Jaager

On wood to wood, I use a complete just wet covering of PVA of both surfaces, no puddles.  I think it is unlikely that wood would stand up to a clamping pressure that would starve the joint with out damaging the wood itself.  A small version of a sponge stick or an economy artist's brush spreads to PVA.  PVA bonds by a chemical reactions growing long chains that intertwine and grow into the irregularities on the wood surface.  This why having too smooth a surface is unwise.  The closer the two wood surfaces, the less of a zone of just plastic tendrils intertwining with each other there is.
Completely reacted PVA is flexible rather than rigid, so too thick a joint may have slight movement?
Metal to metal, I can see being able to squeeze out most all of a glue.  Maybe  with a 400 grit or 600 grit or finer finish, too much PVA could be forced out.
 
I favor hitch chocks for planking, but that involves follow up trunneling with bamboo to fill the holes, or nipping off the brass pins, if you favor that look.

If this is for a deck house, why not build it using framing and planks?

https://gregdorrance.com/product-category/carving-wood-tupelo-bass-bird-duck-kits-rough-outs-cut-outs-plates-cottonwood-bark-eggs/wood-for-carving/basswood-carving-blocks-1-2-thick/
 
Getting hung up on your term "block"  I went hunting in decoy carving supplies.   There is one there 1/2" x 4" x12"  for<$5.00
Trying to imagine what part this is?  

Dollburger,
 
First, I expect that you have read the post: For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale  in New Member Introductions.  A brig is definitely more approachable than the frigates or liners that are the usual advertising lures. But, HMS Beagle is still a complicated subject.  1:60 allows for a lot of detail.  The book by Marguardt supplies a lot of detail.  The OcCre kit as presented involves a lot of errors and poor practices that only experience and immersion in arcane details illuminates.  Your first couple of models are likely to include things that will make you cringe when you look back with some experience under your belt. 
Do you want HMS Beagle to be something that you will feel that way about?  If good enough is OK with you, then plunge ahead.  If HMS Beagle is important enough that you want it to shine, then perhaps you should start with something smaller and less sexy.  Among the companies that cater to the needs of a beginner,   Model Shipways is unlikely to lead you astray in their advice on the first two kits to cut your teeth on.
 

If this is for a deck house, why not build it using framing and planks?

https://gregdorrance.com/product-category/carving-wood-tupelo-bass-bird-duck-kits-rough-outs-cut-outs-plates-cottonwood-bark-eggs/wood-for-carving/basswood-carving-blocks-1-2-thick/
 
Getting hung up on your term "block"  I went hunting in decoy carving supplies.   There is one there 1/2" x 4" x12"  for<$5.00
Trying to imagine what part this is?  

There is one aspect of SP that is diving me to distraction.
On the Profile plan, the station lines are sloped with the frames.
The Body plan seems to be the actual frame shape, and not a foreshortened perpendicular to the keel parallax view.
The Body plan at M matches the extract bend shape for M.  It is not squished down.
So, why, if the Body plan is perpendicular to the viewer, is the rabbet not sloped down aft?
The geometry is confusing me.

You understand why I'm giving it up ...

There is one aspect of SP that is diving me to distraction.
On the Profile plan, the station lines are sloped with the frames.
The Body plan seems to be the actual frame shape, and not a foreshortened perpendicular to the keel parallax view.
The Body plan at M matches the extract bend shape for M.  It is not squished down.
So, why, if the Body plan is perpendicular to the viewer, is the rabbet not sloped down aft?
The geometry is confusing me.

I am not so sure that the plans are in error.  I think that Lemineur became so involved in the contemporary method that he lost sight of the real purpose of his monograph.  It is all well and good to document what was actually done.  Reproducing an eccentric building method does add a serious complication and an unnecessary one at that.  It would have been more friendly to have drawn the keel with the slope.  However, he developed the individual bend patterns for the commonly used POF assembly methods and did not think thru just how much more difficult doing it at an angle is.  It hurts my head to try to see how to use the routine methods to get a new baseline that gets the frames perpendicular.  The geometry is maddening.   I guess when viewed by the needs of most, this is an error, or at least an ill adivised decision.   I just have not seen any technical errors in the actual lines.    
 
I wish you smooth sailing on the project.  Ambitieux is a big horse. 

I am not so sure that the plans are in error.  I think that Lemineur became so involved in the contemporary method that he lost sight of the real purpose of his monograph.  It is all well and good to document what was actually done.  Reproducing an eccentric building method does add a serious complication and an unnecessary one at that.  It would have been more friendly to have drawn the keel with the slope.  However, he developed the individual bend patterns for the commonly used POF assembly methods and did not think thru just how much more difficult doing it at an angle is.  It hurts my head to try to see how to use the routine methods to get a new baseline that gets the frames perpendicular.  The geometry is maddening.   I guess when viewed by the needs of most, this is an error, or at least an ill adivised decision.   I just have not seen any technical errors in the actual lines.    
 
I wish you smooth sailing on the project.  Ambitieux is a big horse. 

Looking at Kevin's picture:  I have always had a mistrust of being able to get the holes to exactly match up with the dowels.  I just thought of a way to do it.  Use a third piece of wood.  One that is as wide as the channel is thick.  Make it thick enough that a drill bit has to go in perpendicular. Site the dowel locations as holes in it.  Use it as the gauge to drill the holes in the hull and in the channel..  I beg forgiveness of this is standard practice already.  I just solves a long standing  how-to-do-it for me. 

On wood to wood, I use a complete just wet covering of PVA of both surfaces, no puddles.  I think it is unlikely that wood would stand up to a clamping pressure that would starve the joint with out damaging the wood itself.  A small version of a sponge stick or an economy artist's brush spreads to PVA.  PVA bonds by a chemical reactions growing long chains that intertwine and grow into the irregularities on the wood surface.  This why having too smooth a surface is unwise.  The closer the two wood surfaces, the less of a zone of just plastic tendrils intertwining with each other there is.
Completely reacted PVA is flexible rather than rigid, so too thick a joint may have slight movement?
Metal to metal, I can see being able to squeeze out most all of a glue.  Maybe  with a 400 grit or 600 grit or finer finish, too much PVA could be forced out.
 
I favor hitch chocks for planking, but that involves follow up trunneling with bamboo to fill the holes, or nipping off the brass pins, if you favor that look.

Looking at Kevin's picture:  I have always had a mistrust of being able to get the holes to exactly match up with the dowels.  I just thought of a way to do it.  Use a third piece of wood.  One that is as wide as the channel is thick.  Make it thick enough that a drill bit has to go in perpendicular. Site the dowel locations as holes in it.  Use it as the gauge to drill the holes in the hull and in the channel..  I beg forgiveness of this is standard practice already.  I just solves a long standing  how-to-do-it for me. 

On wood to wood, I use a complete just wet covering of PVA of both surfaces, no puddles.  I think it is unlikely that wood would stand up to a clamping pressure that would starve the joint with out damaging the wood itself.  A small version of a sponge stick or an economy artist's brush spreads to PVA.  PVA bonds by a chemical reactions growing long chains that intertwine and grow into the irregularities on the wood surface.  This why having too smooth a surface is unwise.  The closer the two wood surfaces, the less of a zone of just plastic tendrils intertwining with each other there is.
Completely reacted PVA is flexible rather than rigid, so too thick a joint may have slight movement?
Metal to metal, I can see being able to squeeze out most all of a glue.  Maybe  with a 400 grit or 600 grit or finer finish, too much PVA could be forced out.
 
I favor hitch chocks for planking, but that involves follow up trunneling with bamboo to fill the holes, or nipping off the brass pins, if you favor that look.

Both of these are magnificent.  They are also fiercely difficult.  I have been thinking that Ambitieux is a bit sparse on decoration detail, but a closer look shows that the stern and head are both well detailed.  Saint-Philippe is the more complicated of the two,  The frames and stations are canted forward a little over 1 degree.  None of the usual baseline, keel, waterlines,etc. are any help in matching the stations from the profile to the frame outlines (to locate the position of the decks and wales and ports).  It dawned on me that the L.Fon and L.In1 will locate a station profile to its frame outline. 
 
There is another factor that is unique to S.Philippe.  The stations  are not spaced all the same or a derivative of a common factor.  For every other ship that I have investigated, the stations involve some interval of a common frame sided dimension.  Usually, it is the same R&S, with the number of that factor being 4 or 3 or 2 0f them per station interval.  The same thickness of framing stock is used for the whole hull.  The intervals for S.Philippe are in 4 different groupings.  They are 12x12.75", 48x15.4", 24x14.9", 43x 13.9" (Imperial inches).  It requires four separate thickness of framing stock and constant attention and awareness. No system or rhythm is possible.  It is a mine field and bayonet as you go.  The tabled mortise joint within a bend is eccentric, but that is not something that I would replicate and is easily ingnored.
 
If these 17th century liners are a bit new to you, a close look at Fracois 1683 may be worthwhile.  It has all of the style of the two big ships, but is a lot less imposing.  In lofting the plans, I realized that this ship is even smaller than it appears to be, given that it is a two decker.  The two big ones are going to be a LONG journey.

Roger B Taney
Revenue Cutter
Launched 12/26/1833
Isaac Webb design
 
LBP 74.5"
Beam  20" 8.5"
Depth  7.5'
 
Howard I Chapelle drafted a hull plan and it is available from The Smithsonian
They also have  spar plan for the near contemporary  Revenue cutter Jefferson and one for the Revenue cutter Washington.
Since Jefferson may have been a sister, this plan may be close enough.
 
Chapelle provided the following data on his plan of the Taney
 

 
Help for the details may be available in one or all of the following books:
 
LEVER,L DARCY                                                    
EDWARD W SWEETMAN CO                         
NEW YORK                 
1963
MASTING - RIGGING        

ART OF RIGGING, THE  1848                                        
BIDDLECOMB,G                                                     
EDWARD A SWEETMAN                            
NEW YORK                 
1969
MASTING AND RIGGING      

KEDGE ANCHOR, THE  1876                                          
BRADY,WILLIAM N                                                  
MACDONALD AND JANE'S                         
LONDON                   
1974
MASTING AND RIGGING      
 
SEAMANSHIP 1862                                                  
NARES,GEORGE S                                                   
GRESHAM BOOKS                                
SURRY                    
1979
SEAMANSHIP                           
19TH MASTING RIGGING SAIL                                                                                                                                                              
Rigging Period Ship Models
Petersson, Lannarth
Seaforth
2011
 
I have not looked at the books to see which are really helpful for a small vessel like this.
 

In my imagination
Speed and cargo capacity would be the primary objectives.
Guns are heavy, expensive, and are in the way until needed. They are a negative price point.  I see no percentage in shooting it out with the RN or revenue service.
Who would they need the guns for and what would be the minimum needed to discourage that opponent.
Once these questions are answered, then the equipment should match.
  

Both of these are magnificent.  They are also fiercely difficult.  I have been thinking that Ambitieux is a bit sparse on decoration detail, but a closer look shows that the stern and head are both well detailed.  Saint-Philippe is the more complicated of the two,  The frames and stations are canted forward a little over 1 degree.  None of the usual baseline, keel, waterlines,etc. are any help in matching the stations from the profile to the frame outlines (to locate the position of the decks and wales and ports).  It dawned on me that the L.Fon and L.In1 will locate a station profile to its frame outline. 
 
There is another factor that is unique to S.Philippe.  The stations  are not spaced all the same or a derivative of a common factor.  For every other ship that I have investigated, the stations involve some interval of a common frame sided dimension.  Usually, it is the same R&S, with the number of that factor being 4 or 3 or 2 0f them per station interval.  The same thickness of framing stock is used for the whole hull.  The intervals for S.Philippe are in 4 different groupings.  They are 12x12.75", 48x15.4", 24x14.9", 43x 13.9" (Imperial inches).  It requires four separate thickness of framing stock and constant attention and awareness. No system or rhythm is possible.  It is a mine field and bayonet as you go.  The tabled mortise joint within a bend is eccentric, but that is not something that I would replicate and is easily ingnored.
 
If these 17th century liners are a bit new to you, a close look at Fracois 1683 may be worthwhile.  It has all of the style of the two big ships, but is a lot less imposing.  In lofting the plans, I realized that this ship is even smaller than it appears to be, given that it is a two decker.  The two big ones are going to be a LONG journey.

Both of these are magnificent.  They are also fiercely difficult.  I have been thinking that Ambitieux is a bit sparse on decoration detail, but a closer look shows that the stern and head are both well detailed.  Saint-Philippe is the more complicated of the two,  The frames and stations are canted forward a little over 1 degree.  None of the usual baseline, keel, waterlines,etc. are any help in matching the stations from the profile to the frame outlines (to locate the position of the decks and wales and ports).  It dawned on me that the L.Fon and L.In1 will locate a station profile to its frame outline. 
 
There is another factor that is unique to S.Philippe.  The stations  are not spaced all the same or a derivative of a common factor.  For every other ship that I have investigated, the stations involve some interval of a common frame sided dimension.  Usually, it is the same R&S, with the number of that factor being 4 or 3 or 2 0f them per station interval.  The same thickness of framing stock is used for the whole hull.  The intervals for S.Philippe are in 4 different groupings.  They are 12x12.75", 48x15.4", 24x14.9", 43x 13.9" (Imperial inches).  It requires four separate thickness of framing stock and constant attention and awareness. No system or rhythm is possible.  It is a mine field and bayonet as you go.  The tabled mortise joint within a bend is eccentric, but that is not something that I would replicate and is easily ingnored.
 
If these 17th century liners are a bit new to you, a close look at Fracois 1683 may be worthwhile.  It has all of the style of the two big ships, but is a lot less imposing.  In lofting the plans, I realized that this ship is even smaller than it appears to be, given that it is a two decker.  The two big ones are going to be a LONG journey.

Dollburger,
 
First, I expect that you have read the post: For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale  in New Member Introductions.  A brig is definitely more approachable than the frigates or liners that are the usual advertising lures. But, HMS Beagle is still a complicated subject.  1:60 allows for a lot of detail.  The book by Marguardt supplies a lot of detail.  The OcCre kit as presented involves a lot of errors and poor practices that only experience and immersion in arcane details illuminates.  Your first couple of models are likely to include things that will make you cringe when you look back with some experience under your belt. 
Do you want HMS Beagle to be something that you will feel that way about?  If good enough is OK with you, then plunge ahead.  If HMS Beagle is important enough that you want it to shine, then perhaps you should start with something smaller and less sexy.  Among the companies that cater to the needs of a beginner,   Model Shipways is unlikely to lead you astray in their advice on the first two kits to cut your teeth on.
 

Dollburger,
 
First, I expect that you have read the post: For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale  in New Member Introductions.  A brig is definitely more approachable than the frigates or liners that are the usual advertising lures. But, HMS Beagle is still a complicated subject.  1:60 allows for a lot of detail.  The book by Marguardt supplies a lot of detail.  The OcCre kit as presented involves a lot of errors and poor practices that only experience and immersion in arcane details illuminates.  Your first couple of models are likely to include things that will make you cringe when you look back with some experience under your belt. 
Do you want HMS Beagle to be something that you will feel that way about?  If good enough is OK with you, then plunge ahead.  If HMS Beagle is important enough that you want it to shine, then perhaps you should start with something smaller and less sexy.  Among the companies that cater to the needs of a beginner,   Model Shipways is unlikely to lead you astray in their advice on the first two kits to cut your teeth on.
 

In this case, I believe the term is short hand slang rather than a reference to a specific product.
Lacquer itself is very thick and is intended to leave a significant layer with every coat.  I am hard pressed to imagine any use for Lacquer on a ship model.  I use it for the thickness feature as a coating on my frame patterns in an attempt to give them a Mylar like nature.  I like the additional stiffness and humidity protection, but it still does not make the patterns brittle enough not to fuzz when sanding and obscuring the line.
 
One of the species that is in the kit is probably something that OcCre is calling Walnut, actually a type of brown Mahogany grown in Africa.  It is an open pore species.  If you intend to paint it, a Sand and Sealer is a product developed to do this.  If you intend to leave it natural, Tung oil is an excellent clear finish.  There are gotcha involved.  The Tung oil polymerizes on exposure to air after application (or in the bottle if air is not kept out).  It wants a thin layer.  Too thick or past its use-by date and it may not polymerize completely.  The first coat should be a 50% dilution.  Tung oil may not fill the pores completely when used as a primer.  The pore filling product does it with a solid mineral ingredient that may not look all that good under a clear coat.  For a clear finish, consider ignoring the pore filling part of preparation.  If the pores will bother you, cut to the chase and substitute the Walnut with a species with scale friendly grain characteristics.  
 
 

17th century? ears perk up:
 
Deane's Doctrine of Naval Architecture 1670  Conway  1981
Seventeenth Century Rigging  by R.C.Anderson  MAP 1955
The Seaman's Speculum or Compleat Schoolmaster  1711 by John Davis  NRG 1985
The Ship-Builders Assistant 1711  by William Sutherland  ANCRE 1989
The Boatswain's Art or Complete Boatswain  1670  by Henry Bond  The Shellback's Library(?)
 much after:
The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor  1819  Darcy Lever  Sweetman n.d.
Elements of Mastmaking, Sailmaking and Rigging 1794  by David Steel  Sweetman
 
 
 

17th century? ears perk up:
 
Deane's Doctrine of Naval Architecture 1670  Conway  1981
Seventeenth Century Rigging  by R.C.Anderson  MAP 1955
The Seaman's Speculum or Compleat Schoolmaster  1711 by John Davis  NRG 1985
The Ship-Builders Assistant 1711  by William Sutherland  ANCRE 1989
The Boatswain's Art or Complete Boatswain  1670  by Henry Bond  The Shellback's Library(?)
 much after:
The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor  1819  Darcy Lever  Sweetman n.d.
Elements of Mastmaking, Sailmaking and Rigging 1794  by David Steel  Sweetman