Jaager

Bob,
I have not read that one before,  but it seems to reflect the reality of the situation, if not the actual cause.  Buxus sempervirens seems to have been loved to death.
The imp on my shoulder  prods me to make a glib answer = for enough Buxus to provide frame timbers for a large scale multi deck vessel,  a Wayback machine is probably needed.
I recall reading that Harold Hahn had acquired a supply.  But he was mostly 1:96.   The strength is helpful in the miniature or semi-miniature scales, fur suure.

Re. the picture in post #43:
I don't see it as Hahn style so much as I see it as derisive parody of POF. 
It could be trying to be a kitsch decorator simulacrum of a ship model or a cynical attempt to destroy the reputation of all POF.
Whatever it is, that is not POF.
 

An excellent job so far  - on one of the more difficult ships to model.

Galapagos finches?

In Deane's Doctrine the main wale is defined by itself.  It has no relation to the sheer of the main deck.  There was an effort/ hope that the gunports do not totally cut thru the wale - which negates its purpose.  The Doctrine is between the time of the 18th century models and the actual galleons.  The Doctrine still has aspects of a system of formulas - adjusted over time - but reflective earlier design methods.
 
Models of Santa Maria are based modern design creations.  Just some naval architect from our time exercising his imagination of what he thought the ship probably looked like.  It is all a fantasy.  However you did it, there is no documented proof that it was not that way.
 
Next time for hull planking -  the main wale goes first - all of the outer skin is a reflection of it.  Next is the garboard.  Its upper edge wants to look like it comes from a diagonal.  A wavy edge - not good for the rest of the planking run.

The Continental shipbuilders were English shipbuilders until they decided not to be.  They used the same books and same Establishments.
The properties of wood is a constant.  The ratio of the size of the timbering to the size of the ship is not a national value.  The species of wood used can be.  There are tables that have different sizes for timbers depending of the species of wood used.  Try not to obsess  about being exact.  Close enough is good enough.  It was wood.  They did not have sophisticated electronic rulers. 
I use Yedlinsky .   Find the ship's class and look up the scantlings.
I find that the Admiralty plans for captured ships are often fairly useless for determining R&S.  The stations are often arbitrary in location and distance.
Some of them are at variable locations.
With as designed plans,  The tables give floor thickness.  The lettering and numbering of the stations reflect the number of frames between each station.
The difference is the width of the space.
As for the moulded dimension,  tables from this era give minimal data for in and out.   You have to look closely.  Use what data there is and use an artist's eye to get the shape.  
I translate cutting down to be the thickness (deep) at the outer edge of the keel/keelson.
When I used a drawing board,  I used a compass to draw a half circle with the origin in the frame line.  A line that hits these arcs at a tangent is the moulded dimension.  Tedious at best.   Painter is easier.  Now I have a file with the range of frame moulded values - each value is a yellow filled circle that is the diameter - a faint black circumference helps -  on its own layer. 
Just kiss the frame line and connect the tangents on the inside.  I use as many as I need to get a line that looks good. Layers are easy to duplicate.  It is quick after some practice.
 
 
 

The Continental shipbuilders were English shipbuilders until they decided not to be.  They used the same books and same Establishments.
The properties of wood is a constant.  The ratio of the size of the timbering to the size of the ship is not a national value.  The species of wood used can be.  There are tables that have different sizes for timbers depending of the species of wood used.  Try not to obsess  about being exact.  Close enough is good enough.  It was wood.  They did not have sophisticated electronic rulers. 
I use Yedlinsky .   Find the ship's class and look up the scantlings.
I find that the Admiralty plans for captured ships are often fairly useless for determining R&S.  The stations are often arbitrary in location and distance.
Some of them are at variable locations.
With as designed plans,  The tables give floor thickness.  The lettering and numbering of the stations reflect the number of frames between each station.
The difference is the width of the space.
As for the moulded dimension,  tables from this era give minimal data for in and out.   You have to look closely.  Use what data there is and use an artist's eye to get the shape.  
I translate cutting down to be the thickness (deep) at the outer edge of the keel/keelson.
When I used a drawing board,  I used a compass to draw a half circle with the origin in the frame line.  A line that hits these arcs at a tangent is the moulded dimension.  Tedious at best.   Painter is easier.  Now I have a file with the range of frame moulded values - each value is a yellow filled circle that is the diameter - a faint black circumference helps -  on its own layer. 
Just kiss the frame line and connect the tangents on the inside.  I use as many as I need to get a line that looks good. Layers are easy to duplicate.  It is quick after some practice.
 
 
 

Galapagos finches?

In Deane's Doctrine the main wale is defined by itself.  It has no relation to the sheer of the main deck.  There was an effort/ hope that the gunports do not totally cut thru the wale - which negates its purpose.  The Doctrine is between the time of the 18th century models and the actual galleons.  The Doctrine still has aspects of a system of formulas - adjusted over time - but reflective earlier design methods.
 
Models of Santa Maria are based modern design creations.  Just some naval architect from our time exercising his imagination of what he thought the ship probably looked like.  It is all a fantasy.  However you did it, there is no documented proof that it was not that way.
 
Next time for hull planking -  the main wale goes first - all of the outer skin is a reflection of it.  Next is the garboard.  Its upper edge wants to look like it comes from a diagonal.  A wavy edge - not good for the rest of the planking run.

In Deane's Doctrine the main wale is defined by itself.  It has no relation to the sheer of the main deck.  There was an effort/ hope that the gunports do not totally cut thru the wale - which negates its purpose.  The Doctrine is between the time of the 18th century models and the actual galleons.  The Doctrine still has aspects of a system of formulas - adjusted over time - but reflective earlier design methods.
 
Models of Santa Maria are based modern design creations.  Just some naval architect from our time exercising his imagination of what he thought the ship probably looked like.  It is all a fantasy.  However you did it, there is no documented proof that it was not that way.
 
Next time for hull planking -  the main wale goes first - all of the outer skin is a reflection of it.  Next is the garboard.  Its upper edge wants to look like it comes from a diagonal.  A wavy edge - not good for the rest of the planking run.

The Continental shipbuilders were English shipbuilders until they decided not to be.  They used the same books and same Establishments.
The properties of wood is a constant.  The ratio of the size of the timbering to the size of the ship is not a national value.  The species of wood used can be.  There are tables that have different sizes for timbers depending of the species of wood used.  Try not to obsess  about being exact.  Close enough is good enough.  It was wood.  They did not have sophisticated electronic rulers. 
I use Yedlinsky .   Find the ship's class and look up the scantlings.
I find that the Admiralty plans for captured ships are often fairly useless for determining R&S.  The stations are often arbitrary in location and distance.
Some of them are at variable locations.
With as designed plans,  The tables give floor thickness.  The lettering and numbering of the stations reflect the number of frames between each station.
The difference is the width of the space.
As for the moulded dimension,  tables from this era give minimal data for in and out.   You have to look closely.  Use what data there is and use an artist's eye to get the shape.  
I translate cutting down to be the thickness (deep) at the outer edge of the keel/keelson.
When I used a drawing board,  I used a compass to draw a half circle with the origin in the frame line.  A line that hits these arcs at a tangent is the moulded dimension.  Tedious at best.   Painter is easier.  Now I have a file with the range of frame moulded values - each value is a yellow filled circle that is the diameter - a faint black circumference helps -  on its own layer. 
Just kiss the frame line and connect the tangents on the inside.  I use as many as I need to get a line that looks good. Layers are easy to duplicate.  It is quick after some practice.
 
 
 

Look up Enterprise in whatever tables of masting and rigging are closest to its year and list them by spar and line.
Look up Surprise and do the same. 
If they are the same:
Mic the spars in the kit and tightly coil each type the rigging line around a dowel and count the number of coils in a 1 inch distance. The number of coils divided into 1 yields the diameter.  The tables are probably line circumference, so the table numbers divided by pi are your values for comparison.   If the kit numbers match the chart you made up for Enterprise then -- well the spar and line stock has to come from somewhere, so why not.  But the research of Enterprise masting and rigging scatlings needs  to be done first.
 
I forgot the blocks - do the same with them.
Block size is determined by the size of its line.
On an actual ship there is a variety of line diameter.  In scale a lot of that diameter is too close to differentiate. It simplifies things a bit.
Unless a ship is one of the rare ones with individual masting and rigging data,  A kit mfg would or should have done the same lookup.
It is then a matter of you being able to accept the compromises made for the material in the kit.

The Continental shipbuilders were English shipbuilders until they decided not to be.  They used the same books and same Establishments.
The properties of wood is a constant.  The ratio of the size of the timbering to the size of the ship is not a national value.  The species of wood used can be.  There are tables that have different sizes for timbers depending of the species of wood used.  Try not to obsess  about being exact.  Close enough is good enough.  It was wood.  They did not have sophisticated electronic rulers. 
I use Yedlinsky .   Find the ship's class and look up the scantlings.
I find that the Admiralty plans for captured ships are often fairly useless for determining R&S.  The stations are often arbitrary in location and distance.
Some of them are at variable locations.
With as designed plans,  The tables give floor thickness.  The lettering and numbering of the stations reflect the number of frames between each station.
The difference is the width of the space.
As for the moulded dimension,  tables from this era give minimal data for in and out.   You have to look closely.  Use what data there is and use an artist's eye to get the shape.  
I translate cutting down to be the thickness (deep) at the outer edge of the keel/keelson.
When I used a drawing board,  I used a compass to draw a half circle with the origin in the frame line.  A line that hits these arcs at a tangent is the moulded dimension.  Tedious at best.   Painter is easier.  Now I have a file with the range of frame moulded values - each value is a yellow filled circle that is the diameter - a faint black circumference helps -  on its own layer. 
Just kiss the frame line and connect the tangents on the inside.  I use as many as I need to get a line that looks good. Layers are easy to duplicate.  It is quick after some practice.
 
 
 

Galapagos finches?

The Continental shipbuilders were English shipbuilders until they decided not to be.  They used the same books and same Establishments.
The properties of wood is a constant.  The ratio of the size of the timbering to the size of the ship is not a national value.  The species of wood used can be.  There are tables that have different sizes for timbers depending of the species of wood used.  Try not to obsess  about being exact.  Close enough is good enough.  It was wood.  They did not have sophisticated electronic rulers. 
I use Yedlinsky .   Find the ship's class and look up the scantlings.
I find that the Admiralty plans for captured ships are often fairly useless for determining R&S.  The stations are often arbitrary in location and distance.
Some of them are at variable locations.
With as designed plans,  The tables give floor thickness.  The lettering and numbering of the stations reflect the number of frames between each station.
The difference is the width of the space.
As for the moulded dimension,  tables from this era give minimal data for in and out.   You have to look closely.  Use what data there is and use an artist's eye to get the shape.  
I translate cutting down to be the thickness (deep) at the outer edge of the keel/keelson.
When I used a drawing board,  I used a compass to draw a half circle with the origin in the frame line.  A line that hits these arcs at a tangent is the moulded dimension.  Tedious at best.   Painter is easier.  Now I have a file with the range of frame moulded values - each value is a yellow filled circle that is the diameter - a faint black circumference helps -  on its own layer. 
Just kiss the frame line and connect the tangents on the inside.  I use as many as I need to get a line that looks good. Layers are easy to duplicate.  It is quick after some practice.
 
 
 

The Continental shipbuilders were English shipbuilders until they decided not to be.  They used the same books and same Establishments.
The properties of wood is a constant.  The ratio of the size of the timbering to the size of the ship is not a national value.  The species of wood used can be.  There are tables that have different sizes for timbers depending of the species of wood used.  Try not to obsess  about being exact.  Close enough is good enough.  It was wood.  They did not have sophisticated electronic rulers. 
I use Yedlinsky .   Find the ship's class and look up the scantlings.
I find that the Admiralty plans for captured ships are often fairly useless for determining R&S.  The stations are often arbitrary in location and distance.
Some of them are at variable locations.
With as designed plans,  The tables give floor thickness.  The lettering and numbering of the stations reflect the number of frames between each station.
The difference is the width of the space.
As for the moulded dimension,  tables from this era give minimal data for in and out.   You have to look closely.  Use what data there is and use an artist's eye to get the shape.  
I translate cutting down to be the thickness (deep) at the outer edge of the keel/keelson.
When I used a drawing board,  I used a compass to draw a half circle with the origin in the frame line.  A line that hits these arcs at a tangent is the moulded dimension.  Tedious at best.   Painter is easier.  Now I have a file with the range of frame moulded values - each value is a yellow filled circle that is the diameter - a faint black circumference helps -  on its own layer. 
Just kiss the frame line and connect the tangents on the inside.  I use as many as I need to get a line that looks good. Layers are easy to duplicate.  It is quick after some practice.
 
 
 

It is mostly used for old school doped paper covered flying models.  I do not know the magic search terms needed to find their suppliers in EU.
a Google search turned up and article in a 2019 Ropewalk that said that @MrBlueJacket sourced a similar product from a European supplier - perhaps he may provide you a link?

Look up Enterprise in whatever tables of masting and rigging are closest to its year and list them by spar and line.
Look up Surprise and do the same. 
If they are the same:
Mic the spars in the kit and tightly coil each type the rigging line around a dowel and count the number of coils in a 1 inch distance. The number of coils divided into 1 yields the diameter.  The tables are probably line circumference, so the table numbers divided by pi are your values for comparison.   If the kit numbers match the chart you made up for Enterprise then -- well the spar and line stock has to come from somewhere, so why not.  But the research of Enterprise masting and rigging scatlings needs  to be done first.
 
I forgot the blocks - do the same with them.
Block size is determined by the size of its line.
On an actual ship there is a variety of line diameter.  In scale a lot of that diameter is too close to differentiate. It simplifies things a bit.
Unless a ship is one of the rare ones with individual masting and rigging data,  A kit mfg would or should have done the same lookup.
It is then a matter of you being able to accept the compromises made for the material in the kit.

This is obviously opinion and not from any book of laws:
 
This is for any visitors attracted to your title.
It is not really what you are after.
 
"There is a problem - an unavoidable barrier - with any kit supplied sails.  The numbers are huge against any materiel that a kit manufacturer can afford to supply being anywhere close to the canvas being in scale. 
If this is important to you,  but you wish to display sails - a fabric like paper - SilkSpan for example - will get you much closer to realistic.  This is a scratch project - but one requiring almost no additional expenditure on tools.  Being paper,  you can practice and discard as much as is needed.  Instructions abound here and in a SeaWatch publication."
 
You started with linen - actual flax?
As I understand it - the hierarchy is fibers -> yarn -> thread -> rope
Linen yarn at its smallest is about where cotton thread is at its smallest. 
Cotton - made with expensive long fiber starting will be the finest and may be as close to scale draping behavior as any actual cloth gets - it has a special name that I have lost.  Even this may be too translucent for your specifications.
 
Thought experiment:
 
How about using SilkSpan - the thickest of the three choices  (This is flying aircraft models centric materials so their vendors may be a place to look.)
Bookbinders pH neutral PVA will bond paper and dry clear.
You can glue up layers of paper to get the patched effect that you want.
If it is too translucant,  high quality smallest grain oil paint - Rembrandt, Grumbacher, or something similar - oil because water base will affect the paper -
thin ( turp or minieral spirits. Do not know if linseed oil needs to be a part but having it will probably speed drying/polymerization)  start with a white base and tint with whatever color gets to aging effect desired.  Add layers of paint until it is opaque enough.

Look up Enterprise in whatever tables of masting and rigging are closest to its year and list them by spar and line.
Look up Surprise and do the same. 
If they are the same:
Mic the spars in the kit and tightly coil each type the rigging line around a dowel and count the number of coils in a 1 inch distance. The number of coils divided into 1 yields the diameter.  The tables are probably line circumference, so the table numbers divided by pi are your values for comparison.   If the kit numbers match the chart you made up for Enterprise then -- well the spar and line stock has to come from somewhere, so why not.  But the research of Enterprise masting and rigging scatlings needs  to be done first.
 
I forgot the blocks - do the same with them.
Block size is determined by the size of its line.
On an actual ship there is a variety of line diameter.  In scale a lot of that diameter is too close to differentiate. It simplifies things a bit.
Unless a ship is one of the rare ones with individual masting and rigging data,  A kit mfg would or should have done the same lookup.
It is then a matter of you being able to accept the compromises made for the material in the kit.

Look up Enterprise in whatever tables of masting and rigging are closest to its year and list them by spar and line.
Look up Surprise and do the same. 
If they are the same:
Mic the spars in the kit and tightly coil each type the rigging line around a dowel and count the number of coils in a 1 inch distance. The number of coils divided into 1 yields the diameter.  The tables are probably line circumference, so the table numbers divided by pi are your values for comparison.   If the kit numbers match the chart you made up for Enterprise then -- well the spar and line stock has to come from somewhere, so why not.  But the research of Enterprise masting and rigging scatlings needs  to be done first.
 
I forgot the blocks - do the same with them.
Block size is determined by the size of its line.
On an actual ship there is a variety of line diameter.  In scale a lot of that diameter is too close to differentiate. It simplifies things a bit.
Unless a ship is one of the rare ones with individual masting and rigging data,  A kit mfg would or should have done the same lookup.
It is then a matter of you being able to accept the compromises made for the material in the kit.

Were this Japan,  Jim would qualify as a national treasure. His skill, craftsmanship, precision, and material selection has no competition.  His determination to do it right  harkens back  to a lost era and was rare even then. 
Would that he had trained up a group of apprentices.  His passing will leave an immense hole.

Were this Japan,  Jim would qualify as a national treasure. His skill, craftsmanship, precision, and material selection has no competition.  His determination to do it right  harkens back  to a lost era and was rare even then. 
Would that he had trained up a group of apprentices.  His passing will leave an immense hole.

Were this Japan,  Jim would qualify as a national treasure. His skill, craftsmanship, precision, and material selection has no competition.  His determination to do it right  harkens back  to a lost era and was rare even then. 
Would that he had trained up a group of apprentices.  His passing will leave an immense hole.

Were this Japan,  Jim would qualify as a national treasure. His skill, craftsmanship, precision, and material selection has no competition.  His determination to do it right  harkens back  to a lost era and was rare even then. 
Would that he had trained up a group of apprentices.  His passing will leave an immense hole.