Jaager

The first step is to seal the cut ends.  What you use is not critical.  Hot paraffin, shellac,  old varnish,  old paint - oil based is probably better.  Thick - the object is to make it difficult for the water to get out at open ends of the tubes that are wood.  Different rates water migration produce stress = splitting and checking
 
Length:  that depends on you - close to the longest that you use on your bench - a tad more to account for loss from seasoning.
De-bark:  now if you have the patience.   It allows the water easier egress.  It removes the eggs and larvae of wood borers. 
A draw knife or spoke shave makes a quick job of it if the branch is secured from moving.
The old rule is one year per inch of thickness to reach water concentration equilibrium. 
I would aim at ~2" thickness and 2 foot length for my system.
Seal the ends NOW.
 
Wood can do ugly things as it dries,  splits and checks ate the worse-  bow and twist is not helpful -
Protect for the elements - no rain or snow - direct sun = uneven drying
good air flow around all sides = sticker the rick
Serious downward pressure - weights on top of the rick may reduce twist and bow
 
 

If you can mill it to the needed dimensions, an inexpensive source of filling material:
 
in the US,  dwellings are framed using 2x4 by 8' Fir or Pine lumber.  A mega store building supply chain sells it for< $4 each
It is a softwood - evergreen - not difficult on cutting edges.  Pick clear straight stock.  As long as it is not sappy Pine, it glues well.
If you have access, a free supply might be had from a building site from the end cuttings and scrap, if you ask.

There are models, yes.  I do not believe that I said that models could not be built. 
But like every kit of a ship with a famous name and no complete plans from its time ,  that the result actually matches the original is wishful thinking at best.
In the circumstance it is honest to make the label reflect the fact that it is one man's guess and thus a decorator model and not an actual historical representation.
"The ship name if model makers name had built it."
He made those two  models - and as excellent as they may be - he essentially gave them any old name from an historical perspective.

There are models, yes.  I do not believe that I said that models could not be built. 
But like every kit of a ship with a famous name and no complete plans from its time ,  that the result actually matches the original is wishful thinking at best.
In the circumstance it is honest to make the label reflect the fact that it is one man's guess and thus a decorator model and not an actual historical representation.
"The ship name if model makers name had built it."
He made those two  models - and as excellent as they may be - he essentially gave them any old name from an historical perspective.

Jules,
 
I am coming at this from a particular bias as far as my attachment of relative values.
That is POF model building.  The English plans are often detailed enough for me to develop frame timber patterns with almost no traditional lofting (i.e.  using XZ and YZ points to get the XY data that I need.)
 
The Dutch plans would essentially be following the directions for a design that are in Deane's Doctrine.   That is a lot of hands on lofting and the result is a best guess because of the number of choices that need to be made along the way.  One minor advantage with the Dutch hull is that there seems to be s long section on either side of the deadflat that are a replication - sort of barge-like.  The English started a slope change almost immediately on either side. 
Because Deane used arcs - a compass - something that I have taken as the core of whole moulding - there is a sameness with any design that follows the method. 
You are describing something similar. 
What Deane did using 5 data points per WL and a flexible batten on paper,  the Dutch appeared to do in the yard using the actual planking. 
 
I think that the Dutch used too much "you just gotta know" in their decisions for me to even think about building a hull using what data that they have left us.
I do concede that my long ago ambition to build Deane's Royal Charles 1672 - the one that came after the one that the Dutch stole - would be a fantasy rather than what the ship actually looked like.  There are no plans, jut the data that Deane started with. 
 

Jules,
 
I am coming at this from a particular bias as far as my attachment of relative values.
That is POF model building.  The English plans are often detailed enough for me to develop frame timber patterns with almost no traditional lofting (i.e.  using XZ and YZ points to get the XY data that I need.)
 
The Dutch plans would essentially be following the directions for a design that are in Deane's Doctrine.   That is a lot of hands on lofting and the result is a best guess because of the number of choices that need to be made along the way.  One minor advantage with the Dutch hull is that there seems to be s long section on either side of the deadflat that are a replication - sort of barge-like.  The English started a slope change almost immediately on either side. 
Because Deane used arcs - a compass - something that I have taken as the core of whole moulding - there is a sameness with any design that follows the method. 
You are describing something similar. 
What Deane did using 5 data points per WL and a flexible batten on paper,  the Dutch appeared to do in the yard using the actual planking. 
 
I think that the Dutch used too much "you just gotta know" in their decisions for me to even think about building a hull using what data that they have left us.
I do concede that my long ago ambition to build Deane's Royal Charles 1672 - the one that came after the one that the Dutch stole - would be a fantasy rather than what the ship actually looked like.  There are no plans, jut the data that Deane started with. 
 

The "they" that I was referring to are the English.
I was mostly doing a criticism  of the English.
 
The supposed advantage of a complete design on paper and the use frames at every station - frame first - is probably not all that significant.  The design is still based on intuition and past performance.  It is much better for us who wish to do a reproduction though..
 
Something scientific would have to wait for a test basin.  Even then real significance would need the development of precise instrumentation and a way to record the results.  I think a smoked drum was state of the art up until well into the 20th century.  Identifying laminar flow and looking for eddies.
 
I do not think we are disagreeing all that much.  I just think we have different standards for what constitutes a sophisticated design document. 
I believe that the Dutch started with something on paper.  It was just basic. 
What the English or French started with on paper probably produced a hull with less variability between what different yards would produce  than would obtain between the various Dutch yards - if some new factor was introduced.  The Dutch system probably selected for a degree of commonality with the shipwrights.
 
 
Yes.   But 10 foot sandwiches would be a bear for my method.  
But the corvette  Falmouth of 1827  has three 16'  sandwiches, and six 8'.  The USN designer certainly did not over exert himself with those plans.

Jules,
 
Are you proposing that the technical drawings were more than the deadflat, one fore, one aft,  the shape of the stem,  the stern "AP" cross sectional shapes?
Or maybe a couple or three more than one at either end?
 

I just read - either in NRJ or here - that the scale was divided in  1/12 th's  and not intervals of 4 like Imperial.  12 inches to the foot.  And just what a foot was to begin with varies area to area.  The different scales in Chapman's ANM make it obvious that having an interest in modeling ships outside the British Empire involves this additional per country difference in weights and measures.

I don't wish to horn in on Bob Cleek's patch  @Bob Cleek ,  but it appears that the expensive model specific brands and lines are subject to whim and fad.  
If you are serious, the convenience of water based paint and a synthetic binder may be an illusion when the equation has reached its final solution.
A safer and more dependable route would be to go with enamel paint and go to the source.  A tube of artist's oil from a quality line has the proper pigment particle size, can be easily diluted, used for brush or spray application, and be available when needed.   Plus a long shelf life.
This companies line has 4 greys = https://www.dickblick.com/products/gamblin-artists-oil-colors/?Size=37 ml (1.25 oz)&
Doing a custom mix - it would probably be wise to produce a lot more than the estimated need.
This is too late for your present project, but the next one.....
Bob has some in depth directions on site that should come up with a search.
 

I don't wish to horn in on Bob Cleek's patch  @Bob Cleek ,  but it appears that the expensive model specific brands and lines are subject to whim and fad.  
If you are serious, the convenience of water based paint and a synthetic binder may be an illusion when the equation has reached its final solution.
A safer and more dependable route would be to go with enamel paint and go to the source.  A tube of artist's oil from a quality line has the proper pigment particle size, can be easily diluted, used for brush or spray application, and be available when needed.   Plus a long shelf life.
This companies line has 4 greys = https://www.dickblick.com/products/gamblin-artists-oil-colors/?Size=37 ml (1.25 oz)&
Doing a custom mix - it would probably be wise to produce a lot more than the estimated need.
This is too late for your present project, but the next one.....
Bob has some in depth directions on site that should come up with a search.
 

I don't wish to horn in on Bob Cleek's patch  @Bob Cleek ,  but it appears that the expensive model specific brands and lines are subject to whim and fad.  
If you are serious, the convenience of water based paint and a synthetic binder may be an illusion when the equation has reached its final solution.
A safer and more dependable route would be to go with enamel paint and go to the source.  A tube of artist's oil from a quality line has the proper pigment particle size, can be easily diluted, used for brush or spray application, and be available when needed.   Plus a long shelf life.
This companies line has 4 greys = https://www.dickblick.com/products/gamblin-artists-oil-colors/?Size=37 ml (1.25 oz)&
Doing a custom mix - it would probably be wise to produce a lot more than the estimated need.
This is too late for your present project, but the next one.....
Bob has some in depth directions on site that should come up with a search.
 

I don't wish to horn in on Bob Cleek's patch  @Bob Cleek ,  but it appears that the expensive model specific brands and lines are subject to whim and fad.  
If you are serious, the convenience of water based paint and a synthetic binder may be an illusion when the equation has reached its final solution.
A safer and more dependable route would be to go with enamel paint and go to the source.  A tube of artist's oil from a quality line has the proper pigment particle size, can be easily diluted, used for brush or spray application, and be available when needed.   Plus a long shelf life.
This companies line has 4 greys = https://www.dickblick.com/products/gamblin-artists-oil-colors/?Size=37 ml (1.25 oz)&
Doing a custom mix - it would probably be wise to produce a lot more than the estimated need.
This is too late for your present project, but the next one.....
Bob has some in depth directions on site that should come up with a search.
 

I don't wish to horn in on Bob Cleek's patch  @Bob Cleek ,  but it appears that the expensive model specific brands and lines are subject to whim and fad.  
If you are serious, the convenience of water based paint and a synthetic binder may be an illusion when the equation has reached its final solution.
A safer and more dependable route would be to go with enamel paint and go to the source.  A tube of artist's oil from a quality line has the proper pigment particle size, can be easily diluted, used for brush or spray application, and be available when needed.   Plus a long shelf life.
This companies line has 4 greys = https://www.dickblick.com/products/gamblin-artists-oil-colors/?Size=37 ml (1.25 oz)&
Doing a custom mix - it would probably be wise to produce a lot more than the estimated need.
This is too late for your present project, but the next one.....
Bob has some in depth directions on site that should come up with a search.
 

I don't wish to horn in on Bob Cleek's patch  @Bob Cleek ,  but it appears that the expensive model specific brands and lines are subject to whim and fad.  
If you are serious, the convenience of water based paint and a synthetic binder may be an illusion when the equation has reached its final solution.
A safer and more dependable route would be to go with enamel paint and go to the source.  A tube of artist's oil from a quality line has the proper pigment particle size, can be easily diluted, used for brush or spray application, and be available when needed.   Plus a long shelf life.
This companies line has 4 greys = https://www.dickblick.com/products/gamblin-artists-oil-colors/?Size=37 ml (1.25 oz)&
Doing a custom mix - it would probably be wise to produce a lot more than the estimated need.
This is too late for your present project, but the next one.....
Bob has some in depth directions on site that should come up with a search.
 

Jules,
 
The first step in this is to define just what constitutes an effective design plan.
 
I think that any controversy about Dutch ship design methods are caught up in a side eddy.  Neither will produce an optimal hull.  To be fair, the English method does not either.  They run continuous experiments with no controls.  They make multiple changes instead of just one.  The main probable advantage is that by having a large three axis plan to start,  there is documentation for replication if it is a successful design.  If a design is a failure, they could only guess at which factors were the wrong ones.
 
A comparison of a draftsman at work in Baker and what Rembrandt shows  a significant difference in the size of the drafting table and the size of the compass as well as the size of the sheet.  The two are doing different things,  except for a few basic factors.
 
Van Duivenvoorde describes a process that leaves too much open to chance.   I think that relying on 'the natural shape that bottom planking would take' as the sole starting point would probably produce hulls similar to a Birch bark canoe.  Jan Rijcksen is likely defining the deadrise and the breadth of the midship,  fore, and after mould frames (as well as the stem and stern).  They would come first.  Then the planking.   The basic type of ship is thus set.   The shipwrights would not need patterns from a mould loft to assemble any of the five key components.   It would be silly/pointless to do what Jan Rijcksen is doing after the hull is built.  There is not enough there to get an exact repeat.
 
 
 
 
 

Jules,
 
Are you proposing that the technical drawings were more than the deadflat, one fore, one aft,  the shape of the stem,  the stern "AP" cross sectional shapes?
Or maybe a couple or three more than one at either end?
 

I just read - either in NRJ or here - that the scale was divided in  1/12 th's  and not intervals of 4 like Imperial.  12 inches to the foot.  And just what a foot was to begin with varies area to area.  The different scales in Chapman's ANM make it obvious that having an interest in modeling ships outside the British Empire involves this additional per country difference in weights and measures.

It appears that Witsen had  more reasons than being an interested academic (either of his books would be more than adequate to serve as a dissertation).
 
I propose that there is a basic problem with the validity of the product.  In the actual shell first construction, the species of wood used for the bottom and the dimensions probably made a difference in the conformation.   A model built using the same methods would be about 1-2% of the size.  The species of wood would affect the possibilities.  I suspect that the shapes that the wood will allow does not scale.  I propose that at model scale, the planking will be stiffer and more rigid.  The properties of the materials being used probably preclude any possibility of success.
 
The model builders are not doing a new design.  They are trying to replicate a published plan.  I think that their approach has at least one too many variables.  It is probably an either/or situation.  It would probably require the use of a special material for the scale planking.  It may then be possible to use the original method at scale to derive a valid scale replication of the original design.   It would probably not be something that makes for a good show on a final model.   
 
 
To get the desired predetermined shape, I see two paths.   Loft frames from the plans and fix the planking to them -  POF =  Plank ON Frame.
Carve an inner plug with the shape of the frames.  Plank over the plug.  Remove it and then add the frame timbers inside. 
The plug can have a Jenga style structure.  It can be pieces that make a solid until a key piece is withdrawn.  It would match the buttock lines - long and vertical.   If the design is for the middle to come out first and the sides moved to the middle and then out, a hull with significant tumble home can be planked.  I would not trust only wax and/or shellac/varnish to keep glue seepage from bonding the planking to the plug.  A Saran Wrap layer would be safer. 
 
 
 
 
 

The Atlantic Ocean is an interference for my direct knowledge of this, but I think that the English call several species of Pine: "fir".   I think their "fir built" brigs were actually built using Baltic obtained Pine species.
 
Here in North America,  there is a wide variety of properties from our many Pine species.  Eastern White Pine is very light colored, clear, soft, and a joy to work,  but I would not think it suitable for a full size vessel.
There once was a yellow Pine that could be hard enough to turn nails.  I think it was used for decking in the 19th century - and much else because it was loved to death. 
 
One possible scenario: In a war emergency,  when durability is not a goal, various species of Pine were probably readily available in large size, easy to mill, and maybe the sap could be anti fungal enough to make up for the lack of seasoning.  It would be a warship version of Kleenex with the additional advantage of being useless to the English if they captured one.

The Atlantic Ocean is an interference for my direct knowledge of this, but I think that the English call several species of Pine: "fir".   I think their "fir built" brigs were actually built using Baltic obtained Pine species.
 
Here in North America,  there is a wide variety of properties from our many Pine species.  Eastern White Pine is very light colored, clear, soft, and a joy to work,  but I would not think it suitable for a full size vessel.
There once was a yellow Pine that could be hard enough to turn nails.  I think it was used for decking in the 19th century - and much else because it was loved to death. 
 
One possible scenario: In a war emergency,  when durability is not a goal, various species of Pine were probably readily available in large size, easy to mill, and maybe the sap could be anti fungal enough to make up for the lack of seasoning.  It would be a warship version of Kleenex with the additional advantage of being useless to the English if they captured one.

It may be wise to drop back 10 and punt again.
 
Consider:
ZAZ6345  ---  the full size print is L 31 and available
the NMM  JPEGs for the details  are large enough to get what is needed:
ZAZ6344     ZAZ6348     ZAZ6349
 
A Vigilant lookup will get a print of a painting with rigging details.
 
Scratch is difficult enough without starting with ambiguous plans.

It may be wise to drop back 10 and punt again.
 
Consider:
ZAZ6345  ---  the full size print is L 31 and available
the NMM  JPEGs for the details  are large enough to get what is needed:
ZAZ6344     ZAZ6348     ZAZ6349
 
A Vigilant lookup will get a print of a painting with rigging details.
 
Scratch is difficult enough without starting with ambiguous plans.

Toes?   In the context of worn out hemp, not a clue.
Is tow a noun for a line with that function?
 
 
Click the field of focus back a magnitude and:   would keratin fibers be a binder for tar?   Equine, bovine, or swine hooves are water proof?

The Atlantic Ocean is an interference for my direct knowledge of this, but I think that the English call several species of Pine: "fir".   I think their "fir built" brigs were actually built using Baltic obtained Pine species.
 
Here in North America,  there is a wide variety of properties from our many Pine species.  Eastern White Pine is very light colored, clear, soft, and a joy to work,  but I would not think it suitable for a full size vessel.
There once was a yellow Pine that could be hard enough to turn nails.  I think it was used for decking in the 19th century - and much else because it was loved to death. 
 
One possible scenario: In a war emergency,  when durability is not a goal, various species of Pine were probably readily available in large size, easy to mill, and maybe the sap could be anti fungal enough to make up for the lack of seasoning.  It would be a warship version of Kleenex with the additional advantage of being useless to the English if they captured one.