Jaager

If you have a scroll saw, a bandsaw,  or a hand frat saw,  and a disk sander  a near infinite variety  of sanding block shapes and sizes can be freed from a cork yoga block.  They are sorta large and cost ~$20.  The sanding media can be attached using rubber cement or even with staples. 

As for the request in the title of this post:
rather than use something that is a cartoon and out of scale do a site search =  silkspan
low cost  - it used to come in three weights - it or similar products might be available with those options from dealers catering to fabric covered flying aircraft builders.  Those dealers may even have the heating irons with a curved surface and a power control knob which would be about the ideal tool for bending wood.

It was a long while ago, but I a photo of an open sided assembly line decorator model production in Vietnam.
The think the formula is:  a country with a skilled, but under utilized work force, willing to work for much less than their skills are worth because their economy is temporarily stuck on a sandbar.   When the economy recovers or has its initial bloom, this sort of operation probably has to reappear in the next country with the proper factors.
There used to be something named Starving Artists - a large room with a lot of people, each behind their own easel, all copying a master painting projected at the front of the room.    I imagine something similar for mass produced decorator models.  I do not imagine someone just looking to earn enough for their next hit could be a satisfactory worker.
 
Your two have something extra - the designer had an eye for elegant design, the lines have artistic curves.  The wood is not pallet quality crap. It looks like Acer, or Beech or Birch.
 
They are not actually ship models as we would define them here. They are simulacrum of ship models.  Tasteful background decoration.

Underhill probably had the most influence on me.  It is not just about scratch building.  Beyond the hull fabrication, - the framing,  what it has can be used to improve the various components that come with kits, too.  When you build the various parts of a ship from raw materials, instead of using the kit supplied parts, you are well on your way to becoming a scratch builder.  The final step makes you independent - except for obtaining suitable plans.  There are a finite number of them, but more than enough for several lifetimes.  That our subject is finite instead of open ended makes it approachable.  

Actually, that is my view of the progression too.  I think you have misread me.
I see kits as the gateway.  When I started, it was everyone for himself - find your own way.  Early 1970's.  There were hobby shops with owners who could help some with suggestions about subject choices.
I sought no help, so  I started with the Scientific kit for Sea Witch.  A clipper is a very poor choice for a first kit.  But the Scientific kits were not kits of serious models.  They were decorator models.  Simplistic in their components, and mostly impressionism when completed.  I did not realize that at the time.   Follow on was Eagle/Arrowsic  topsail schooner - a rewarding build - augmenting it lead me into scratch. 
 
The Shipwright Series of kits is a very gentle introduction that does not cost all that much.  It does not take long to get a finished product that provides positive feedback. 
Unless you have a professional background in fine woodworking or a youth or family involved in it,  starting with scratch is a long shot proposition. 
 
A factor here,  and one that I did not predict, is that a significant proportion of the members,  probably a high percentage - see kits as an end in themselves.  Their imaginations stop there.  I can see why this is so, given the very high attrition rate with scratch and the strong current fad of including internal structures that are hidden with a fully planked and decked model.  There is also a shared collegial aspect with the kit-centric community.  Scratch builders tend to be cantankerous, independent, and more than a bit eccentric.   There is probably a Masters if not a Doctorate in Psychology buried in defining the personality differences in these two groups.   

It was a long while ago, but I a photo of an open sided assembly line decorator model production in Vietnam.
The think the formula is:  a country with a skilled, but under utilized work force, willing to work for much less than their skills are worth because their economy is temporarily stuck on a sandbar.   When the economy recovers or has its initial bloom, this sort of operation probably has to reappear in the next country with the proper factors.
There used to be something named Starving Artists - a large room with a lot of people, each behind their own easel, all copying a master painting projected at the front of the room.    I imagine something similar for mass produced decorator models.  I do not imagine someone just looking to earn enough for their next hit could be a satisfactory worker.
 
Your two have something extra - the designer had an eye for elegant design, the lines have artistic curves.  The wood is not pallet quality crap. It looks like Acer, or Beech or Birch.
 
They are not actually ship models as we would define them here. They are simulacrum of ship models.  Tasteful background decoration.

If you have a scroll saw, a bandsaw,  or a hand frat saw,  and a disk sander  a near infinite variety  of sanding block shapes and sizes can be freed from a cork yoga block.  They are sorta large and cost ~$20.  The sanding media can be attached using rubber cement or even with staples. 

If you have a scroll saw, a bandsaw,  or a hand frat saw,  and a disk sander  a near infinite variety  of sanding block shapes and sizes can be freed from a cork yoga block.  They are sorta large and cost ~$20.  The sanding media can be attached using rubber cement or even with staples. 

Underhill probably had the most influence on me.  It is not just about scratch building.  Beyond the hull fabrication, - the framing,  what it has can be used to improve the various components that come with kits, too.  When you build the various parts of a ship from raw materials, instead of using the kit supplied parts, you are well on your way to becoming a scratch builder.  The final step makes you independent - except for obtaining suitable plans.  There are a finite number of them, but more than enough for several lifetimes.  That our subject is finite instead of open ended makes it approachable.  

Actually, that is my view of the progression too.  I think you have misread me.
I see kits as the gateway.  When I started, it was everyone for himself - find your own way.  Early 1970's.  There were hobby shops with owners who could help some with suggestions about subject choices.
I sought no help, so  I started with the Scientific kit for Sea Witch.  A clipper is a very poor choice for a first kit.  But the Scientific kits were not kits of serious models.  They were decorator models.  Simplistic in their components, and mostly impressionism when completed.  I did not realize that at the time.   Follow on was Eagle/Arrowsic  topsail schooner - a rewarding build - augmenting it lead me into scratch. 
 
The Shipwright Series of kits is a very gentle introduction that does not cost all that much.  It does not take long to get a finished product that provides positive feedback. 
Unless you have a professional background in fine woodworking or a youth or family involved in it,  starting with scratch is a long shot proposition. 
 
A factor here,  and one that I did not predict, is that a significant proportion of the members,  probably a high percentage - see kits as an end in themselves.  Their imaginations stop there.  I can see why this is so, given the very high attrition rate with scratch and the strong current fad of including internal structures that are hidden with a fully planked and decked model.  There is also a shared collegial aspect with the kit-centric community.  Scratch builders tend to be cantankerous, independent, and more than a bit eccentric.   There is probably a Masters if not a Doctorate in Psychology buried in defining the personality differences in these two groups.   

If you have a scroll saw, a bandsaw,  or a hand frat saw,  and a disk sander  a near infinite variety  of sanding block shapes and sizes can be freed from a cork yoga block.  They are sorta large and cost ~$20.  The sanding media can be attached using rubber cement or even with staples. 

If you have a scroll saw, a bandsaw,  or a hand frat saw,  and a disk sander  a near infinite variety  of sanding block shapes and sizes can be freed from a cork yoga block.  They are sorta large and cost ~$20.  The sanding media can be attached using rubber cement or even with staples. 

Underhill probably had the most influence on me.  It is not just about scratch building.  Beyond the hull fabrication, - the framing,  what it has can be used to improve the various components that come with kits, too.  When you build the various parts of a ship from raw materials, instead of using the kit supplied parts, you are well on your way to becoming a scratch builder.  The final step makes you independent - except for obtaining suitable plans.  There are a finite number of them, but more than enough for several lifetimes.  That our subject is finite instead of open ended makes it approachable.  

Antonio,
 
If you find yourself becoming a bit overwhelmed and frustrated, a broader perspective may help cement your interest in exploring all this.
 
This is strictly my biased and outside observation, but I have a poor opinion of the old Mamoli kits.  You are swimming with an anchor hanging from your neck,  given the quality that you are working against. 
(the Mamoli name is under new management and is a subunit of a larger concern now I believe.) 
 
If wood and sail is to be your area of focus:
It may give you a more realistic expectation if you ignore anything from plastic kit modeling except the painting skills.  Those specific skills might put you ahead, since may of us view painting as a chore and afterthought.  Often, any painting is done with wood.
 
A firm grounding in our specific modeling skills can get you past frustration and perceived barriers. Consider starting from scratch.
The Model Expo - Model Shipways  -Shipwright series looks to be a low cost and rewarding path into all this.
 
When I consider the possibility of a new scratch build, I check the build logs to see if anyone else has selected the ship.  What I see is a casualty rate that makes what my Virginian forebears experienced with Pickett's Charge look like a walk in the park.   I do not know about kits, but my guess is that it is also a heavy casualty rate.😉

Antonio,
 
If you find yourself becoming a bit overwhelmed and frustrated, a broader perspective may help cement your interest in exploring all this.
 
This is strictly my biased and outside observation, but I have a poor opinion of the old Mamoli kits.  You are swimming with an anchor hanging from your neck,  given the quality that you are working against. 
(the Mamoli name is under new management and is a subunit of a larger concern now I believe.) 
 
If wood and sail is to be your area of focus:
It may give you a more realistic expectation if you ignore anything from plastic kit modeling except the painting skills.  Those specific skills might put you ahead, since may of us view painting as a chore and afterthought.  Often, any painting is done with wood.
 
A firm grounding in our specific modeling skills can get you past frustration and perceived barriers. Consider starting from scratch.
The Model Expo - Model Shipways  -Shipwright series looks to be a low cost and rewarding path into all this.
 
When I consider the possibility of a new scratch build, I check the build logs to see if anyone else has selected the ship.  What I see is a casualty rate that makes what my Virginian forebears experienced with Pickett's Charge look like a walk in the park.   I do not know about kits, but my guess is that it is also a heavy casualty rate.😉

It comes down to your objective in building your model.
 
If your goal is to produce a model that is as historically accurate as is reasonable, forgo any embossing or dimpling of the copper plates.
Way more nails were used than any punch tool will produce.
The nails were hammered flush.  They are difficult to see even on the existing 1:1 reproductions or the few survivors whose currently done copper plates are a joke when compared to the practice of 200 years ago. 
A model would have to be larger than 1:48 for visual evidence of how the plates were attached to be valid.
Any plates made of actual copper will be over scale thickness on 1:48 or smaller.  Think painted paper instead.
 
 

It comes down to your objective in building your model.
 
If your goal is to produce a model that is as historically accurate as is reasonable, forgo any embossing or dimpling of the copper plates.
Way more nails were used than any punch tool will produce.
The nails were hammered flush.  They are difficult to see even on the existing 1:1 reproductions or the few survivors whose currently done copper plates are a joke when compared to the practice of 200 years ago. 
A model would have to be larger than 1:48 for visual evidence of how the plates were attached to be valid.
Any plates made of actual copper will be over scale thickness on 1:48 or smaller.  Think painted paper instead.
 
 

Paper?
 
I did a Google search just now for barrel making plans and a lot came up.

It comes down to your objective in building your model.
 
If your goal is to produce a model that is as historically accurate as is reasonable, forgo any embossing or dimpling of the copper plates.
Way more nails were used than any punch tool will produce.
The nails were hammered flush.  They are difficult to see even on the existing 1:1 reproductions or the few survivors whose currently done copper plates are a joke when compared to the practice of 200 years ago. 
A model would have to be larger than 1:48 for visual evidence of how the plates were attached to be valid.
Any plates made of actual copper will be over scale thickness on 1:48 or smaller.  Think painted paper instead.
 
 

It comes down to your objective in building your model.
 
If your goal is to produce a model that is as historically accurate as is reasonable, forgo any embossing or dimpling of the copper plates.
Way more nails were used than any punch tool will produce.
The nails were hammered flush.  They are difficult to see even on the existing 1:1 reproductions or the few survivors whose currently done copper plates are a joke when compared to the practice of 200 years ago. 
A model would have to be larger than 1:48 for visual evidence of how the plates were attached to be valid.
Any plates made of actual copper will be over scale thickness on 1:48 or smaller.  Think painted paper instead.
 
 

Paper?
 
I did a Google search just now for barrel making plans and a lot came up.

PVA is polyvinyl acetate.  Ac is an organic chemistry abbreviation for acetate.
Changing Ac to AC is probably advertising hype.
 
I see five types of PVA:
pH neutral (pH7)  bookbinders - good for cotton or linen rigging
white - dries clear
yellow - wood workers - dries amber - is acidic
Titebond II - yellow - water resistant - dries amber - is more acidic
Titebond III  - brown - water proof - dries brown - is a lot more acidic
 
white or yellow is probably sufficient
Titebond II if you are compulsive
Titebond III if the model is to be aquatic - otherwise probably not worth the negatives
 
I doubt that there are that many companies that synthesize the base chemicals so most name brands are probably different names on containers of the same stuff.

PVA is polyvinyl acetate.  Ac is an organic chemistry abbreviation for acetate.
Changing Ac to AC is probably advertising hype.
 
I see five types of PVA:
pH neutral (pH7)  bookbinders - good for cotton or linen rigging
white - dries clear
yellow - wood workers - dries amber - is acidic
Titebond II - yellow - water resistant - dries amber - is more acidic
Titebond III  - brown - water proof - dries brown - is a lot more acidic
 
white or yellow is probably sufficient
Titebond II if you are compulsive
Titebond III if the model is to be aquatic - otherwise probably not worth the negatives
 
I doubt that there are that many companies that synthesize the base chemicals so most name brands are probably different names on containers of the same stuff.

PVA is polyvinyl acetate.  Ac is an organic chemistry abbreviation for acetate.
Changing Ac to AC is probably advertising hype.
 
I see five types of PVA:
pH neutral (pH7)  bookbinders - good for cotton or linen rigging
white - dries clear
yellow - wood workers - dries amber - is acidic
Titebond II - yellow - water resistant - dries amber - is more acidic
Titebond III  - brown - water proof - dries brown - is a lot more acidic
 
white or yellow is probably sufficient
Titebond II if you are compulsive
Titebond III if the model is to be aquatic - otherwise probably not worth the negatives
 
I doubt that there are that many companies that synthesize the base chemicals so most name brands are probably different names on containers of the same stuff.

PVA is polyvinyl acetate.  Ac is an organic chemistry abbreviation for acetate.
Changing Ac to AC is probably advertising hype.
 
I see five types of PVA:
pH neutral (pH7)  bookbinders - good for cotton or linen rigging
white - dries clear
yellow - wood workers - dries amber - is acidic
Titebond II - yellow - water resistant - dries amber - is more acidic
Titebond III  - brown - water proof - dries brown - is a lot more acidic
 
white or yellow is probably sufficient
Titebond II if you are compulsive
Titebond III if the model is to be aquatic - otherwise probably not worth the negatives
 
I doubt that there are that many companies that synthesize the base chemicals so most name brands are probably different names on containers of the same stuff.