wrong with that, IMO.   It's if full planking..... why bother? 
 
I'm not fan of leaving off deck planking but I can see leaving off some of the hull like Hahn did.
 
I see nothing wrong with your viewpoint.   We all work to our abilities and what we want to see in the model.  

Filling the lower decks with details.  

And I fully concur with that being the purpose.  And, indeed, it mostly seems to be fulfilled by the builder.   But it takes so much longer.   It also leaves a lot of abandoned builds.   It takes so long to reach a stage where a sense of positive feedback can provide the fuel to push on.  It has metastasized to a point where it seems to have becomes almost the expected option.  I have perspective enough that I can plod on on my own path.  I wonder if someone whose skill level has exceeded the challenge and limitations of kits, would look at this current fad in POF, see the (unnecessary) complexity,  and decide " nope, I am not going there.". 

Thomas,
 
First, now ANCRE is providing plans with an exposition of the frames at 1:48 and 1:72 of the Sane 74.
At first when I looked at your photo, I was guessing that  your model was a click larger than 1:48 - since your hull is  larger than my framed hull of Commerce de Marseille -  then I remembered that I build at 1:60  and that yours is about twice the 3D size - so 1:48?  Fully masted and in a case - it will be interesting in how much habitat volume it occupies.
 
We seem to have a definition confusion here.   There is no definitive meaning for what is meant by Admiralty.
I used to think it referred  to POF - open frame - 17th century style framing.  But now I use Navy Board framing to define that style.
Then - from use here on the forum - I thought it meant a POF, open frame with no masts or short stubs for them.
With you calling your hull Admiralty,  well - your framing looks to be all bends with ~20% space,  which would match how these 74 were actually built.  But you intend to fully mast it? 
 
I cannot recall a definitive name for the current style of leaving the decks mostly open and most of the usually hidden guts present and most of the upper works outside and inside planking left off.  What was once a virtuoso exercise in fully following a monograph inside as well as outside  seems to have become a sort of standard.   Why that is, has me banging my head to get the water out of my ears.  I wonder if the additional complexity of adding more to a POF than what would be seen if it was a fully planked above the wale  and decked model of a vessel as it actually sailed might frighten off some who would otherwise build POF?