Jaager

Your choices will depend on your goals and focus. 
From an academic and historical focus and in the realm of wooden sail ,  weathering and "pop" are factors to be avoided.
Glue a series of three or more short strakes of your planking material to a flat piece of scrap as test subjects.
After giving the deck a light scrapping using something like a sharp high quality single edge razor blade and a light 91% alcohol swab,
a coat of 1/2 strength clear shellac (or if you "really" want it darker- garnet shellac).  When dry, a Scotch Brite rub down and a tack rag. 
0000 steel wool works the surface as desired, but the steel fibers that are shed are prone to oxidation and staining the wood and they very difficult to completely remove to avoid this..
Stop here or follow with a rub on coat of full strength.
Make that all of the glue on parts ( hatch comings, bitts, deck houses, etc. are either in place, or their bonding surfaces are masked after scrapping and before the shellac.
 
If you intend to continue with a follow on ship model,  you might read this post Looking for the Correct Sequence and Terminology for Deck Plank Butt Shift
It is a discussion and not a definitive "answer to it" but it servers as a gateway to the deeper aspects hovering over all this.

Black Cherry  is the common name for Prunus serotina.  I see that you are west coast US.  The growing range for the tree is, I think eastern US.  It grows tall, straight and can have a fairly thick trunk.
 It is sort of pinkish when cut - or darker.  Components (I think poly phenols) oxidize over time to a dark red.  It is prized as a furniture wood.  The fruit is not eaten often -small and mostly seed.  The bark was/is used to make wild cherry syrup - an old time vehicle for liquid medicines compounded in local pharmacies.  Birds do eat the fruit and spread the seeds.  It often grows as a volunteer in fence rows.  
The tree that grows commercial cherries is usually too small to make it worth harvest as timber.  I tree that I harvested - way back when, was similar to Black Cherry in texture and hardness, but it was yellow green and did not darken.  It would serve our uses as far as its physical properties, but not yield the distinctive color of Black Cherry.
 
So, to answer your question,  it is likely that any hardwood lumber listed as Cherry is indeed Black Cherry.  The seller that lists it as simply "Cherry" is missing a free selling point by omitting the "Black".  
 
As much as I like Black Cherry, to be fair,  Pear (Pyrus  communis) is a step above for our uses. The color is similar but I think less intense.  The grain is less obvious.  It does not have the very dark inclusions that are common in Black Cherry.  It is my impression that this Pear has fruit that is only of interest to wild critters.  It is primarily a European citizen that it is often a weed.  And here in the US it is used as root stock for commercial Pear varieties.  This keeps it short and likely smallish in diameter.

Interesting discussion! The term "kit bashing" seems to have evolved over time to convey the meanings others have noted. I'm not sure when it first came into common usage, but the first time I heard it used was in the second half of the seventies. I was living in Marin County at the time and had for many years. We had something of an "influx" of folks moving into my neighborhood who had been recruited by George Lucas, who was setting up his operations there, primarily, at first, Industrial Light and Magic ("ILM") and later Lucasfilm. I remember meeting one guy who moved in a couple of houses down from us telling me when I asked what he did for a living, "I'm a model maker." Of course, my immediate response was, "You mean people can make a living at it?"   After that, we were "off to the races." He was the first guy who told me about what they called "kit bashing." My understanding was that the term was commonly used by movie industry model makers to mean using off-the-shelf plastic model kit parts to build entirely different models from what the kits' original subjects represented. The technique was originated by model makers working on the movie 2001 - A Space Odyssey. They built a lot of models from scratch, but when they needed bits and pieces, they'd take them from plastic kits which had nothing to do with the model they were making. They'd often buy large numbers of the same kit just to obtain a sufficient number of a particular part they wanted that was in each kit. These kit parts which the modelers used frequently and in large numbers they called "greeblies," which I think was just a made-up word. It was all quite fascinating and at the time something of a "trade secret." (Lucas even kept the name and address of ILM secret for a long time. It was just a nondescript warehouse in an industrial district on Kerner Street in San Rafael, CA with a sign on the front that simply said "The Kerner Company.")
 
I found this photo online showing ILM's "kit bashing" shop in action building the original Millenium Falcon, Han Solo's space ship in the Star Wars movies.  Note the boxes of kits on the shelves in the background. Note the three rectangular parts with the black holes in their centers in the foreground laying on top of the front of the model. These appear to be tank body decks, the holes being where the turrets would be placed on the tank model. The second picture shows them in the finished model where they became exhaust ports or something like that.
 

 
 

 
Below is a yet-to-be weathered section of an ILM spaceship. Some may be able to recognize parts from specific model kits. I'm guessing there are some aircraft carrier parts in there somewhere!
 

 
 
Below is the original "droid strip," the top of the "X-wing fighter" right behind the pilot's seat, flown by Luke Skywalker in the first Star Wars movie with the original model kits from which the parts identified were sourced:
 

 
Close inspection of later Star Wars kits marketed to the public show some differences in the details. I wonder if some details weren't changed in the later model kits to avoid violating the original kit manufacturer's copyrights. I'd certainly hate to think Lucasfilm was authorizing the production of "pirated" kits!   Just kidding. I knew the lady who worked for Lucas writing "cease and desist" letters to anybody who so much as thought of violating a Lucasfilm copyright. They were very scrupulous about that.
 
So, I'd say that to be really accurate in the use of the term "kit bashing," it should only apply to building something entirely different from what the kit the parts came from was. Using tank kit parts to depict something different from what they were on the tank kit to portray a part on a ship model is "kit bashing." Using an anchor winch casting from one ship model kit to portray an anchor winch on another ship model isn't "kit bashing." That's just "parts swapping." But, it's really not all that important in the grand scheme of things, is it? 
 
 

I forgot to comment on this.  I disagree that bends - paired frames with timbers overlapping the butt joins of the partner - were not "real practice".  It is a bit difficult to be sure how 1600- 1719 hulls were framed.  But after that ( up until ~1860 ),  I see bends as being the major framing structure.  In France and North America, almost all of the frames tended to be bends, at least as far as the plans that I have explored present..    The English used bends where the stations lines are sited.  The frustrating factor here with traditional model frame lofting is that the stations defined the shape of a bend at the midline. This makes it nit useful  to define  the shape of a glued up bend.  For English ships, in the middle of the hull, the stations tended to define every other, or every third, or every fourth bend _ depending on how lazy the draftsman was.  The English tended to use singleton free standing filling frames between bends.  I do not see this  use of filling frames as being done  much in North America or France.
 
For POF ship models, there are two commonly used touch stones - Davis and Hahn.  
 
Davis came from a background of wooden shipbuilding around 1900 era.  I think there was a break with the traditions from pre-1860 and more influence from iron and steel engineering at play, and they framed all bends , but room = space.  His books describe a method that is pretty much determined by his work experience.  He was not an academic. 
 
Hahn had as a focus the time period of the American Revolution.  There was a fad then of framing warship hulls with almost no space between bends or filling frames.  Hahn wished to display the frames, by leaving some or all of the planking off.  It would be pointless to display framing as a near solid wall of wood, so he omitted every other bend.  It is a modeler's convention, not a reflection of framing practice at the time.
 
From 1719 to the 1770's and after 1815 - if not earlier, the general practice looks to me as being ~ 2/3 wood and 1/3 space for everywhere but England. 
As an aside, I suspect that the effort expended on NMM plans showing the framing was because the framing was different from standard practice.
 
To add to the answer to the OP"s original question:   a serious factor to consider in your choice of framing wood is cost.  If  1:72 to 1:48 is your choice of scale,  there will be a lot of wood being used.  No matter which style of framing is used, because of the curving and the beveling,  there will be a lot of wood lost to waste.  The Hahn style of bonding wood slabs for the timbers and fixing the pattern to it to free the bend shape involves the most waste.  By dropping every other bend, it saves on a lot of wood so it becomes closer in loss to waste when compared to methods where the individual timbers are cut out and then bonded.   But never the less, there will be a lot of wood used. 
My theory:   A magnum opus of a large scale 17th century floating palace with museums' full of carvings and sculpture may rate a high cost exotic hardwood as the framing species,   The more utilitarian and prosaic vessels and the run up practice models would do as well using a species that is economical and not difficult to obtain.

There is one factor with a single planked hull - kit or scratch - the structure that supports the planking must be close enough together to support a smooth run of planking with a secure bond.
 
If a a double planked POB hull is supplied with the proper filling material between the moulds, a single layer of planking will do  -  if proper attention is shown to the scantlings.
If a builder is lofting a scratch POB hull [emoticon with a painful wince]  and if the complete lower hull is to be coppered  - with proper lofting and filling between the moulds - no planking is needed below the waterline.  The coppering can be laid directly on the support.  It just must take the planking thickness into account.  Many older plans for solid carved or laminated carved hull construction have this feature.

As Moltinmark says, it's not really defined other than by people deciding to use that term.  If I build a 'Cheerful' as designed by Chuck, but decide to use all his mini-kits, is it a kit build, or semi-scratch?  It depends on who you ask.  If you look in the build logs you'll find those builds in both the kit section and the scratch section.

My personal opinion is that using much beyond a false keel and bulkheads moves it out of scratch, but some people would argue that even using those pieces makes it a 'kit' or at the very least not scratch.
 
Of course in the end, it doesn't really matter unless you are entering it into a competition that has actual rules about that sort of thing.  If you think that doing 90% of the work from scratch is scratch, then it's a scratch build for you.

Hitting a really poor kit, with a hammer, into splinters to remove it from the world?😄

When I first read this term, it was in a magazine dedicated to modeling plastic kits.  The negative term bashing fit, because it involved the intermixing of two or more kits of wildly different subjects - aircraft mixed with autos and/or ships or military.
 
Using the verb to bash to describe what is augmentation, improvement, and is semi scratch  or the exploration of scratch hits me as being a bit hyperbolic and self indulgent.  There is no bash involved.  It is a natural progression of improving skills and a result of a deeper knowledge of this field.

Larry,
You might consider deleting your email address from open view and use a PM instead.  Web crawlers ... Nigerian princes ... phishing attacks ... bad actors

Hide glue is the longest proven glue based on models centuries old, but  PVA wood glue such as from Elmers or Titebond and others are more forgiving than CA or contact cement and have quite a few years of history. There are hundreds of advocates of all types of glue at MSW, but the majority have had success with PVA over the years based on posts you will find about questions on what glue to use that come up every month.    At the least try some test pieces of each that you are interested in using and find what you like best.   
Allan

When I first read this term, it was in a magazine dedicated to modeling plastic kits.  The negative term bashing fit, because it involved the intermixing of two or more kits of wildly different subjects - aircraft mixed with autos and/or ships or military.
 
Using the verb to bash to describe what is augmentation, improvement, and is semi scratch  or the exploration of scratch hits me as being a bit hyperbolic and self indulgent.  There is no bash involved.  It is a natural progression of improving skills and a result of a deeper knowledge of this field.

Black Cherry  is the common name for Prunus serotina.  I see that you are west coast US.  The growing range for the tree is, I think eastern US.  It grows tall, straight and can have a fairly thick trunk.
 It is sort of pinkish when cut - or darker.  Components (I think poly phenols) oxidize over time to a dark red.  It is prized as a furniture wood.  The fruit is not eaten often -small and mostly seed.  The bark was/is used to make wild cherry syrup - an old time vehicle for liquid medicines compounded in local pharmacies.  Birds do eat the fruit and spread the seeds.  It often grows as a volunteer in fence rows.  
The tree that grows commercial cherries is usually too small to make it worth harvest as timber.  I tree that I harvested - way back when, was similar to Black Cherry in texture and hardness, but it was yellow green and did not darken.  It would serve our uses as far as its physical properties, but not yield the distinctive color of Black Cherry.
 
So, to answer your question,  it is likely that any hardwood lumber listed as Cherry is indeed Black Cherry.  The seller that lists it as simply "Cherry" is missing a free selling point by omitting the "Black".  
 
As much as I like Black Cherry, to be fair,  Pear (Pyrus  communis) is a step above for our uses. The color is similar but I think less intense.  The grain is less obvious.  It does not have the very dark inclusions that are common in Black Cherry.  It is my impression that this Pear has fruit that is only of interest to wild critters.  It is primarily a European citizen that it is often a weed.  And here in the US it is used as root stock for commercial Pear varieties.  This keeps it short and likely smallish in diameter.

Black Cherry  is the common name for Prunus serotina.  I see that you are west coast US.  The growing range for the tree is, I think eastern US.  It grows tall, straight and can have a fairly thick trunk.
 It is sort of pinkish when cut - or darker.  Components (I think poly phenols) oxidize over time to a dark red.  It is prized as a furniture wood.  The fruit is not eaten often -small and mostly seed.  The bark was/is used to make wild cherry syrup - an old time vehicle for liquid medicines compounded in local pharmacies.  Birds do eat the fruit and spread the seeds.  It often grows as a volunteer in fence rows.  
The tree that grows commercial cherries is usually too small to make it worth harvest as timber.  I tree that I harvested - way back when, was similar to Black Cherry in texture and hardness, but it was yellow green and did not darken.  It would serve our uses as far as its physical properties, but not yield the distinctive color of Black Cherry.
 
So, to answer your question,  it is likely that any hardwood lumber listed as Cherry is indeed Black Cherry.  The seller that lists it as simply "Cherry" is missing a free selling point by omitting the "Black".  
 
As much as I like Black Cherry, to be fair,  Pear (Pyrus  communis) is a step above for our uses. The color is similar but I think less intense.  The grain is less obvious.  It does not have the very dark inclusions that are common in Black Cherry.  It is my impression that this Pear has fruit that is only of interest to wild critters.  It is primarily a European citizen that it is often a weed.  And here in the US it is used as root stock for commercial Pear varieties.  This keeps it short and likely smallish in diameter.

For kit builders, a scale preference is pretty much subsumed by the designer of the kit.  In that situation, a scale preference of a modeler would only serve to limit the choice of kits.
My prejudice tells me that a kit manufacturer starts with a small range of final model size and selects a scale that yields that finished size.  No historical based factor is involved.
(For one notorious kit, Mamoli's Beagle, I think they had the Bounty hull to hand and just changed the scale on the new plans such that it came out to be the length of Beagle.  The shape is not even close to a Cherokee class brig.)
 
When I began this, it was steel rulers and vernier calipers.  The kits and plans still reflect the past requirement to work  with 1/64" being about as close an increment as could be seen seen.
This is why 1:96,  1:76, 1:64.
The dominance of 1:48 is because the majority of available original plans are this scale.
This heritage and now museum scale (1:48) allows for a lot of detail.  A problem with it is that for rated ships, for frigates and larger, a model is an inconvenient size.
 
For me, metric or Imperial became irrelevant with a availability of digital calipers.  It can measure in decimals.  No more fractions, so Imperial is just as useful as metric.
 
I like the detail at 1:48, but not the size.  I use 1:48 as my baseline, though.  I figured that working in a scale that was 1/2 museum would still allow for detail but an easier to manage sized model.
This is 1:60.  The reduction in X, Y, Z  is 0.8.  The numbers are easy to keep track of.  I just divide the full size data component value by 60.  The volume of a model is 50% of a museum scale model.
The more common 1:64 is very close - X,Y,Z  0.75  and volume is 42% of museum.
Some other scales:
1:70 is 0.7 and 33%
1:72 is 0.67 and 30%
1:76 is 0.63 and 25%
1:80 is 0.6 and 22%
1:96 is 0.5 and 12.5%
1:120 is 0.4 and 6.4%
1:192 is 0.25 and 1.5%
 
 
 
 
 

Well, Hard Maple and Black Cherry are among the species that are right for scratch building wooden sailing ship models.  Maple can be a bit interesting in what figure is on display.  It is low contrast and is generally only obvious up close.  It can be controlled by paying attention to the orientation of the stock to the resaw blade.  I see it as adding character, so it does not bother me. 
But it not one of Bob's "three or four now-exotic (over-harvested) species".  It does not seem to rate as a species to be bragged about or score points in some informal contest here.  It does however preform quite well when used for most any component of a scratch built POF ship model.   By all means burn the Oak. Go ahead and burn any soft Maple species - even though the BTU of it is fairly low.  Please burn any Sycamore - even though it probably stinks.  Sassafras and soft Elm are not so good.   But consider storing under cover any Cherry and Maple that is clear enough to be useful.

The open pore species are not species that work at all well for the scales that we use.  That is Oak, Ash, Hickory, Walnut, Willow.
The species that are useful, Black Cherry, Hard Maple, Yellow Poplar are not difficult to obtain.
I am guessing that your source is a furniture or flooring operation and these are the defect sections.
Were you a fellow model ship builder, you would be golden for your own supply.
Now, if any of that is Apple and reasonable shipping is in play, we can talk.  I can handle your stock as is.
Even if you have the tools that Chuck describes and you were to open a Web business offering custom sized strip and sheet wood,  unless you offer the species with cachet. it would be a struggle.
Even if you could obtain true Boxwood, or its tropical substitute Castello, your net return would have be lucky to cover minimum wage, much less a reasonable compensation for skilled labor.
 
If you supply your geographical location, there may be a near by scratch builder willing to pick over your stock and pay - say ~$3 bdf - less the defects.
 

When I first read this term, it was in a magazine dedicated to modeling plastic kits.  The negative term bashing fit, because it involved the intermixing of two or more kits of wildly different subjects - aircraft mixed with autos and/or ships or military.
 
Using the verb to bash to describe what is augmentation, improvement, and is semi scratch  or the exploration of scratch hits me as being a bit hyperbolic and self indulgent.  There is no bash involved.  It is a natural progression of improving skills and a result of a deeper knowledge of this field.

For kit builders, a scale preference is pretty much subsumed by the designer of the kit.  In that situation, a scale preference of a modeler would only serve to limit the choice of kits.
My prejudice tells me that a kit manufacturer starts with a small range of final model size and selects a scale that yields that finished size.  No historical based factor is involved.
(For one notorious kit, Mamoli's Beagle, I think they had the Bounty hull to hand and just changed the scale on the new plans such that it came out to be the length of Beagle.  The shape is not even close to a Cherokee class brig.)
 
When I began this, it was steel rulers and vernier calipers.  The kits and plans still reflect the past requirement to work  with 1/64" being about as close an increment as could be seen seen.
This is why 1:96,  1:76, 1:64.
The dominance of 1:48 is because the majority of available original plans are this scale.
This heritage and now museum scale (1:48) allows for a lot of detail.  A problem with it is that for rated ships, for frigates and larger, a model is an inconvenient size.
 
For me, metric or Imperial became irrelevant with a availability of digital calipers.  It can measure in decimals.  No more fractions, so Imperial is just as useful as metric.
 
I like the detail at 1:48, but not the size.  I use 1:48 as my baseline, though.  I figured that working in a scale that was 1/2 museum would still allow for detail but an easier to manage sized model.
This is 1:60.  The reduction in X, Y, Z  is 0.8.  The numbers are easy to keep track of.  I just divide the full size data component value by 60.  The volume of a model is 50% of a museum scale model.
The more common 1:64 is very close - X,Y,Z  0.75  and volume is 42% of museum.
Some other scales:
1:70 is 0.7 and 33%
1:72 is 0.67 and 30%
1:76 is 0.63 and 25%
1:80 is 0.6 and 22%
1:96 is 0.5 and 12.5%
1:120 is 0.4 and 6.4%
1:192 is 0.25 and 1.5%
 
 
 
 
 

To make a living selling milled dimensioned modeling wood, yes, but that's only because the consumers are hung up on three or four now-exotic (over-harvested) species that were once plentiful and commonly used. To become a self-sufficient modeler, all you really need is a good (i.e. a Byrnes) micro-table saw and perhaps a (Byrnes) thickness sander. Heavier machinery which saves much labor in reducing larger stock to modeling-sized billets can usually be begged or borrowed when that task occasionally arises. There are many great species for modeling that routinely end up in the chipper because they don't exist in size or quantity sufficient to make milling it on a commercial scale worthwhile. That certainly doesn't mean that commonly available woods like apple, persimmon, satin walnut, chestnut, holly and such aren't probably readily available for the scrounging at the municipal brush dump or by plying a friendly arborist with a bottle of Jack so he'll save you some of the good stuff when he comes across it. 

For kit builders, a scale preference is pretty much subsumed by the designer of the kit.  In that situation, a scale preference of a modeler would only serve to limit the choice of kits.
My prejudice tells me that a kit manufacturer starts with a small range of final model size and selects a scale that yields that finished size.  No historical based factor is involved.
(For one notorious kit, Mamoli's Beagle, I think they had the Bounty hull to hand and just changed the scale on the new plans such that it came out to be the length of Beagle.  The shape is not even close to a Cherokee class brig.)
 
When I began this, it was steel rulers and vernier calipers.  The kits and plans still reflect the past requirement to work  with 1/64" being about as close an increment as could be seen seen.
This is why 1:96,  1:76, 1:64.
The dominance of 1:48 is because the majority of available original plans are this scale.
This heritage and now museum scale (1:48) allows for a lot of detail.  A problem with it is that for rated ships, for frigates and larger, a model is an inconvenient size.
 
For me, metric or Imperial became irrelevant with a availability of digital calipers.  It can measure in decimals.  No more fractions, so Imperial is just as useful as metric.
 
I like the detail at 1:48, but not the size.  I use 1:48 as my baseline, though.  I figured that working in a scale that was 1/2 museum would still allow for detail but an easier to manage sized model.
This is 1:60.  The reduction in X, Y, Z  is 0.8.  The numbers are easy to keep track of.  I just divide the full size data component value by 60.  The volume of a model is 50% of a museum scale model.
The more common 1:64 is very close - X,Y,Z  0.75  and volume is 42% of museum.
Some other scales:
1:70 is 0.7 and 33%
1:72 is 0.67 and 30%
1:76 is 0.63 and 25%
1:80 is 0.6 and 22%
1:96 is 0.5 and 12.5%
1:120 is 0.4 and 6.4%
1:192 is 0.25 and 1.5%
 
 
 
 
 

When I first read this term, it was in a magazine dedicated to modeling plastic kits.  The negative term bashing fit, because it involved the intermixing of two or more kits of wildly different subjects - aircraft mixed with autos and/or ships or military.
 
Using the verb to bash to describe what is augmentation, improvement, and is semi scratch  or the exploration of scratch hits me as being a bit hyperbolic and self indulgent.  There is no bash involved.  It is a natural progression of improving skills and a result of a deeper knowledge of this field.

You would need a bandsaw to rip those pieces into sheets.   Then  thickness sander to make those sheets accurate......the Byrnes saw could then be used to mill strips from your finished sheets for sale.
 
In addition you would absolutely need good dust control and possibly a jointer to help make life easier for you.
 
I cant see those wood pieces to tell what they are.  They dont look like the more sought after types that ship builders want.  They look like the more common Cherry, Poplar and or maple which can already be bought in sheet form pretty regularly.
 
Chuck

When I first read this term, it was in a magazine dedicated to modeling plastic kits.  The negative term bashing fit, because it involved the intermixing of two or more kits of wildly different subjects - aircraft mixed with autos and/or ships or military.
 
Using the verb to bash to describe what is augmentation, improvement, and is semi scratch  or the exploration of scratch hits me as being a bit hyperbolic and self indulgent.  There is no bash involved.  It is a natural progression of improving skills and a result of a deeper knowledge of this field.

Sounds like a fun project.
To repeat a current theme in parallel posts:  your project will proceed more smoothly and with a more enjoyable feedback if you use a species of wood with characteristics that scale appropriately and is properly hard and crisp.  Unfortunately, the Fates are conspiring against convenient acquisition of the proper species at an increasing rate.
The mass market species are generally poor candidates.  In North America, Wood Craft offers two or three veneers of species that would fill the need, but the range of thicknesses is limited.

I am always on the look out for books that are within my era of interest and focus on the ships - the humans, not so much.  In that light I have the following questions:
I found this on Amazon  is it the same book as above, but the original Italian edition?
Navi Veneziane: Catalogo Illustrato dei Piani di Costruzione = Venetian Ships: An Illustrated Catalogue of Draughts. (Italian) Hardcover – January 1, 2000
by Gilberto Penzo (Author)     And does this book offer any value from a naval architecture focus?   Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance (Softshell Books) Paperback – Illustrated, September 1, 1992
by Frederic Lane (Author) 4.8 out of 5 stars 6 ratings