Jaager

Phil,
I was pretty sure that it is a labor intensive exercise - but the process being described above does not sound like it is fire and forget either.   I liked WordPerfect. (I also liked PicturePublisher.)    I have found MSWord to be more complex than I care to deal with.  WordPad is fairly basic  and does as much as I need - when I mix text with pictures.  For just text, EditPad is enough.   WordPad does not have many options when it comes to save formats.  I doubt any of them offer any sort of compression.   My log's .RTF file is 190 Meg.   I  did not consider that MSWord could save as PDF,  but I am not surprised.  I did not even install MSOffice.  But then, I still only have a land line.  Who knew my fate was to go from cutting edge to dinosaur?
 
Wow!  I just used CloudConvert and it turned a 190 Meg .rtf  into a 4Meg .pdf.
 

If it is your own log that you want a copy of,  I have a copy of mine by doing this:
Use WordPad to compose the log.   The .TXT   from it can be Copy Pasted from WordPad to this site.
A file of JPEG can be used as the source for what gets Saved in the WordPad document and a place marker in the TXT file can mark which and where the JPEG go for the site log.
 
I just checked and the TXT here can be Copy Pasted into a WordPad document and the images can be also.
The  from you to the site part would not take very much more effort than composing and formatting directly on the site.
The  from the site to you  copying of another author's work will be a tad tedious,  but it does offer the choice of omitting 3rd party comments and anything else that is unwanted.
 
A WordPad file with images tends to be a large one.  I wonder if a .RTF file can be converted to a .PDF file using one of the free Web sites that offer this?
 
 

I am guessing that you will be doing this POB?
If so, then what you are naming "the frames"  are named "bulkheads" in the POB world.  What they actually are = moulds or molds.   
 
Laser cutting makes sense if you are setting up to make 100 identical kits and want a convenient and economical way to get multiple identical parts.  Unless you are doing the laser programing for computer reasons instead of just tool to get model parts,  the time spent is difficult to justify to make one copy.
 
If you do not have a motorized scroll saw, for one model and a hull that is not likely to have a lot of moulds, a hand operated fret saw or coping saw will do an excellent job of freeing the moulds from a sheet of wood or plywood.  Sanding blocks will get you to the line.  You can also use thicker stock than a laser will want to vaporize.
 
Get the patterns by tracing what is on the plans if 1:1 or use a scanner -  If the scale is to be different, there are Xerox machines that reduce or enlarge -  or scan the plans of the moulds into your computer and use a drawing program to change to scale and print the patterns out.  PS in the cloud has a <one month free trial if you do not own the necessary program.
 

I constantly use the term "bend" in framing because otherwise "frame" for everything that is wood becomes ambiguous - unless you use modifying adjectives.
 
A bend is a pair of frames.  The timbers of one overlap the timber butts of its partner. 
 
Efficient shipbuilders and POF modelers who do not wish to endure constant frustration (fighting nature) build their framing as bends.
 I sense in post #41 you are using "frame" to describe a bend.
I have no intuition when it comes to metric for something like this, but I will try.
 
Station  =  1680mm       A station is "always" the middle of a bend. 
Room and Space =  560mm
 
For POF - with frames on display:
Now, at this point there are some decisions to be made:   Absolute prototype replication or an attractive model
 
560mm / 3 = 186.7mm (7.3")   so a 2/3 room  1/3 space - which looks good, but has the individual frame  a bit thin.
An 8" frame = ~ 200mm
560mm - 200mm -200mm =  160mm    (6.3")  space.   Close enough to be attractive
 
Hahn style:  all bends,  frames wider such that for an individual R&S there is no space - every other bend is omitted.   Faster to build - significant savings on lumber - except that his method of fabrication is to lay up the timbers as wide planks,  bond two of these "U" shapes as a bend. ( This is a big piece of 2 ply - strong).
Place the pattern on this and free the the bend shape -  the waste is horrendous and the moulded shape of the middle most frame is not defined.   With one pattern on one side and 4 lines to cut to, only 3 of them can be used.  The appearance is a  bit snaggle toothed to me.
 
 
My favorite now is Navall framing.    It is similar in appearance to Navy Board but I see actual Navy Board as inappropriate after 1718. 
560mm R&S
All of the space is in the F1 frame.
560mm / 2 = 280mm  (11")    so the timbers are 280mm wide.
Floor - F2 - short Top  is all wood  and 280mm wide
Deadwood - F1 - long Top  is also 280mm 
Deadwood - F1    has a space
F1 - long Top    has a space.
 
I fill the two spaces with Pine that is bonded with a different agent than the PVA I use.  I am still looking for the perfect strong hold + easy release agent to do this.
Fabricating the hull as a solid and shaping and faring as a solid is easier because the hull is really strong.  The edges of the frames are protected from being rounded off, because they are not exposed until after all the planing and sanding is done.
 
Small vessel  I  would Have F1 be 6' long +/- 1 foot 
The heel of the long Top would be at the bottom of the wale.
The result looks like the model framing in post #35 -  except the model has two belts of outside planking to support the frames.   With Navall there is one belt that IS the framing. It is between where that model's planking is.
 
It is seriously strong in the lower hull and from the wale up it is a solid wall ( unless you leave off the upper part of the short Top.   If the inside of the bulwarks are not planked and there are visible stanchions - what you leave between the waterway and the rail is more work than a simple planked over wall.
 

I constantly use the term "bend" in framing because otherwise "frame" for everything that is wood becomes ambiguous - unless you use modifying adjectives.
 
A bend is a pair of frames.  The timbers of one overlap the timber butts of its partner. 
 
Efficient shipbuilders and POF modelers who do not wish to endure constant frustration (fighting nature) build their framing as bends.
 I sense in post #41 you are using "frame" to describe a bend.
I have no intuition when it comes to metric for something like this, but I will try.
 
Station  =  1680mm       A station is "always" the middle of a bend. 
Room and Space =  560mm
 
For POF - with frames on display:
Now, at this point there are some decisions to be made:   Absolute prototype replication or an attractive model
 
560mm / 3 = 186.7mm (7.3")   so a 2/3 room  1/3 space - which looks good, but has the individual frame  a bit thin.
An 8" frame = ~ 200mm
560mm - 200mm -200mm =  160mm    (6.3")  space.   Close enough to be attractive
 
Hahn style:  all bends,  frames wider such that for an individual R&S there is no space - every other bend is omitted.   Faster to build - significant savings on lumber - except that his method of fabrication is to lay up the timbers as wide planks,  bond two of these "U" shapes as a bend. ( This is a big piece of 2 ply - strong).
Place the pattern on this and free the the bend shape -  the waste is horrendous and the moulded shape of the middle most frame is not defined.   With one pattern on one side and 4 lines to cut to, only 3 of them can be used.  The appearance is a  bit snaggle toothed to me.
 
 
My favorite now is Navall framing.    It is similar in appearance to Navy Board but I see actual Navy Board as inappropriate after 1718. 
560mm R&S
All of the space is in the F1 frame.
560mm / 2 = 280mm  (11")    so the timbers are 280mm wide.
Floor - F2 - short Top  is all wood  and 280mm wide
Deadwood - F1 - long Top  is also 280mm 
Deadwood - F1    has a space
F1 - long Top    has a space.
 
I fill the two spaces with Pine that is bonded with a different agent than the PVA I use.  I am still looking for the perfect strong hold + easy release agent to do this.
Fabricating the hull as a solid and shaping and faring as a solid is easier because the hull is really strong.  The edges of the frames are protected from being rounded off, because they are not exposed until after all the planing and sanding is done.
 
Small vessel  I  would Have F1 be 6' long +/- 1 foot 
The heel of the long Top would be at the bottom of the wale.
The result looks like the model framing in post #35 -  except the model has two belts of outside planking to support the frames.   With Navall there is one belt that IS the framing. It is between where that model's planking is.
 
It is seriously strong in the lower hull and from the wale up it is a solid wall ( unless you leave off the upper part of the short Top.   If the inside of the bulwarks are not planked and there are visible stanchions - what you leave between the waterway and the rail is more work than a simple planked over wall.
 

I constantly use the term "bend" in framing because otherwise "frame" for everything that is wood becomes ambiguous - unless you use modifying adjectives.
 
A bend is a pair of frames.  The timbers of one overlap the timber butts of its partner. 
 
Efficient shipbuilders and POF modelers who do not wish to endure constant frustration (fighting nature) build their framing as bends.
 I sense in post #41 you are using "frame" to describe a bend.
I have no intuition when it comes to metric for something like this, but I will try.
 
Station  =  1680mm       A station is "always" the middle of a bend. 
Room and Space =  560mm
 
For POF - with frames on display:
Now, at this point there are some decisions to be made:   Absolute prototype replication or an attractive model
 
560mm / 3 = 186.7mm (7.3")   so a 2/3 room  1/3 space - which looks good, but has the individual frame  a bit thin.
An 8" frame = ~ 200mm
560mm - 200mm -200mm =  160mm    (6.3")  space.   Close enough to be attractive
 
Hahn style:  all bends,  frames wider such that for an individual R&S there is no space - every other bend is omitted.   Faster to build - significant savings on lumber - except that his method of fabrication is to lay up the timbers as wide planks,  bond two of these "U" shapes as a bend. ( This is a big piece of 2 ply - strong).
Place the pattern on this and free the the bend shape -  the waste is horrendous and the moulded shape of the middle most frame is not defined.   With one pattern on one side and 4 lines to cut to, only 3 of them can be used.  The appearance is a  bit snaggle toothed to me.
 
 
My favorite now is Navall framing.    It is similar in appearance to Navy Board but I see actual Navy Board as inappropriate after 1718. 
560mm R&S
All of the space is in the F1 frame.
560mm / 2 = 280mm  (11")    so the timbers are 280mm wide.
Floor - F2 - short Top  is all wood  and 280mm wide
Deadwood - F1 - long Top  is also 280mm 
Deadwood - F1    has a space
F1 - long Top    has a space.
 
I fill the two spaces with Pine that is bonded with a different agent than the PVA I use.  I am still looking for the perfect strong hold + easy release agent to do this.
Fabricating the hull as a solid and shaping and faring as a solid is easier because the hull is really strong.  The edges of the frames are protected from being rounded off, because they are not exposed until after all the planing and sanding is done.
 
Small vessel  I  would Have F1 be 6' long +/- 1 foot 
The heel of the long Top would be at the bottom of the wale.
The result looks like the model framing in post #35 -  except the model has two belts of outside planking to support the frames.   With Navall there is one belt that IS the framing. It is between where that model's planking is.
 
It is seriously strong in the lower hull and from the wale up it is a solid wall ( unless you leave off the upper part of the short Top.   If the inside of the bulwarks are not planked and there are visible stanchions - what you leave between the waterway and the rail is more work than a simple planked over wall.
 

Harbor Freight has an electric 14" for $50.  I do not see a current generic 20% off coupon but if they have one soon, it is $40.   No idea about how long one would last, but I did use one to bisect a Bradford Pear butt after a wind storm a couple of years ago.  Two feet is my preferred length.  A bisecting cut would be easier if the bole is attached to the inground roots.  Significant loss the kerf, but much easier to manipulate on a bandsaw table.   Doing it free hand is an Evel Knievel sort of operation with the possible kickback. Slow and light pressure.

Melaleuca quinquenervia  - I had not come across this species until you mentioned it above.  If the pores are small, you may be golden.
 
Another species local to you is loquot -  Eriobotrya japonica -  which is in the Rosaceae family - as are Apple, Pear, Plum, Peach, and as a wood good for miniature carving Hawthorne.   The tree is also listed as Japanese Plum.  
 
 
Holly is about the only wood that is as white as it is.  It does not grow nearly large enough to be used for deck planks on a real ship.  Some of the species used were Pine and Oak.   The model scale appropriate wood that comes close in color are the above mentioned Birch and Beech - as well as Maple.   It looks to me although the price for white Holly has started to enter the realm of the absurd.
 
The Holly species in Europe are not snow white.  They are closer to Birch and Beech (I believe).  As with my adventure with Sycamore, I think there was a translation misunderstanding between British publications and US readers as to which sort of Holly is an accurate decking.
 
There are varieties of Holly here that are not white and Holly that is infected with Blue mold is usually a grey color.  These would be a better color for decking.  The mold effect on the wood is only cosmetic, so that wood is still perfect for most any of our uses. Unfortunately, they seem to be treated as being trash. 
 
Now, a white Holly deck on a model is generally seen as being an ideal and something special.  If that is your view, "Never mind".

This is my own biased opinion.  I have no experience with restoration or with anything like The Antiques Road Show - except watching it.
 
What you have there is decorator kitsch.  It is not a ship model in any meaningful definition of the term.  It is something that sorta looks like a ship - from a distance, in dark light, thru a gauze curtain, if you squint.   That said,  it probably has value as its own thing.  I doubt that the value involves much money, but as time passes, what was once one of many copies will become more unique.  If collecting kitsch as kitsch ever becomes a thing, who knows?
 
If you are wealthy and have too much money, you may find someone willing to restore it.  It does not need to be anyone with experience with actual ship models, just with restoration in general.   What you pay will be lost money. 
 
If you restore it yourself, it will be time donated.  Consider it time spent doing something for fun.   You will want to return it to what it was.  There are no "improvements" to make it more ship-like that will not destroy any value it may have.  Clean what you can and replace any rotted fiber (lines and sails) with something that is close to what was the original material.  The goal is to make it as close to what it was as you can.
 
If you want an actual ship model, there is a thread at the top of this forum - For beginners - a Cautionary Tale  that will help with how to build your own. 
 

Of late, there has been some interest in the history of the first ship model kits.  Yours may be from a kit or scratch from McCann's plans, but it is probably one of the first  sizable generation (or close to it) of ship models built by someone not a professional model maker or an actual ship builder or a seaman.   It probably has value as an historical example.  It looks well done in any instance.  When it is back to its prime condition, if you do not have one already, it will want to live in a protective case. 

This is my own biased opinion.  I have no experience with restoration or with anything like The Antiques Road Show - except watching it.
 
What you have there is decorator kitsch.  It is not a ship model in any meaningful definition of the term.  It is something that sorta looks like a ship - from a distance, in dark light, thru a gauze curtain, if you squint.   That said,  it probably has value as its own thing.  I doubt that the value involves much money, but as time passes, what was once one of many copies will become more unique.  If collecting kitsch as kitsch ever becomes a thing, who knows?
 
If you are wealthy and have too much money, you may find someone willing to restore it.  It does not need to be anyone with experience with actual ship models, just with restoration in general.   What you pay will be lost money. 
 
If you restore it yourself, it will be time donated.  Consider it time spent doing something for fun.   You will want to return it to what it was.  There are no "improvements" to make it more ship-like that will not destroy any value it may have.  Clean what you can and replace any rotted fiber (lines and sails) with something that is close to what was the original material.  The goal is to make it as close to what it was as you can.
 
If you want an actual ship model, there is a thread at the top of this forum - For beginners - a Cautionary Tale  that will help with how to build your own. 
 

Of late, there has been some interest in the history of the first ship model kits.  Yours may be from a kit or scratch from McCann's plans, but it is probably one of the first  sizable generation (or close to it) of ship models built by someone not a professional model maker or an actual ship builder or a seaman.   It probably has value as an historical example.  It looks well done in any instance.  When it is back to its prime condition, if you do not have one already, it will want to live in a protective case. 

Graham,
 
Oh fun,  a chance to fantasize!  and remember,
 
I would find it difficult not to over engineer (a thick layer of) sheet Styrofoam insulation and Tyvek.  In the past, I learned that you have to be VERY careful with:  if and where a vapor barrier is placed.  Do it wrong and you have a condensation trap and liquid water in closed spaces.  What works for a house, with a conditioned interior, does not work in a garage that is not heated or cooled.  Your structure could be both if you only heat or cool when in use.
 
I have a cousin who likes the sound of rain hitting a metal roof.  He built his house with one.  He discovered that a sheet steel roof will rust,  with one side at the outside and one side at a conditioned space.   I am thinking that if both sides are under outside conditions, no condensation - less propensity to rust.  The metal would essentially have to float above the structure with freedom for underside air circulation.   But, I guess with the nature of your structure, the fixed life span of asphalt shingles is not a problem.  The structure will probably go first.
 
For a sky light, if your budget is unlimited take a look at what Kalwall has available.

This is my own biased opinion.  I have no experience with restoration or with anything like The Antiques Road Show - except watching it.
 
What you have there is decorator kitsch.  It is not a ship model in any meaningful definition of the term.  It is something that sorta looks like a ship - from a distance, in dark light, thru a gauze curtain, if you squint.   That said,  it probably has value as its own thing.  I doubt that the value involves much money, but as time passes, what was once one of many copies will become more unique.  If collecting kitsch as kitsch ever becomes a thing, who knows?
 
If you are wealthy and have too much money, you may find someone willing to restore it.  It does not need to be anyone with experience with actual ship models, just with restoration in general.   What you pay will be lost money. 
 
If you restore it yourself, it will be time donated.  Consider it time spent doing something for fun.   You will want to return it to what it was.  There are no "improvements" to make it more ship-like that will not destroy any value it may have.  Clean what you can and replace any rotted fiber (lines and sails) with something that is close to what was the original material.  The goal is to make it as close to what it was as you can.
 
If you want an actual ship model, there is a thread at the top of this forum - For beginners - a Cautionary Tale  that will help with how to build your own. 
 

This is my own biased opinion.  I have no experience with restoration or with anything like The Antiques Road Show - except watching it.
 
What you have there is decorator kitsch.  It is not a ship model in any meaningful definition of the term.  It is something that sorta looks like a ship - from a distance, in dark light, thru a gauze curtain, if you squint.   That said,  it probably has value as its own thing.  I doubt that the value involves much money, but as time passes, what was once one of many copies will become more unique.  If collecting kitsch as kitsch ever becomes a thing, who knows?
 
If you are wealthy and have too much money, you may find someone willing to restore it.  It does not need to be anyone with experience with actual ship models, just with restoration in general.   What you pay will be lost money. 
 
If you restore it yourself, it will be time donated.  Consider it time spent doing something for fun.   You will want to return it to what it was.  There are no "improvements" to make it more ship-like that will not destroy any value it may have.  Clean what you can and replace any rotted fiber (lines and sails) with something that is close to what was the original material.  The goal is to make it as close to what it was as you can.
 
If you want an actual ship model, there is a thread at the top of this forum - For beginners - a Cautionary Tale  that will help with how to build your own. 
 

This is my own biased opinion.  I have no experience with restoration or with anything like The Antiques Road Show - except watching it.
 
What you have there is decorator kitsch.  It is not a ship model in any meaningful definition of the term.  It is something that sorta looks like a ship - from a distance, in dark light, thru a gauze curtain, if you squint.   That said,  it probably has value as its own thing.  I doubt that the value involves much money, but as time passes, what was once one of many copies will become more unique.  If collecting kitsch as kitsch ever becomes a thing, who knows?
 
If you are wealthy and have too much money, you may find someone willing to restore it.  It does not need to be anyone with experience with actual ship models, just with restoration in general.   What you pay will be lost money. 
 
If you restore it yourself, it will be time donated.  Consider it time spent doing something for fun.   You will want to return it to what it was.  There are no "improvements" to make it more ship-like that will not destroy any value it may have.  Clean what you can and replace any rotted fiber (lines and sails) with something that is close to what was the original material.  The goal is to make it as close to what it was as you can.
 
If you want an actual ship model, there is a thread at the top of this forum - For beginners - a Cautionary Tale  that will help with how to build your own. 
 

Graham,
 
Oh fun,  a chance to fantasize!  and remember,
 
I would find it difficult not to over engineer (a thick layer of) sheet Styrofoam insulation and Tyvek.  In the past, I learned that you have to be VERY careful with:  if and where a vapor barrier is placed.  Do it wrong and you have a condensation trap and liquid water in closed spaces.  What works for a house, with a conditioned interior, does not work in a garage that is not heated or cooled.  Your structure could be both if you only heat or cool when in use.
 
I have a cousin who likes the sound of rain hitting a metal roof.  He built his house with one.  He discovered that a sheet steel roof will rust,  with one side at the outside and one side at a conditioned space.   I am thinking that if both sides are under outside conditions, no condensation - less propensity to rust.  The metal would essentially have to float above the structure with freedom for underside air circulation.   But, I guess with the nature of your structure, the fixed life span of asphalt shingles is not a problem.  The structure will probably go first.
 
For a sky light, if your budget is unlimited take a look at what Kalwall has available.

Graham,
 
Oh fun,  a chance to fantasize!  and remember,
 
I would find it difficult not to over engineer (a thick layer of) sheet Styrofoam insulation and Tyvek.  In the past, I learned that you have to be VERY careful with:  if and where a vapor barrier is placed.  Do it wrong and you have a condensation trap and liquid water in closed spaces.  What works for a house, with a conditioned interior, does not work in a garage that is not heated or cooled.  Your structure could be both if you only heat or cool when in use.
 
I have a cousin who likes the sound of rain hitting a metal roof.  He built his house with one.  He discovered that a sheet steel roof will rust,  with one side at the outside and one side at a conditioned space.   I am thinking that if both sides are under outside conditions, no condensation - less propensity to rust.  The metal would essentially have to float above the structure with freedom for underside air circulation.   But, I guess with the nature of your structure, the fixed life span of asphalt shingles is not a problem.  The structure will probably go first.
 
For a sky light, if your budget is unlimited take a look at what Kalwall has available.

Graham,
 
Oh fun,  a chance to fantasize!  and remember,
 
I would find it difficult not to over engineer (a thick layer of) sheet Styrofoam insulation and Tyvek.  In the past, I learned that you have to be VERY careful with:  if and where a vapor barrier is placed.  Do it wrong and you have a condensation trap and liquid water in closed spaces.  What works for a house, with a conditioned interior, does not work in a garage that is not heated or cooled.  Your structure could be both if you only heat or cool when in use.
 
I have a cousin who likes the sound of rain hitting a metal roof.  He built his house with one.  He discovered that a sheet steel roof will rust,  with one side at the outside and one side at a conditioned space.   I am thinking that if both sides are under outside conditions, no condensation - less propensity to rust.  The metal would essentially have to float above the structure with freedom for underside air circulation.   But, I guess with the nature of your structure, the fixed life span of asphalt shingles is not a problem.  The structure will probably go first.
 
For a sky light, if your budget is unlimited take a look at what Kalwall has available.

The reason for mentioning the ethanol:water azeotrope is to point out that it is essentially impossible to have ethanol that is stronger than 95%.  Even if you started with an expensive lab reagent bottle of 100% ethanol, unless you used it in a sealed chamber with an atmosphere free of water vapor, the 100% ethanol would quickly return to 95% by extracting water from its atmosphere.
 
In the US, there is a significant Federal tax on drinking alcohol ( not as significant as it once was, because it is a fixed amount instead of a percentage of the alcohol value ).  If a poison is added to the ethanol to make it unsuited to ingest, there is no tax.  The common term for this is 'denatured' and its whole purpose is to avoid the tax.   Long ago, I think methanol was the additive.  Now I think the additive is an emetic agent. 
 
There used to be methanol available.  It is available as 100%.  The danger in using it is probably not worth any advantage.  The vapors can be inhaled and while ethanol is metabolized to acetaldehyde  and then acetic acid,  methanol goes to formaldehyde and formic acid - you don't want it.  Methanol also evaporates more quickly than ethanol.  This is not an advantage during application of shellac.  I had an idea that ~100% isopropanol (which is available, but is expensive)  would have a longer application time and not have the 5% water.  I do not think that the length of any additional time is practically significant.  The 5% water in ethanol is as the azeotrope.  That is a special state of water. Whatever straight water might do to shellac, the water in the azeotrope is not able to do it.  That water is owned by the ethanol.

Graham,
 
Oh fun,  a chance to fantasize!  and remember,
 
I would find it difficult not to over engineer (a thick layer of) sheet Styrofoam insulation and Tyvek.  In the past, I learned that you have to be VERY careful with:  if and where a vapor barrier is placed.  Do it wrong and you have a condensation trap and liquid water in closed spaces.  What works for a house, with a conditioned interior, does not work in a garage that is not heated or cooled.  Your structure could be both if you only heat or cool when in use.
 
I have a cousin who likes the sound of rain hitting a metal roof.  He built his house with one.  He discovered that a sheet steel roof will rust,  with one side at the outside and one side at a conditioned space.   I am thinking that if both sides are under outside conditions, no condensation - less propensity to rust.  The metal would essentially have to float above the structure with freedom for underside air circulation.   But, I guess with the nature of your structure, the fixed life span of asphalt shingles is not a problem.  The structure will probably go first.
 
For a sky light, if your budget is unlimited take a look at what Kalwall has available.

The reason for mentioning the ethanol:water azeotrope is to point out that it is essentially impossible to have ethanol that is stronger than 95%.  Even if you started with an expensive lab reagent bottle of 100% ethanol, unless you used it in a sealed chamber with an atmosphere free of water vapor, the 100% ethanol would quickly return to 95% by extracting water from its atmosphere.
 
In the US, there is a significant Federal tax on drinking alcohol ( not as significant as it once was, because it is a fixed amount instead of a percentage of the alcohol value ).  If a poison is added to the ethanol to make it unsuited to ingest, there is no tax.  The common term for this is 'denatured' and its whole purpose is to avoid the tax.   Long ago, I think methanol was the additive.  Now I think the additive is an emetic agent. 
 
There used to be methanol available.  It is available as 100%.  The danger in using it is probably not worth any advantage.  The vapors can be inhaled and while ethanol is metabolized to acetaldehyde  and then acetic acid,  methanol goes to formaldehyde and formic acid - you don't want it.  Methanol also evaporates more quickly than ethanol.  This is not an advantage during application of shellac.  I had an idea that ~100% isopropanol (which is available, but is expensive)  would have a longer application time and not have the 5% water.  I do not think that the length of any additional time is practically significant.  The 5% water in ethanol is as the azeotrope.  That is a special state of water. Whatever straight water might do to shellac, the water in the azeotrope is not able to do it.  That water is owned by the ethanol.

The reason for mentioning the ethanol:water azeotrope is to point out that it is essentially impossible to have ethanol that is stronger than 95%.  Even if you started with an expensive lab reagent bottle of 100% ethanol, unless you used it in a sealed chamber with an atmosphere free of water vapor, the 100% ethanol would quickly return to 95% by extracting water from its atmosphere.
 
In the US, there is a significant Federal tax on drinking alcohol ( not as significant as it once was, because it is a fixed amount instead of a percentage of the alcohol value ).  If a poison is added to the ethanol to make it unsuited to ingest, there is no tax.  The common term for this is 'denatured' and its whole purpose is to avoid the tax.   Long ago, I think methanol was the additive.  Now I think the additive is an emetic agent. 
 
There used to be methanol available.  It is available as 100%.  The danger in using it is probably not worth any advantage.  The vapors can be inhaled and while ethanol is metabolized to acetaldehyde  and then acetic acid,  methanol goes to formaldehyde and formic acid - you don't want it.  Methanol also evaporates more quickly than ethanol.  This is not an advantage during application of shellac.  I had an idea that ~100% isopropanol (which is available, but is expensive)  would have a longer application time and not have the 5% water.  I do not think that the length of any additional time is practically significant.  The 5% water in ethanol is as the azeotrope.  That is a special state of water. Whatever straight water might do to shellac, the water in the azeotrope is not able to do it.  That water is owned by the ethanol.

An old wood finishing book had instructions for French polish.  The instructions were to use a cloth pad that had a small quantity of Linseed oil in the middle which was then soaked with shellac.   The pad was to be rubbed on the wood surface with constant movement and a jet takeoff removal.  Otherwise the cloth will leave its weave pattern on the finish - which was to be only a wet layer.
 
I took this to mean that French polish is primarily shellac with a small admixture of polymerizing oil.   It seems to me that Tung oil could be used instead of Linseed oil. 

That was my first thought, but a comment here has me questioning that.  If shellac in flake form is subject to oxidation, then a shellac finish that is 200 years old should also be subject to it?
I would think adsorbing water into the flakes could be it, but then there is still the situation of why a shellac finish does not also adsorb water.  Or perhaps it does but the concentration of atmospheric water is too low to affect a flat surface.  Maybe the flakes have a higher surface to volume ratio?  Maybe the flakes can absorb water?
 
As for ethanol : water   the description of azeotrope for that mixture should explain why it is a very specific situation.