Jaager

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.

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments.  Well, they did work.
 

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments.  Well, they did work.
 

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments.  Well, they did work.
 

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments.  Well, they did work.
 

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments.  Well, they did work.
 

I have not checked any references so these are open targets for those with more data.
 
I think that some of the rules are:
maximum single plank width -  10"   with maybe 12" for exceptions like the garboard
minimum single plank width  - no less than 50% of the max.
Large ships can survive with 10" planks - small ships probably want ~6"
A gore of 6 to at most 10 strakes is about right.
At the stem rabbet and sternpost rabbet the run should be near horizontal
The overall run should be sweet.
 
It is about juggling all of these factors

As a gauge for how relentless this accumulation can be, do you have a serious shop vac pulling in the sawdust whenever the saw is running?

It is the circular stern that I am placing at the 1860 +/-  and dismissing as being outside my focus era.
I also kinda put circular in the merchant ship bucket.
From the beginning, I have found the thought of iron and steel hulls,  iron masts and yards , chain and steel cable rigging to be too intimidating to model.

As a gauge for how relentless this accumulation can be, do you have a serious shop vac pulling in the sawdust whenever the saw is running?

It is the circular stern that I am placing at the 1860 +/-  and dismissing as being outside my focus era.
I also kinda put circular in the merchant ship bucket.
From the beginning, I have found the thought of iron and steel hulls,  iron masts and yards , chain and steel cable rigging to be too intimidating to model.

I do not know how to write this so that it comes across in the way that I intend it. 
I mean this as one way to look at it.  It may well be incorrect.  But it is a vulnerable flank if you disagree
 
 
I do not place much value in using the survivors from 1765 1799 1800-on as sources of information for how these vessels looked when launched.  Especially "officers country" in the stern.
They were "improved" - remodeled - rebuilt - about every 20 years.  This was done by sequential generations who were hostile to the past and ashamed of and embarrassed by older practices.  They were aggressively "modern" in their outlook.  A new "modern" every 20 years at a time of profound tech change. 
Then, when GB or the US became wealthy enough to have surplus to preserve some of the past - it was done by strong personalities who were more driven by preconceived visions in their imaginations than what was left of actual past documentation.
 
For the most part absolutist historians have been left with hodgepodge  monsters too substantially altered to rescue back to their original iterations.  They are probably more valuable remaining as what they are.  But what that is - is far from representing their as launched versions.
 
Zealous PR people tend to exaggerate if not outright lie about what they are selling.
 
Almost everything in your examples are post 1860.  I have to draw a line for the sake of my sanity.  It is still far to broad, but 1860 is a hard limit for me.

You may have better luck if the English word is spelled correctly not david  but davit.
I think that a rough definition using "fish" as a verb   is:   
a fish davit would be  a line with a hook on the distant end attached to the outer end of a pole
 
to fish means hooking something in the water and pulling it up.
 a cathead crane can get a heavy anchor up and out of the water but it will hang like a bell
to tie it down means rotating it ~ 90 degrees and securing it to the side of the ship so that it is not a wrecking ball.
Given the weight of the anchor on a liner fishing and rotating the fluke end was probably a non-trivial chore.
I wonder if the tool used to do it - the fish davit - could not be loose -  a disposable item - not really a permanent part of the hull?