Jaager

You do not supply your location.  An answer to your question would depend on
where on the planet is your home.  Also, I don't think of "best" as being an adequate criterion.
A contest is not really what would answer the question. "Excellent for" would be a more reliable goal.
 
I prefer closed pore species.  No open pore species will scale in as attractive a way
as a closed pore one.   That is the one negative mark against an otherwise beautiful
wood= Juglans nigra - Black Walnut - if you get an older tree - a very dark rich color
but it helps if you live in the eastern region of North America for a good price.
Other species of Walnut - not so much of a good choice- most seem to have a lesser
color and more visible pores as well as some being brittle.
I agree with Grsjax on his choices,  although I seem to like Hard Maple as lot more.
The grain pattern depends on the plane of your resaw.  You can get clear low contrast
or tiger or flame from the same board.  It is hard and strong.  He is fortunate in having
access to temperate fruit wood species in Hawaii.  They are as good as it gets.
 
Oak either red or white are a hard strong wood - good for hull timbers and bracing or
planking as long as they are used where they can't be seen. Their pores are distracting.
 
Two species that do not get much attention, but seem like good choices = Rock Elm
( death on the edge of my cutting blades and very slow on my 3/4 hp band saw - seems a lot
harder than Hard Maple and that is hard.  There are pores, but small ones.)  and Honey Locust.
 
One species I do not like is Platanus occidentalis  American Sycamore - color is close to
Hard Maple, but another name  now is lace wood because of its busy pattern - it is close to
Black Cherry in hardness, but is brittle- splitting easily.  I was unfortunate in not realizing
that the species that Underhill called Sycamore was actually a species of Maple that is 
about 80% of the way to Hard Maple in its quality. I would have gotten more Hard Maple
and Black Cherry from the mill.

You do not supply your location.  An answer to your question would depend on
where on the planet is your home.  Also, I don't think of "best" as being an adequate criterion.
A contest is not really what would answer the question. "Excellent for" would be a more reliable goal.
 
I prefer closed pore species.  No open pore species will scale in as attractive a way
as a closed pore one.   That is the one negative mark against an otherwise beautiful
wood= Juglans nigra - Black Walnut - if you get an older tree - a very dark rich color
but it helps if you live in the eastern region of North America for a good price.
Other species of Walnut - not so much of a good choice- most seem to have a lesser
color and more visible pores as well as some being brittle.
I agree with Grsjax on his choices,  although I seem to like Hard Maple as lot more.
The grain pattern depends on the plane of your resaw.  You can get clear low contrast
or tiger or flame from the same board.  It is hard and strong.  He is fortunate in having
access to temperate fruit wood species in Hawaii.  They are as good as it gets.
 
Oak either red or white are a hard strong wood - good for hull timbers and bracing or
planking as long as they are used where they can't be seen. Their pores are distracting.
 
Two species that do not get much attention, but seem like good choices = Rock Elm
( death on the edge of my cutting blades and very slow on my 3/4 hp band saw - seems a lot
harder than Hard Maple and that is hard.  There are pores, but small ones.)  and Honey Locust.
 
One species I do not like is Platanus occidentalis  American Sycamore - color is close to
Hard Maple, but another name  now is lace wood because of its busy pattern - it is close to
Black Cherry in hardness, but is brittle- splitting easily.  I was unfortunate in not realizing
that the species that Underhill called Sycamore was actually a species of Maple that is 
about 80% of the way to Hard Maple in its quality. I would have gotten more Hard Maple
and Black Cherry from the mill.

As far as the Fir layer, I first paid attention to that in
Marquardt's  HMS Beagle monograph from 1831.
He has a layer of Fir sheathing under the copper plating.
 
Perhaps the RN slow to change as well as their being subsidized
it was not as important to economize on weight or materials cost.
The Yankee traders and their competition were likely more sensitive to cost in every sense.

Wefalck,
You are correct, I did not remove the backside oxide layer.
I do have some old furniture with Lino on ply as a surface
that is attached with contact cement.  It would not that much
to separate the layers now.  But it was built in the late 1950's.
Contact cement is probably OK for a normal lifetime but not for a 100 year or more span.
An aspect of the interaction was that the copper oxide seemed to have infused
the cement and left the open area the same color as the plate
it once held.I have no idea what that hull looks like now.  It went with a partnership split that occurred long ago. 
 
An additional factor in the coppering = most of the time I have seen
that a layer of Fir was between the hull planking and the copper plates.
I think I have figured that out.  The Teredo larva enters a piece of wood
and does not leave it. No boring from one plank to the next.  I doubt that
without a welded seam, the larva could have been prevented from swimming
behind the copper plates.  Just a layer of copper would have not been enough
protection.  OK for easier removal of barnacles and seaweed, but not the worms
eating up the hull.  A sacrifice layer of wood with a under layer of sulfur or tar or
something else waterproof and toxic the the larvae would have solved the problem.
 
The point being that the hull thickness in the coppered region was more than just the
hull planking.  If a solid hull type building technique is used and the copper plates laid
directly on the shaped hull, the Fir layer as well as the actual planking thickness could
be investigated and the result added the hull outline when lofting.

This product offers an interesting possibility.
I coppered the MS brigantine Eagle using their copper plates - bonding with Weldwood Contact Cement.
The plates were flame treated to oxidize out the new penny look.  The result looked good, but after several
years, the bond started failing. 
With that adhesive "right out" , since epoxy seems both too thick and messy, CA I hate as well as it likely being subject to failure over time,
having a mistrust of whatever the bonding adhesive is on adhesive backed foil products, I wish to use PVA, so that lets out actual copper.
My thought experiment on this is to plate the hull with 100% cotton rag bond dissertation paper cut into plates.
Bond with PVA and prime and then coat with Modern Masters copper products and try their patina product to
add some verdigris  effect. 
Copper foil may be worth a try in place of the primer and genuine copper application steps. 
Experimental options:
1. copper layer at individual plate stage
2. copper layer after hull is plated
3. is a credible nail pattern possible by pre embossing the wet plates with a punch and die setup.  Is it worth the time
and tedium for a detail that is all but invisible at scales below Museum (1:48)?

If interested in function over cachet - there is an older plastic gauge.
It is $6 @ Peachtree
 
 

This product offers an interesting possibility.
I coppered the MS brigantine Eagle using their copper plates - bonding with Weldwood Contact Cement.
The plates were flame treated to oxidize out the new penny look.  The result looked good, but after several
years, the bond started failing. 
With that adhesive "right out" , since epoxy seems both too thick and messy, CA I hate as well as it likely being subject to failure over time,
having a mistrust of whatever the bonding adhesive is on adhesive backed foil products, I wish to use PVA, so that lets out actual copper.
My thought experiment on this is to plate the hull with 100% cotton rag bond dissertation paper cut into plates.
Bond with PVA and prime and then coat with Modern Masters copper products and try their patina product to
add some verdigris  effect. 
Copper foil may be worth a try in place of the primer and genuine copper application steps. 
Experimental options:
1. copper layer at individual plate stage
2. copper layer after hull is plated
3. is a credible nail pattern possible by pre embossing the wet plates with a punch and die setup.  Is it worth the time
and tedium for a detail that is all but invisible at scales below Museum (1:48)?

If interested in function over cachet - there is an older plastic gauge.
It is $6 @ Peachtree
 
 

The Byrnes saw has an anchor at he distal end of the fence.
With a threaded rod and fittings, you might think about adding to the length and
having an anchor at the other end.  The face that the stock rides along does not need to, should not,
would produce a kickback problem, if it were longer.   But a threaded rod extender should allow the fence
to be anchored at the back of the table.  Aligning the fence with each position is a pain,  but the cost for 
a lower quality tool is your time.

The Byrnes saw has an anchor at he distal end of the fence.
With a threaded rod and fittings, you might think about adding to the length and
having an anchor at the other end.  The face that the stock rides along does not need to, should not,
would produce a kickback problem, if it were longer.   But a threaded rod extender should allow the fence
to be anchored at the back of the table.  Aligning the fence with each position is a pain,  but the cost for 
a lower quality tool is your time.

The Byrnes saw has an anchor at he distal end of the fence.
With a threaded rod and fittings, you might think about adding to the length and
having an anchor at the other end.  The face that the stock rides along does not need to, should not,
would produce a kickback problem, if it were longer.   But a threaded rod extender should allow the fence
to be anchored at the back of the table.  Aligning the fence with each position is a pain,  but the cost for 
a lower quality tool is your time.

If interested in function over cachet - there is an older plastic gauge.
It is $6 @ Peachtree
 
 

If interested in function over cachet - there is an older plastic gauge.
It is $6 @ Peachtree
 
 

I just placed and received a five book order.  The web site did not
provide me with an confirmation and I did not receive an email.
I saw that my credit card had paid the bill - so I wanted to see if the order had gotten thru.
I can't use any website's  " contact us " link - it starts an endless loop of new tabs - hundreds of them if I let it.
I sent an email  to the address from a Google lookup:   gmail   = seawatchbooks@
no  reply so a couple of days later I found an address from an old order
  seawatchbooks.com     = customer_service@
 
I got a return message saying that the order was shipped  and since that was yesterday and
it was here today - my email was not involved.  The curious part was that the reply was from a gmail account.
Try both email addresses - I can't say which worked for me.

 

I just placed and received a five book order.  The web site did not
provide me with an confirmation and I did not receive an email.
I saw that my credit card had paid the bill - so I wanted to see if the order had gotten thru.
I can't use any website's  " contact us " link - it starts an endless loop of new tabs - hundreds of them if I let it.
I sent an email  to the address from a Google lookup:   gmail   = seawatchbooks@
no  reply so a couple of days later I found an address from an old order
  seawatchbooks.com     = customer_service@
 
I got a return message saying that the order was shipped  and since that was yesterday and
it was here today - my email was not involved.  The curious part was that the reply was from a gmail account.
Try both email addresses - I can't say which worked for me.

 

On a band saw, another way to work unstable stock, like a warped board or a log is to
fix it to a carrier plank and sacrifice part of it at the fence along with the stock.
Or, if the subject piece is not too wide have the fence far inside as well as the carrier
and have the stock overhang and only it be cut.  Framing brackets and drywall screws 
can produce a rigid mounting. system.
I don't have a jointer or edger.  Perhaps if I had been interested in cabinetry or furniture making....
 
Although unsaid, you are right about a thickness sander taking a whole lot of passes to work down
seriously marred stock.  Hours of really boring work.
 
Roger, how do you control the sawdust? 
I made a open bottom box with a 2.5" hose connector
on the top to sit over the drum.  I made the box using three layers of Amazon box corrugated cardboard - using a liberal
layer of Titebond to bind them and 1/4"x1/4" pine sticks reinforcing the inside corners.  The volume of dust was
tough on the shop vac until I added Dust Deputy cyclone trap inline.
 
 

At 3 inches, it would fit a Byrnes thickness sander just fine.
I predate that machine at all this, so to get that type machine
required building my own from NRG plans since lost.  I sized the roller to take 11 x 9 sheets.
Now, I would make it 12 x 9 - as the Klingspor cloth backed media that I use
comes at 4 inch width,  I mount 80 grit and 220 grit and trim off 1 inch
from 150 grit.  The 80 gets the most work.  I would also not enclose the
motor compartment now - just the sides - motor heat wants air circulation.
 
I do not have an edger, but I plan to use a fence on my drum sanding table
and maybe use a Microplane shaper, if not 80 grit on the drum.
Usually I waste the first pass thru the table saw ( a Byrens machine now).
If it were my stock, I would not wish the loss a blade thickness machine would produce.
I like 24 inch length for my stock, I would find 36 inches a bit cumbersome.

What is the scale that you build to?
for which parts will you be using this stock?
 
A power planner = a smooth surface but at a significant cost in lost material ...  ~1/8" or more per surface.
There are sanding planners that can take wide stock, but I am thinking that they are limited to large shops -
the machines are expensive and the cutting medium is also expensive.
The size of thickness sander that we use limits the width of the stock.  It saves on how much stock is lost to get a
smooth surface.  It just takes a lot of passes, at a cost of your time (and lungs if you do not sequester the dust) .
 
 
I would use the raw stock as you have it now to reduce further.
I think that resawing is one of the more challenging operations.
A table saw can get you a smooth enough surface, for minimal finish sander passes,  but the kerf loss can add up,  and that thing is just waiting to eat your fingers.
The blade is less prone to wander - so you do not have to adjust between passes as much -( flipping the board if it is cutting a wedge.)
A band saw is safer and the kerf loss is much less,  the surface is rougher and takes more passes thru the thickness sander.
A low kerf Woodslicer blade yields a smoother surface,  but it costs more and the Boxwood is hard and will dull either a bandsaw blade
or eventually a circular saw blade more quickly than most wood species.
 
With rough stock, it can be tricky with the raw face against the fence and it is a coin flip for whether to do a thin sacrifice for the first pass
or do a standard cut and know that it will take more thickness sander passes and come out below spec and have to be used for another part.
 
For badly cupped boards - cut down along the crown of the cup - and get two flatter boards.
I buy rough stock.  It is more work, but knowing that a 4 sided finished board sold as 1" is actually 3/4" means to me that 25% has already been lost
before I start.
 
Sorry for the following, as it does not help you:
I would have cut the log into 2" planks and some 1". 
I do POF and the stock cost for framing timbers far exceeds that of any other component.
I build to a larger scale = 1:60.  It is close to 1/4" scale but at 1/2 the volume, a model is less over powering in size. ( But, the first rate I just got in frame
is still giving me pause - 4 feet is still a lot of ship.)
I band saw the 2" into stock for my thickness sander to get 2" wide planks that are the thickness of the frame timbers. My game is to find the band saw cut thickness
that will yield a finished two sides without extra passes.
It does not matter that the vertical edges are rough - i just fudge the frame patterns in a bit).  I imagine that at 1/4" - the pattern placement might yield more stock lost to waste,
but I get fairly efficient yield with 2" at 1:60.  My band saw is only 3/4 HP and 2" works it enough.
 
 
 

On a band saw, another way to work unstable stock, like a warped board or a log is to
fix it to a carrier plank and sacrifice part of it at the fence along with the stock.
Or, if the subject piece is not too wide have the fence far inside as well as the carrier
and have the stock overhang and only it be cut.  Framing brackets and drywall screws 
can produce a rigid mounting. system.
I don't have a jointer or edger.  Perhaps if I had been interested in cabinetry or furniture making....
 
Although unsaid, you are right about a thickness sander taking a whole lot of passes to work down
seriously marred stock.  Hours of really boring work.
 
Roger, how do you control the sawdust? 
I made a open bottom box with a 2.5" hose connector
on the top to sit over the drum.  I made the box using three layers of Amazon box corrugated cardboard - using a liberal
layer of Titebond to bind them and 1/4"x1/4" pine sticks reinforcing the inside corners.  The volume of dust was
tough on the shop vac until I added Dust Deputy cyclone trap inline.
 
 

On a band saw, another way to work unstable stock, like a warped board or a log is to
fix it to a carrier plank and sacrifice part of it at the fence along with the stock.
Or, if the subject piece is not too wide have the fence far inside as well as the carrier
and have the stock overhang and only it be cut.  Framing brackets and drywall screws 
can produce a rigid mounting. system.
I don't have a jointer or edger.  Perhaps if I had been interested in cabinetry or furniture making....
 
Although unsaid, you are right about a thickness sander taking a whole lot of passes to work down
seriously marred stock.  Hours of really boring work.
 
Roger, how do you control the sawdust? 
I made a open bottom box with a 2.5" hose connector
on the top to sit over the drum.  I made the box using three layers of Amazon box corrugated cardboard - using a liberal
layer of Titebond to bind them and 1/4"x1/4" pine sticks reinforcing the inside corners.  The volume of dust was
tough on the shop vac until I added Dust Deputy cyclone trap inline.
 
 

What is the scale that you build to?
for which parts will you be using this stock?
 
A power planner = a smooth surface but at a significant cost in lost material ...  ~1/8" or more per surface.
There are sanding planners that can take wide stock, but I am thinking that they are limited to large shops -
the machines are expensive and the cutting medium is also expensive.
The size of thickness sander that we use limits the width of the stock.  It saves on how much stock is lost to get a
smooth surface.  It just takes a lot of passes, at a cost of your time (and lungs if you do not sequester the dust) .
 
 
I would use the raw stock as you have it now to reduce further.
I think that resawing is one of the more challenging operations.
A table saw can get you a smooth enough surface, for minimal finish sander passes,  but the kerf loss can add up,  and that thing is just waiting to eat your fingers.
The blade is less prone to wander - so you do not have to adjust between passes as much -( flipping the board if it is cutting a wedge.)
A band saw is safer and the kerf loss is much less,  the surface is rougher and takes more passes thru the thickness sander.
A low kerf Woodslicer blade yields a smoother surface,  but it costs more and the Boxwood is hard and will dull either a bandsaw blade
or eventually a circular saw blade more quickly than most wood species.
 
With rough stock, it can be tricky with the raw face against the fence and it is a coin flip for whether to do a thin sacrifice for the first pass
or do a standard cut and know that it will take more thickness sander passes and come out below spec and have to be used for another part.
 
For badly cupped boards - cut down along the crown of the cup - and get two flatter boards.
I buy rough stock.  It is more work, but knowing that a 4 sided finished board sold as 1" is actually 3/4" means to me that 25% has already been lost
before I start.
 
Sorry for the following, as it does not help you:
I would have cut the log into 2" planks and some 1". 
I do POF and the stock cost for framing timbers far exceeds that of any other component.
I build to a larger scale = 1:60.  It is close to 1/4" scale but at 1/2 the volume, a model is less over powering in size. ( But, the first rate I just got in frame
is still giving me pause - 4 feet is still a lot of ship.)
I band saw the 2" into stock for my thickness sander to get 2" wide planks that are the thickness of the frame timbers. My game is to find the band saw cut thickness
that will yield a finished two sides without extra passes.
It does not matter that the vertical edges are rough - i just fudge the frame patterns in a bit).  I imagine that at 1/4" - the pattern placement might yield more stock lost to waste,
but I get fairly efficient yield with 2" at 1:60.  My band saw is only 3/4 HP and 2" works it enough.
 
 
 

On a band saw, another way to work unstable stock, like a warped board or a log is to
fix it to a carrier plank and sacrifice part of it at the fence along with the stock.
Or, if the subject piece is not too wide have the fence far inside as well as the carrier
and have the stock overhang and only it be cut.  Framing brackets and drywall screws 
can produce a rigid mounting. system.
I don't have a jointer or edger.  Perhaps if I had been interested in cabinetry or furniture making....
 
Although unsaid, you are right about a thickness sander taking a whole lot of passes to work down
seriously marred stock.  Hours of really boring work.
 
Roger, how do you control the sawdust? 
I made a open bottom box with a 2.5" hose connector
on the top to sit over the drum.  I made the box using three layers of Amazon box corrugated cardboard - using a liberal
layer of Titebond to bind them and 1/4"x1/4" pine sticks reinforcing the inside corners.  The volume of dust was
tough on the shop vac until I added Dust Deputy cyclone trap inline.
 
 

At 3 inches, it would fit a Byrnes thickness sander just fine.
I predate that machine at all this, so to get that type machine
required building my own from NRG plans since lost.  I sized the roller to take 11 x 9 sheets.
Now, I would make it 12 x 9 - as the Klingspor cloth backed media that I use
comes at 4 inch width,  I mount 80 grit and 220 grit and trim off 1 inch
from 150 grit.  The 80 gets the most work.  I would also not enclose the
motor compartment now - just the sides - motor heat wants air circulation.
 
I do not have an edger, but I plan to use a fence on my drum sanding table
and maybe use a Microplane shaper, if not 80 grit on the drum.
Usually I waste the first pass thru the table saw ( a Byrens machine now).
If it were my stock, I would not wish the loss a blade thickness machine would produce.
I like 24 inch length for my stock, I would find 36 inches a bit cumbersome.

What is the scale that you build to?
for which parts will you be using this stock?
 
A power planner = a smooth surface but at a significant cost in lost material ...  ~1/8" or more per surface.
There are sanding planners that can take wide stock, but I am thinking that they are limited to large shops -
the machines are expensive and the cutting medium is also expensive.
The size of thickness sander that we use limits the width of the stock.  It saves on how much stock is lost to get a
smooth surface.  It just takes a lot of passes, at a cost of your time (and lungs if you do not sequester the dust) .
 
 
I would use the raw stock as you have it now to reduce further.
I think that resawing is one of the more challenging operations.
A table saw can get you a smooth enough surface, for minimal finish sander passes,  but the kerf loss can add up,  and that thing is just waiting to eat your fingers.
The blade is less prone to wander - so you do not have to adjust between passes as much -( flipping the board if it is cutting a wedge.)
A band saw is safer and the kerf loss is much less,  the surface is rougher and takes more passes thru the thickness sander.
A low kerf Woodslicer blade yields a smoother surface,  but it costs more and the Boxwood is hard and will dull either a bandsaw blade
or eventually a circular saw blade more quickly than most wood species.
 
With rough stock, it can be tricky with the raw face against the fence and it is a coin flip for whether to do a thin sacrifice for the first pass
or do a standard cut and know that it will take more thickness sander passes and come out below spec and have to be used for another part.
 
For badly cupped boards - cut down along the crown of the cup - and get two flatter boards.
I buy rough stock.  It is more work, but knowing that a 4 sided finished board sold as 1" is actually 3/4" means to me that 25% has already been lost
before I start.
 
Sorry for the following, as it does not help you:
I would have cut the log into 2" planks and some 1". 
I do POF and the stock cost for framing timbers far exceeds that of any other component.
I build to a larger scale = 1:60.  It is close to 1/4" scale but at 1/2 the volume, a model is less over powering in size. ( But, the first rate I just got in frame
is still giving me pause - 4 feet is still a lot of ship.)
I band saw the 2" into stock for my thickness sander to get 2" wide planks that are the thickness of the frame timbers. My game is to find the band saw cut thickness
that will yield a finished two sides without extra passes.
It does not matter that the vertical edges are rough - i just fudge the frame patterns in a bit).  I imagine that at 1/4" - the pattern placement might yield more stock lost to waste,
but I get fairly efficient yield with 2" at 1:60.  My band saw is only 3/4 HP and 2" works it enough.
 
 
 

What is the scale that you build to?
for which parts will you be using this stock?
 
A power planner = a smooth surface but at a significant cost in lost material ...  ~1/8" or more per surface.
There are sanding planners that can take wide stock, but I am thinking that they are limited to large shops -
the machines are expensive and the cutting medium is also expensive.
The size of thickness sander that we use limits the width of the stock.  It saves on how much stock is lost to get a
smooth surface.  It just takes a lot of passes, at a cost of your time (and lungs if you do not sequester the dust) .
 
 
I would use the raw stock as you have it now to reduce further.
I think that resawing is one of the more challenging operations.
A table saw can get you a smooth enough surface, for minimal finish sander passes,  but the kerf loss can add up,  and that thing is just waiting to eat your fingers.
The blade is less prone to wander - so you do not have to adjust between passes as much -( flipping the board if it is cutting a wedge.)
A band saw is safer and the kerf loss is much less,  the surface is rougher and takes more passes thru the thickness sander.
A low kerf Woodslicer blade yields a smoother surface,  but it costs more and the Boxwood is hard and will dull either a bandsaw blade
or eventually a circular saw blade more quickly than most wood species.
 
With rough stock, it can be tricky with the raw face against the fence and it is a coin flip for whether to do a thin sacrifice for the first pass
or do a standard cut and know that it will take more thickness sander passes and come out below spec and have to be used for another part.
 
For badly cupped boards - cut down along the crown of the cup - and get two flatter boards.
I buy rough stock.  It is more work, but knowing that a 4 sided finished board sold as 1" is actually 3/4" means to me that 25% has already been lost
before I start.
 
Sorry for the following, as it does not help you:
I would have cut the log into 2" planks and some 1". 
I do POF and the stock cost for framing timbers far exceeds that of any other component.
I build to a larger scale = 1:60.  It is close to 1/4" scale but at 1/2 the volume, a model is less over powering in size. ( But, the first rate I just got in frame
is still giving me pause - 4 feet is still a lot of ship.)
I band saw the 2" into stock for my thickness sander to get 2" wide planks that are the thickness of the frame timbers. My game is to find the band saw cut thickness
that will yield a finished two sides without extra passes.
It does not matter that the vertical edges are rough - i just fudge the frame patterns in a bit).  I imagine that at 1/4" - the pattern placement might yield more stock lost to waste,
but I get fairly efficient yield with 2" at 1:60.  My band saw is only 3/4 HP and 2" works it enough.