Jaager

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.)

The only way I can see that there can be 5 numbers in a four butt shift is if the four refers to the number of planks between two planks having their butt on the same beam.  The repeating sequence actually involves five planks.
The first picture above,  numbering from the top down =  Beam 1 - beam 3 -  beam 5 - beam 2 - beam 4
 
The second, top down =  beam 1 - beam 4 - beam 2 - beam 3
 
 The American "Lloyds"  ASA 1870   " No butts of adjoining plank should be nearer each other than the space of two beams ( when a stake intervenes the distance of one beam will be allowed).  No butts should meet on the same beam unless there be three stakes between them."
The second picture fails that rule.

I have been thinking that the 230V was intended for countries where 230V was standard house current.  If you are US based, 120V is sufficient.  It is a 3/4 HP motor.    The 18" table is more than I would need for any billet that I would use it to cut.  The main advantage if you are not cutting wide boards would be that the sliding table can be used without having to remove the fence. 
 
It looks like the 6" Luthier drum has a smaller diameter. The standard is much more suited to my needs.  $8 for a 6" wedge covers any need for getting it to mount 6" wide sanding material.
 
As for $100 - that is only about one and a piece of a board  8x4 by 8" by 8 feet of Hard Maple.  10-12 bf.   

A 12" digital caliper is a friend here.  They show  mm -  inch as fractions - inch as decimals
An electronic calculator and inch as decimals -   never have to deal with how many x/32" or x/64" anything is.
The Byrnes saw has a mechanical caliper with x/1000 based increments.  Now if only there was a digital version for old eyes.....
Use sticks of known thickness as a gauge to set a fence on a saw with a ruler gauge on the slider.  Use the digital calipers to measure the thickness of the product.  What that ruler says is fine for full size furniture, but is totally inadequate for our needs.  Also, precision is more important than accuracy.  Whatever thickness comes off a table saw ( for framing stock, this is a wasteful tool. ) a bandsaw ( less loss to kerf, much thicker stock can be cut in one pass ) or a  thickness sander  - it must all be identical or you will go crazy.  Reproducible results are vital.  On a bandsaw, even if it is a Wood Slicer blade, the surface will need refining to 120 or 220 grit smoothness.  A table saw with a hollow ground planer blade will also need refining.  In most any situation, a final planing function is necessary. 
An on going task for me is to find the necessary thickness from the bandsaw.  How many 1/1000 ths  of an inch will have to be planed on both plank surfaces to remove the blade scares and yield a smooth surface?  The ideal is to set the fence just that much thicker.  A little buffer is probably wise, too much buffer and it is several more passes thru a sander.  Not enough buffer, and you have stock for the frames  of a smaller vessel future project.
 
Oh yes, it will make a BIG difference.  For Navy Board framing - where all the frames are bonded in sequence, even the thickness of the glue layer is a factor.   The general range for the number of frames is between 60 and 120.  Any error is additive.
0.04 x 60 = 2.4"   2.4 x 48 = 115 inches - almost 10 feet.  on a liner that would be 20 feet.

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.  
 
 

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.  
 
 

A 12" digital caliper is a friend here.  They show  mm -  inch as fractions - inch as decimals
An electronic calculator and inch as decimals -   never have to deal with how many x/32" or x/64" anything is.
The Byrnes saw has a mechanical caliper with x/1000 based increments.  Now if only there was a digital version for old eyes.....
Use sticks of known thickness as a gauge to set a fence on a saw with a ruler gauge on the slider.  Use the digital calipers to measure the thickness of the product.  What that ruler says is fine for full size furniture, but is totally inadequate for our needs.  Also, precision is more important than accuracy.  Whatever thickness comes off a table saw ( for framing stock, this is a wasteful tool. ) a bandsaw ( less loss to kerf, much thicker stock can be cut in one pass ) or a  thickness sander  - it must all be identical or you will go crazy.  Reproducible results are vital.  On a bandsaw, even if it is a Wood Slicer blade, the surface will need refining to 120 or 220 grit smoothness.  A table saw with a hollow ground planer blade will also need refining.  In most any situation, a final planing function is necessary. 
An on going task for me is to find the necessary thickness from the bandsaw.  How many 1/1000 ths  of an inch will have to be planed on both plank surfaces to remove the blade scares and yield a smooth surface?  The ideal is to set the fence just that much thicker.  A little buffer is probably wise, too much buffer and it is several more passes thru a sander.  Not enough buffer, and you have stock for the frames  of a smaller vessel future project.
 
Oh yes, it will make a BIG difference.  For Navy Board framing - where all the frames are bonded in sequence, even the thickness of the glue layer is a factor.   The general range for the number of frames is between 60 and 120.  Any error is additive.
0.04 x 60 = 2.4"   2.4 x 48 = 115 inches - almost 10 feet.  on a liner that would be 20 feet.

This is where the Byrnes saw and thickness sander start to look a lot like scratch-building essentials. 

A 12" digital caliper is a friend here.  They show  mm -  inch as fractions - inch as decimals
An electronic calculator and inch as decimals -   never have to deal with how many x/32" or x/64" anything is.
The Byrnes saw has a mechanical caliper with x/1000 based increments.  Now if only there was a digital version for old eyes.....
Use sticks of known thickness as a gauge to set a fence on a saw with a ruler gauge on the slider.  Use the digital calipers to measure the thickness of the product.  What that ruler says is fine for full size furniture, but is totally inadequate for our needs.  Also, precision is more important than accuracy.  Whatever thickness comes off a table saw ( for framing stock, this is a wasteful tool. ) a bandsaw ( less loss to kerf, much thicker stock can be cut in one pass ) or a  thickness sander  - it must all be identical or you will go crazy.  Reproducible results are vital.  On a bandsaw, even if it is a Wood Slicer blade, the surface will need refining to 120 or 220 grit smoothness.  A table saw with a hollow ground planer blade will also need refining.  In most any situation, a final planing function is necessary. 
An on going task for me is to find the necessary thickness from the bandsaw.  How many 1/1000 ths  of an inch will have to be planed on both plank surfaces to remove the blade scares and yield a smooth surface?  The ideal is to set the fence just that much thicker.  A little buffer is probably wise, too much buffer and it is several more passes thru a sander.  Not enough buffer, and you have stock for the frames  of a smaller vessel future project.
 
Oh yes, it will make a BIG difference.  For Navy Board framing - where all the frames are bonded in sequence, even the thickness of the glue layer is a factor.   The general range for the number of frames is between 60 and 120.  Any error is additive.
0.04 x 60 = 2.4"   2.4 x 48 = 115 inches - almost 10 feet.  on a liner that would be 20 feet.

I wonder what the effect would be if a scale 2D image of the interior of Sr. officers quarters was used instead of black?

I wonder if there is much difference between Stockholm tar and Pine tar from Carolina or Georgia?
There may have been localities with petroleum seeps that used it, but up until Drake's well in 1859 the sap from conifers would have been the waterproofing material?  It is not 000 000 000 black.
 
On sail reinforcement ropes?  It would have them last longer, but canvas is much thinner and would deteriorate first, so what would be the advantage?  It would likely bleed from the rope onto the canvas it was fixed to.  That would not have pleased the captain or the boatswain.
 

I wonder what the effect would be if a scale 2D image of the interior of Sr. officers quarters was used instead of black?

I wonder if there is much difference between Stockholm tar and Pine tar from Carolina or Georgia?
There may have been localities with petroleum seeps that used it, but up until Drake's well in 1859 the sap from conifers would have been the waterproofing material?  It is not 000 000 000 black.
 
On sail reinforcement ropes?  It would have them last longer, but canvas is much thinner and would deteriorate first, so what would be the advantage?  It would likely bleed from the rope onto the canvas it was fixed to.  That would not have pleased the captain or the boatswain.
 

Offset a piece of black craft paper inside the windows.