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.

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
 
 
 

There are two reasons why the 17th Century is the most challenging period to model: 1) The large amount of "gingerbread" carved decoration on the vessels requiring a high level of miniature carving or sculptural skill and 2) the dearth of accurate contemporary historical data. Even where 17th Century contemporary written works are at all extant, they are written in archaic language and difficult to decipher. Good luck with your interest in the 17th Century period, but it's the steepest learning curve of all.
 
For someone starting out, I'd suggest the Dover quality paperback reprint of Anderson's 1927 volume The Rigging of Ships in the Days of he Spritsail Topmast - 1600-1720. It's cheap and comprehensive.  https://store.doverpublications.com/0486710653.html?gclid=CjwKCAiAg8OBBhA8EiwAlKw3kuLl6XqmoMX0RQa5JTiUTaJyXTUssJLT33eRP0YGPNx8yynW1eCU6xoCEsoQAvD_BwE
 
For general history and background, though not perhaps ship modeling "how to do it" details, one interested in the 17th Century period should also consider any or all of Richard Endsor's works, all of which are currently available:
 
 The Restoration Warship: The Design, Construction and Career of a Third Rate of Charles II's Navy. (2009)
https://www.amazon.com/Richard-Endsor/e/B0030INS44%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
 
The Master Shipwright's Secrets: How Charles II Built the Restoration Navy (2020)
https://www.amazon.com/Richard-Endsor/e/B0030INS44%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
 
Warships for the King: Ann Wyatt (1658-1757) Her Life and Her Ships (2012) (Contains 1:96 modeling plans set for Cumberland in pocket)
https://www.seawatchbooks.com/ItemDisplay.php?sku=112001
 
The Great Ordnance Survey of 1698, a fasimile (2013)
 https://www.seawatchbooks.com/ItemDisplay.php?sku=113003
 
and
 
The Warship Anne: An Illustrated History (2017)
https://www.amazon.com/Warship-Anne-illustrated-history/dp/1844864391
 
Not being a modeler of 17th Century vessels, I haven't laid my hands on any of Endsor's books, but they are very highly regarded by 17th Century period modelers and I plan to pick them up for my general research library. They seem to represent the current state of the art in terms of historical research and likely include all the information one would have to otherwise laboriously mine from the reprints of contemporary works. Perhaps somebody who has any of them can provide an eyewitness review of them.
 
(Library-building tip: google around and look for used or "remaindered" (publisher's close-outs) copies. These high quality specialty modeling volumes are often very expensive when first released to the relatively small modeler's market and, a year or three later, are "remaindered" for a fraction of their publication price. Used copies pop up at reasonable prices, as well, often when a deceased modeler's research library is sent off to the used book dealers. Prices for "classic" works remain high until reprints are available. Out-of-print and in demand volumes may require taking out a second mortgage, though.)
 
 

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
 
 
 

Well, a stain is actually a semi transparent paint. 
A USN corvette from a little later was described as having a "pearl" for bulwarks and deck structures.  In my limited perception of color pallet: off white.
Mineral pigments are possibilities.  ochres, sienna, umber. for interior colors.
Read up on scale effect as far as how pure and intense the pigment should be.
Having brass and the species of wood that is supplied with mass market kits as a base, your degrees of freedom are a bit limited. Mostly paint is your choice.  As far as a stain, something intended to make lousy looking wood (in it natural state) look more attractive and appear to be of better quality than it really is, I would be worried that its binder is developed for wood alone.  It may not adhere to brass for long.  The brass would need to be oil free (really clean) in any case and probably needs significant "tooth".   Doing that sort of manipulation to what is essentially foil will require care.
 
If you have an ambition to paint with wood, and  desire quality, the choices are scratch or the products of the small boutique kit companies featured here.
 

A big gold star for using a realistic butt pattern.
Another gold star for not doing trunnel simulations - especially not waaaay over size trunnels that visually poke you in the eye.
 
Doing some extrapolation from sparse facts:
The wood surfaces exposed to the elements were probably painted, so the species that made up the door would not matter.
I think that the captain was afforded a budget.  It covered incidentals like paint.  He got to take home what was left over.  I suspect this is what was meant by a captain having to pay for the paint.  The exterior color would probably include: what was popular or the current fad, what cost the least but had a reasonable time between needing a new coat, what the captain preferred, what the captain's boss preferred if he was a ...jerk or AH, what would last in reserve in the hold for several years.
Interior:  no LED lighting.  too many burning oil lamps in space that is moving constantly in 3 dimensions and is easy to ignite is not a good idea, so a color that sucks up light would be a bad choice.  I think that white wash would fill the bill of being low cost, easy to apply and help make it brighter.  In scale it would be a tad translucent.

I understand,  but for a couple of pieces of Aluminum angle - ~ 1/4" x 1/4"  all that is needed is a hacksaw to size it and a 3/8" or 1/2" power drill  and a bit that fits the size bolts that seem right.
If you explore the tool section of this site and stumble across the threads discussing the merits and usefulness of a lathe for the wood part of model ship building,  I am pretty sure that a 1/2" power drill securely mounted in a frame that holds it horizontal will work well enough to shape any spars.  So keep that to mind - read the site postings - if you have to decide on a power drill purchase.  As far as a lathe, unless you know from experience that you really need one, then it is very likely that it you do not need it.  It will be a very expensive door stop.

The battens could be made of angle Al.  That would not bend.  It would need holes.  Being metal, it would require using epoxy to bond it to the spine.
 
If you fancy doing an experiment in public, I can write you a way to build the hull in way that will remove the need for the first layer of planking. If you do a bit of fudging, and you intend to copper the bottom, no planking will be necessary at all.  It is a different way of filling between the moulds.  It will require additional wood, a proper drawing program and power tools.

This is why I offered the battens as a solution.  A stout stick -that is straight - on either side of the central spine - glued to it - ( and I would use bamboo skewers as thru dowels for mechanical hold) -should pull/push the plywood back to flat.  Maybe two rows of them.  
Now, if this is done before the moulds are fixed into place, they block the moulds from sliding down their slots in the spine.  This means that the moulds are first to fix in place. 
Now the moulds block the battens.  Holes are needed in each mould exactly where the battens go, so that they can be slud ( Dizzy Dean ) in place.  All this will be hidden.  The holes in the moulds can be larger than necessary. 
The spine needs to already be straight before the moulds are fixed.  The baseboard is meant to do this.  Once the spine is placed in the slot in the center of the baseboard, it should not be removed until the moulds are placed, the battens are placed and the first layer of planking is completed.
In my mind, I see the following:
Planning is necessary in where the battens are placed.  later trouble with where masts go or any later parts should be taken into count.
There is a reduction mating surface for the moulds at the spine - what with the holes for the battens, so corner blocks to reinforce the join with the spine are more important. 
The battens mean that those blocks are two or three pieces instead of one.  
With wood, an end grain bond is many times weaker then a side grain to side grain bond.  Plywood end grain is flat out awful when compared solid wood.  Even without the disruption produced by adding battens, the bond of a mould with the spine is not a strong bond.  I see the corner blocks as being prudent.

We crossed paths in the dark there.
The sequence in your picture ...   too busy
And, I had not seen a 5 strake repeating sequence before that post.  A 4  strake is enough.   And at least 2 beams  for adjacent strakes.  My shipyard would have a better planking timber supplier with longer planking  and I would have 3 beams  between adjacent butts 
If you are going to color the caulking seams,  give serious thought to walnut instead of black.  And I think it was Bob Cleek who wrote that there is no caulking between butts.  The length does not change - not matter the conditions,  just the thickness, which does no matter, and the width which does.

No, there is no link attached to that comment.  I was being lazy about that.
I did a quick forum search using: deck butt shift   and among the many results is    ... lets see if this works ....
 
Looking for the Correct Sequence and Terminology forDeck PlankButt Shift
 
OK, I am not sure if this will work as a link, but if it does not, do a search for this title in the Building, framing, Planking ... forum     good luck, it gets kind of twisty.

POB is not my thing, but I offer the following:
The curved spine is seeking its equilibrium shape.  A quick fix reshaping is essentially pointless.  After whatever reshaping you do, it will try to go back the where it is now.
The trick is to make that impossible, by using a mechanical repair.  That is add wood to the spine that will not let it bend.
 
A 1/2" or better 3/4" plywood (AA hardwood Birch) base board is a good start.  Make a centerline that is straight.  Place blocks on either side of the line that are a tight fit for the spine and will hold it straight.
As long as the spine is in the slot, it will be straight.
When the moulds (bulkheads) are fitted,  four square sticks - one at each corner where the mould and spine meet, will hold each square and 90 degrees. 
I would cut out a hole in each side of each mould to allow a strong stick (batten)  to run the length of the spine on either side of it - to keep it from bending.  But this does not seem to meet with much favor and if done well, the first layer of planking will probably supply all of the necessary resistance  to the spine regaining its curve anyway.   I am belt and suspenders and tend to over engineer.
 
Now, about this kit - there is one thing that is really awful:  the supplied deck.  I do not know where they got the unrealistic deck butt pattern, the way too dark seams and chalking, and silly choice of which trunnels to show and which to leave off.  You should consider either laying a new deck using individual planks - Maple is good - or using the supplied plywood piece and adding an individual planking of very thin veneer - again Maple is cost effective.   Read here about butt shift rules and if you wish to show deck trunnels ( I like them, but know that it is a modeler's conceit - and not realistic). Be a lot more understated in the color contrast.
 
This kit really is based on a Cherokee class 10 gun brig.  It is close to the Marquardt book.  It is a good choice. 

I possible but time consuming answer:
Most any size brass or copper wire and a draw plate.
If you can get it to work, any diameter is obtainable.
A punch type devise can shape the nail heads.
I am imagining that copper might make for interesting hull planking trunnels.
 
Once, I was able to take a piece of thicker copper wire and draw it into a long piece of thin.  It did not take a lot of force.
Recently, I tried it and the wire fought back.
I think copper/brass react in a strange way. 
Heating it makes it softer?
Working it makes it stiffer?
Once a wire is drawn to the gauge that is desired, is there a way to make it hard enough to drive?
How did they make the now apparently extinct "brass lills" that MS sold in the '70's rigid enough to drive?
 
Amazon sells copper and brass beadsmith head pins 21 and 24 gauge. 
I measure the 24 gauge as needing a #76 wire gauge bit.
I have #12 brass sequin pins 0.75"  that gauge for a #73 wire bit.  The head is flat.  (Darice Craft Designer - www.darice.com - China - seems to be out of stock at present on a quick look.)