Jaager

As far as Underhill, Davis, Petrejus, Longridge, Frolich are concerned as regards POB,  the great danger is that you will be seduced over to the dark side = scratch building. 
But once POB reaches a first layer being planked stage,  everything from there on - the actual hull planking, decks, furniture, etc - it is all the same irrespective of what the underlying hull structure is.
The goal of books that focus on scratch building is excellence and historical accuracy.  It is better to learn from the best.  I am pretty sure that the build logs here in the POB kit forum have in total way more useful instruction than can be found in books that focus on POB.   Why I think this is inherent in how and why POB books come to be, is probably best left not expressed.

There are definitive threads here covering sail making in scale.  Also about the fabric or paper that have been found to simulate sails as well as is possible - given the limitations in scaling the material both in weave and in thickness.   As far as furling the sails.  The consensus seems to be that the depth of the sail should be 1/3 - to avoid a bulky look. The material should be as light as possible.  It is just my feeling, but white sails are probably a conceit of painters.  I doubt that the canvas was bleached. 
Tabling and attachment of bolt ropes and rigging are also discussed.
 
Polyester, ugh!

Pear is indeed an attractive wood.  It usually is somewhat expensive.  Covering it up seems self defeating.  The conundrum of planking, frames, or copper is more intense with scratch POF. 
The model will involve a series of complex and complicated surfaces.  Not protecting it by mounting it in a case, invites a relatively short life for it.  A case will limit how it can be handled and viewed.  One solution to the hull finish question is to do one side finished and the other with all wood on display.  In any case, to my way of thinking, you really made the choice to go with an all wood display by going with Pear to begin with.
 
The representing a real ship:
First, by beginning with a kit,  with most mass market offerings, you are on broken and floating ice as far as any obsession with historical accuracy is concerned.  There have been compromises  made that would not be necessary with a scratch build.  So, the realistic option is to do the best with what you have and not obsess over a standard that was given up with the initial choice of subject.
Eugenio,  you are doing quite well working within the limits that the kit allows you.  You are pretty far beyond many of the barriers that defeat a beginner who is building a very complex vessel.  If the individual who suggests that you punt is a also a kit builder, consider his suggestion GIGO.   Your work has a strong flavor of Art to it, and that is not a bad thing.   An absolutely accurate representation of HMS Victory is not really all that beautiful.  While not as homely as mid 19th century warships that were purely functional, it was getting there.
 
Now as for coppering in general.  Pretty much any kit supplied method kicks you right out of any pretense to accuracy or historical integrity.  Getting a material that thin enough but works is difficult at best.
A coppering job that involves the new penny shine and or out of scale bumps that resemble nothing so much as an old photo of a case of severe Smallpox, is far into the realm of modeler's convention.  The overall look is mostly hideous to my eye.

Pear is indeed an attractive wood.  It usually is somewhat expensive.  Covering it up seems self defeating.  The conundrum of planking, frames, or copper is more intense with scratch POF. 
The model will involve a series of complex and complicated surfaces.  Not protecting it by mounting it in a case, invites a relatively short life for it.  A case will limit how it can be handled and viewed.  One solution to the hull finish question is to do one side finished and the other with all wood on display.  In any case, to my way of thinking, you really made the choice to go with an all wood display by going with Pear to begin with.
 
The representing a real ship:
First, by beginning with a kit,  with most mass market offerings, you are on broken and floating ice as far as any obsession with historical accuracy is concerned.  There have been compromises  made that would not be necessary with a scratch build.  So, the realistic option is to do the best with what you have and not obsess over a standard that was given up with the initial choice of subject.
Eugenio,  you are doing quite well working within the limits that the kit allows you.  You are pretty far beyond many of the barriers that defeat a beginner who is building a very complex vessel.  If the individual who suggests that you punt is a also a kit builder, consider his suggestion GIGO.   Your work has a strong flavor of Art to it, and that is not a bad thing.   An absolutely accurate representation of HMS Victory is not really all that beautiful.  While not as homely as mid 19th century warships that were purely functional, it was getting there.
 
Now as for coppering in general.  Pretty much any kit supplied method kicks you right out of any pretense to accuracy or historical integrity.  Getting a material that thin enough but works is difficult at best.
A coppering job that involves the new penny shine and or out of scale bumps that resemble nothing so much as an old photo of a case of severe Smallpox, is far into the realm of modeler's convention.  The overall look is mostly hideous to my eye.

Pear is indeed an attractive wood.  It usually is somewhat expensive.  Covering it up seems self defeating.  The conundrum of planking, frames, or copper is more intense with scratch POF. 
The model will involve a series of complex and complicated surfaces.  Not protecting it by mounting it in a case, invites a relatively short life for it.  A case will limit how it can be handled and viewed.  One solution to the hull finish question is to do one side finished and the other with all wood on display.  In any case, to my way of thinking, you really made the choice to go with an all wood display by going with Pear to begin with.
 
The representing a real ship:
First, by beginning with a kit,  with most mass market offerings, you are on broken and floating ice as far as any obsession with historical accuracy is concerned.  There have been compromises  made that would not be necessary with a scratch build.  So, the realistic option is to do the best with what you have and not obsess over a standard that was given up with the initial choice of subject.
Eugenio,  you are doing quite well working within the limits that the kit allows you.  You are pretty far beyond many of the barriers that defeat a beginner who is building a very complex vessel.  If the individual who suggests that you punt is a also a kit builder, consider his suggestion GIGO.   Your work has a strong flavor of Art to it, and that is not a bad thing.   An absolutely accurate representation of HMS Victory is not really all that beautiful.  While not as homely as mid 19th century warships that were purely functional, it was getting there.
 
Now as for coppering in general.  Pretty much any kit supplied method kicks you right out of any pretense to accuracy or historical integrity.  Getting a material that thin enough but works is difficult at best.
A coppering job that involves the new penny shine and or out of scale bumps that resemble nothing so much as an old photo of a case of severe Smallpox, is far into the realm of modeler's convention.  The overall look is mostly hideous to my eye.

Pear is indeed an attractive wood.  It usually is somewhat expensive.  Covering it up seems self defeating.  The conundrum of planking, frames, or copper is more intense with scratch POF. 
The model will involve a series of complex and complicated surfaces.  Not protecting it by mounting it in a case, invites a relatively short life for it.  A case will limit how it can be handled and viewed.  One solution to the hull finish question is to do one side finished and the other with all wood on display.  In any case, to my way of thinking, you really made the choice to go with an all wood display by going with Pear to begin with.
 
The representing a real ship:
First, by beginning with a kit,  with most mass market offerings, you are on broken and floating ice as far as any obsession with historical accuracy is concerned.  There have been compromises  made that would not be necessary with a scratch build.  So, the realistic option is to do the best with what you have and not obsess over a standard that was given up with the initial choice of subject.
Eugenio,  you are doing quite well working within the limits that the kit allows you.  You are pretty far beyond many of the barriers that defeat a beginner who is building a very complex vessel.  If the individual who suggests that you punt is a also a kit builder, consider his suggestion GIGO.   Your work has a strong flavor of Art to it, and that is not a bad thing.   An absolutely accurate representation of HMS Victory is not really all that beautiful.  While not as homely as mid 19th century warships that were purely functional, it was getting there.
 
Now as for coppering in general.  Pretty much any kit supplied method kicks you right out of any pretense to accuracy or historical integrity.  Getting a material that thin enough but works is difficult at best.
A coppering job that involves the new penny shine and or out of scale bumps that resemble nothing so much as an old photo of a case of severe Smallpox, is far into the realm of modeler's convention.  The overall look is mostly hideous to my eye.

There are definitive threads here covering sail making in scale.  Also about the fabric or paper that have been found to simulate sails as well as is possible - given the limitations in scaling the material both in weave and in thickness.   As far as furling the sails.  The consensus seems to be that the depth of the sail should be 1/3 - to avoid a bulky look. The material should be as light as possible.  It is just my feeling, but white sails are probably a conceit of painters.  I doubt that the canvas was bleached. 
Tabling and attachment of bolt ropes and rigging are also discussed.
 
Polyester, ugh!

As far as Underhill, Davis, Petrejus, Longridge, Frolich are concerned as regards POB,  the great danger is that you will be seduced over to the dark side = scratch building. 
But once POB reaches a first layer being planked stage,  everything from there on - the actual hull planking, decks, furniture, etc - it is all the same irrespective of what the underlying hull structure is.
The goal of books that focus on scratch building is excellence and historical accuracy.  It is better to learn from the best.  I am pretty sure that the build logs here in the POB kit forum have in total way more useful instruction than can be found in books that focus on POB.   Why I think this is inherent in how and why POB books come to be, is probably best left not expressed.

As far as Underhill, Davis, Petrejus, Longridge, Frolich are concerned as regards POB,  the great danger is that you will be seduced over to the dark side = scratch building. 
But once POB reaches a first layer being planked stage,  everything from there on - the actual hull planking, decks, furniture, etc - it is all the same irrespective of what the underlying hull structure is.
The goal of books that focus on scratch building is excellence and historical accuracy.  It is better to learn from the best.  I am pretty sure that the build logs here in the POB kit forum have in total way more useful instruction than can be found in books that focus on POB.   Why I think this is inherent in how and why POB books come to be, is probably best left not expressed.

As far as Underhill, Davis, Petrejus, Longridge, Frolich are concerned as regards POB,  the great danger is that you will be seduced over to the dark side = scratch building. 
But once POB reaches a first layer being planked stage,  everything from there on - the actual hull planking, decks, furniture, etc - it is all the same irrespective of what the underlying hull structure is.
The goal of books that focus on scratch building is excellence and historical accuracy.  It is better to learn from the best.  I am pretty sure that the build logs here in the POB kit forum have in total way more useful instruction than can be found in books that focus on POB.   Why I think this is inherent in how and why POB books come to be, is probably best left not expressed.

As far as Underhill, Davis, Petrejus, Longridge, Frolich are concerned as regards POB,  the great danger is that you will be seduced over to the dark side = scratch building. 
But once POB reaches a first layer being planked stage,  everything from there on - the actual hull planking, decks, furniture, etc - it is all the same irrespective of what the underlying hull structure is.
The goal of books that focus on scratch building is excellence and historical accuracy.  It is better to learn from the best.  I am pretty sure that the build logs here in the POB kit forum have in total way more useful instruction than can be found in books that focus on POB.   Why I think this is inherent in how and why POB books come to be, is probably best left not expressed.

That's a good start.  Any particular style of model or time period?
 
While older, you may also want to look into books by Charles Davis or Underhill. 

Although he was probably being somewhat glib, Nader said that the compulsion for a drawing to be perfect would make finishing one next to impossible,  He would keep doing it over until it was perfect.  What startled me about what he said was that it seems to me that a brain capable of success in science or engineering would go absolutely starkers if trying to seriously deal with something as mushy as Law or related fields.There is no reliable foundation.  It is all too silly and arbitrary.
 
As for CAD, it is one thing to use it to generate something new.  That is its purpose.  It is something else to use it to replicate something that already exists.  It seems to want to do its own thing, its own way.  With a board and battens, you can massage the data.

Tim,
In school, we were tracked.  Mechanical Drawing and Shop were not even options for my group.  They were skills that could have used.  I still can't draw a neat straight line, being self taught. A smooth curve is right out.  I have always been a Gordian Knot solution sort, so the neat imperative on a school drawing would have blown my GPA.  Ralph Nader said he was too OCD neat freak to stay with engineering drawing and went into Law, where that sort of OCD was pointless.  My OCD is there, but neat or clean is not involved.  I could have also used a typing class, but that too would have wrecked my GPA.  Taught myself what I needed to know to be able to loft Kate Cory from Eric Ronnberg's 1/4" plans for POF framing.  Boy was that a time consuming and no fun experience! 
The take home lesson was to try to find a better method.
I also went a fair ways into designing HMS Royal Charles 1673 following Anthony Deane's directions.  I used the drawing board and it worked for it.  I lost him with the Body plan.  The directions were not clear.  I mistakenly thought that each of the stations was individually designed.  Trying to find a way to avoid the sort of extracted point plotting that was so awful in traditional lofting could be avoided.  I now understand that only about 3 Stations are designed.  The waterline are drawn using those few points.  Battens are used to get the curves.  The stations for the Body plan being back extracted.  There are many proof curves needed to assure that the waterlines are proper.  This leading to no joy as far as avoiding the plotting tedium, I switched to a computer based solution.  It was early DOS.  Still, I was having a hope that 3D CAD was a shortcut.  My explorations have lead to the following conclusions - CAD is for design.  It is not an easy or pleasant tool for POF lofting of existing plans.  It would be useful for design using Deane's directions - except - the tools in TurboCAD - I could find no way to do an arc by inputting the center and the radius.  And some of Deane's arc centers are on Mars.  So a drawing board seems to be it for anyone insane enough to try to design a 17th century 1st rate.  Now I can do what I need for lofting frame timbers from existing plans using a raster based drawing program.  The way I do it saves at least 80% of the work and time.  So, I can't reinforce your affinity for a drawing board.
I suspect that your rant on the loss of skills as generations progress, has always been expressed.  It probably started at least when the skill of chipping flint into sharp projectile tips was lost.  
So, I understand where you are coming from

Although he was probably being somewhat glib, Nader said that the compulsion for a drawing to be perfect would make finishing one next to impossible,  He would keep doing it over until it was perfect.  What startled me about what he said was that it seems to me that a brain capable of success in science or engineering would go absolutely starkers if trying to seriously deal with something as mushy as Law or related fields.There is no reliable foundation.  It is all too silly and arbitrary.
 
As for CAD, it is one thing to use it to generate something new.  That is its purpose.  It is something else to use it to replicate something that already exists.  It seems to want to do its own thing, its own way.  With a board and battens, you can massage the data.

The situation is complicated.  As for tools, although enthusiasm often leads to wasted money as far as tools, even your father probably does not realize which tools
he needs until he needs that specific job done.
It may be wiser to get:
A gift certificate to a special tool vendor:
Lee Valey
Japan Woodworker
Lie-NielsenToolworks
 
or
A subject specific book:
The 100-Gun Ship Victory (Anatomy of the Ship)  by John McKay
The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships Hardcover   by C. Nepean Longridge
 
But for something unexpected but better than what he is likely to know about:
Japan Woodworker  #156382  1/8" double bevel Blue Steel knife
It also needs a piece of scrap leather and a fine honing compound like Flexcut Gold
Compared to Xacto type #11 blades - both will do the job,  but the knife it like having Lamborghini instead of a Ford
  
or from StewMac    
    Item       Price       Qty       Total
    Japanese Super Fine-Cut Saw
Item # 3617
    $39.48     1     $39.48
    Japanese Curved-edge Mini Saw
Item # 3612
    $28.30     1     $28.30
    StewMac Ultimate Scraper, Mini
Item # 0632
    $28.07     1     $28.07
 
The curved-edge saw works a trick in crosscutting

Rasps are good for rough-shaping solid wood hulls. However, if you try to shape a framed hull that way, you will get chip-out of the frames on the 'far' side of the cut. A great way to destroy hours of careful framing!
 
I use my beautifully made Auriou rasps only on furniture related activities.

Clicking the focus to a lens with a wider angle,  it would probably serve you well - to read the cautionary tale post pinned to the top of the new members forum.
Although, not as overwhelming as a first rate, a super frigate is still a major opus.

Clicking the focus to a lens with a wider angle,  it would probably serve you well - to read the cautionary tale post pinned to the top of the new members forum.
Although, not as overwhelming as a first rate, a super frigate is still a major opus.

I keep a fine edge by stropping.  I am using FlexCut Gold on my leather, but green is probably just as effective.  Strop after every few cuts and a visit to a stone should be a sometime thing.

I own several and they do the job.  I think the company went thru a major generation change.  Not that long ago, they offered a wide variety of widths and L/R options on an individual tool level.  Last time I looked, there was no longer that wide of a variety of choices.  They are a useful size for ship timber shaping in the 1:48-1;72 range.

I keep a fine edge by stropping.  I am using FlexCut Gold on my leather, but green is probably just as effective.  Strop after every few cuts and a visit to a stone should be a sometime thing.

I own several and they do the job.  I think the company went thru a major generation change.  Not that long ago, they offered a wide variety of widths and L/R options on an individual tool level.  Last time I looked, there was no longer that wide of a variety of choices.  They are a useful size for ship timber shaping in the 1:48-1;72 range.

I keep a fine edge by stropping.  I am using FlexCut Gold on my leather, but green is probably just as effective.  Strop after every few cuts and a visit to a stone should be a sometime thing.

I keep a fine edge by stropping.  I am using FlexCut Gold on my leather, but green is probably just as effective.  Strop after every few cuts and a visit to a stone should be a sometime thing.