Jaager

Balsa is about the absolute worst species of wood for our uses.
Apple is about the best.  Almost impossible to find in quantity here. 
 
The moulded dimension is what is seen on the cross section view (Body plan).  Thickest at the keelson and thinnest at the rail.
All of the removal - but the shouting - should be done on the individual frame before adding it to the hull.
(Unless you are into self torture and frustration, you want all of frames to be as bends.  Bend = a pair of frames with timbers that overlap each butt joint of its partner. -  A raw end grain to end grain joint is a very weak bond. As in:  no bond at all.)
 
Sanding - grit matters.  Fast = course.  But then it must be walked down to smooth using ever finer grits.
 
A machine is faster.   For inside a hull - about the best machine that I have found is this:
https://www.kaleas.de//kaleas.cgi?action=show&sessionID=53362980167228376253362980&lang=en&page=shop-produktliste.html&cat=32&subcat=3230&catname=grinding, planing&arcode=x
 
But choose the Right Angle grinder.  Use very light force,  someone here had a part in the drive chain wear out.
There is a chuck attachment for the right angle unit for bits and burrs.
 
The belt sander ( comes up with the link) will REALLY eat wood fast - too fast if you are not careful - and it will quickly throw the belt - I hold it with a piece of flat scrap wood extending over the top part of the belt to keep it on.
 
https://www.kaleas.de//kaleas.cgi?action=show&sessionID=53362980167228376253362980&lang=en&page=shop-produktliste.html&cat=32&subcat=3280&catname=power supply&arcode=x
 
The DC power supply works with a variety of tools, but I am not sure very many are worth it when up against their single purpose competitors. 
 
 
 
 

Balsa is about the absolute worst species of wood for our uses.
Apple is about the best.  Almost impossible to find in quantity here. 
 
The moulded dimension is what is seen on the cross section view (Body plan).  Thickest at the keelson and thinnest at the rail.
All of the removal - but the shouting - should be done on the individual frame before adding it to the hull.
(Unless you are into self torture and frustration, you want all of frames to be as bends.  Bend = a pair of frames with timbers that overlap each butt joint of its partner. -  A raw end grain to end grain joint is a very weak bond. As in:  no bond at all.)
 
Sanding - grit matters.  Fast = course.  But then it must be walked down to smooth using ever finer grits.
 
A machine is faster.   For inside a hull - about the best machine that I have found is this:
https://www.kaleas.de//kaleas.cgi?action=show&sessionID=53362980167228376253362980&lang=en&page=shop-produktliste.html&cat=32&subcat=3230&catname=grinding, planing&arcode=x
 
But choose the Right Angle grinder.  Use very light force,  someone here had a part in the drive chain wear out.
There is a chuck attachment for the right angle unit for bits and burrs.
 
The belt sander ( comes up with the link) will REALLY eat wood fast - too fast if you are not careful - and it will quickly throw the belt - I hold it with a piece of flat scrap wood extending over the top part of the belt to keep it on.
 
https://www.kaleas.de//kaleas.cgi?action=show&sessionID=53362980167228376253362980&lang=en&page=shop-produktliste.html&cat=32&subcat=3280&catname=power supply&arcode=x
 
The DC power supply works with a variety of tools, but I am not sure very many are worth it when up against their single purpose competitors. 
 
 
 
 

We had one in the bathroom in the 1950's.  The heat source for the house was an on oil burning furnace under a grating in the hall.  More than one kid at the time 1"x1" or so grid pattern burns from falling on a red hot grate. 
That was a step up from a coal burning furnace that required blackgang work from an inhabitant.

Dave,
 
Unless you intend to build for an academic audience and for a contest where the reward is the model becoming a museum exhibit,  except for maybe some very specific details,  you should consider the AOTS series to be close enough.   For long lived ships,  a specific version is selected.  It may not be the version that you wish to model, so keep that in mind.
 
Some of the vessels are complete reconstructions.  Nothing definitive is known about their actual lines.  For those vessels, as with kits purporting  to be their models, what those AOTS volumes represent are models of the reconstruction.  e.g.  Susan Constant, Mary Rose, the Columbus trio,  ...    not AOTS but would probably sell if they were: Revenge, Mayflower, Half Moon, Magellan's five   We even have models of ships that are only creations of the mind of a fiction writer. 
 
There is a range here of what is acceptable -  from pure fantasy to completely documented using contemporary sources.  I see nothing wrong with making educated guesses that are not anachronisms,  but you would probably do the future a favor by inserting a bond paper -india ink script- document listing your guesses (- along with your name and the date) inside the hull.  It is just a matter of defining your personal limits and being aware of that.

Next, it might be worth considering giving this layer some protection.  I use white butcher paper, but a roll of 3 x1000 foot has become a bit dear.  Home Depot or Slowes have small rolls of contractors paper (the stuff that you walk on in a model home).   For a direct working surface, a 18"x12" x 1/4" piece of tempered glass - edge beveled - is a good glue and cut surface and is dead flat for glue ups.
 
A bit of a drift from being a "dodgy solution"  unless you drop or use the glass as a hammering surface.  A source of worry if you move a lot.

Next, it might be worth considering giving this layer some protection.  I use white butcher paper, but a roll of 3 x1000 foot has become a bit dear.  Home Depot or Slowes have small rolls of contractors paper (the stuff that you walk on in a model home).   For a direct working surface, a 18"x12" x 1/4" piece of tempered glass - edge beveled - is a good glue and cut surface and is dead flat for glue ups.
 
A bit of a drift from being a "dodgy solution"  unless you drop or use the glass as a hammering surface.  A source of worry if you move a lot.

Jim sells bushings.    They are excellent at adapting 1" arbors to fit a 4" table saw.
 
One more difference with using a table saw for milling lumber:
It really wants the stock it cuts to have at least one face surfaced and one side edged.
 4x4 lumber that is S2S is actually 13/16" thick - about 1/4" is lost to the planer - but you pay for the full 1".
 
A band saw is more forgiving.  I use rough lumber.  The first cut of a rough edge riding the face of the fence is usually scrap,  but sometimes the thickness sander is able to salvage something.  A 4x4 board produces a 1" wide slice.  I have to watch for checks.   Any ripping of the slice wants the face that against the fence to be edged.  For frame timbers, the condition of the edge does not matter ( except for deep checks ).  I prefer 8x4 stock.  I can get less waste by having a 2" wide surface to arrange my patterns.  
 
( At 1:60 the floors for most ships need 3" and a first rate needs 4"  for the frames close to the bow and stern.  I do not use cant frames.  Since it can't be seen,  I now make those floors be two pieces.  I have the cut at the edge of the keel and alternate the side in the sequence. )

Jim sells bushings.    They are excellent at adapting 1" arbors to fit a 4" table saw.
 
One more difference with using a table saw for milling lumber:
It really wants the stock it cuts to have at least one face surfaced and one side edged.
 4x4 lumber that is S2S is actually 13/16" thick - about 1/4" is lost to the planer - but you pay for the full 1".
 
A band saw is more forgiving.  I use rough lumber.  The first cut of a rough edge riding the face of the fence is usually scrap,  but sometimes the thickness sander is able to salvage something.  A 4x4 board produces a 1" wide slice.  I have to watch for checks.   Any ripping of the slice wants the face that against the fence to be edged.  For frame timbers, the condition of the edge does not matter ( except for deep checks ).  I prefer 8x4 stock.  I can get less waste by having a 2" wide surface to arrange my patterns.  
 
( At 1:60 the floors for most ships need 3" and a first rate needs 4"  for the frames close to the bow and stern.  I do not use cant frames.  Since it can't be seen,  I now make those floors be two pieces.  I have the cut at the edge of the keel and alternate the side in the sequence. )

Jim sells bushings.    They are excellent at adapting 1" arbors to fit a 4" table saw.
 
One more difference with using a table saw for milling lumber:
It really wants the stock it cuts to have at least one face surfaced and one side edged.
 4x4 lumber that is S2S is actually 13/16" thick - about 1/4" is lost to the planer - but you pay for the full 1".
 
A band saw is more forgiving.  I use rough lumber.  The first cut of a rough edge riding the face of the fence is usually scrap,  but sometimes the thickness sander is able to salvage something.  A 4x4 board produces a 1" wide slice.  I have to watch for checks.   Any ripping of the slice wants the face that against the fence to be edged.  For frame timbers, the condition of the edge does not matter ( except for deep checks ).  I prefer 8x4 stock.  I can get less waste by having a 2" wide surface to arrange my patterns.  
 
( At 1:60 the floors for most ships need 3" and a first rate needs 4"  for the frames close to the bow and stern.  I do not use cant frames.  Since it can't be seen,  I now make those floors be two pieces.  I have the cut at the edge of the keel and alternate the side in the sequence. )

I do not think that you will find it helpful to opt for a blade with a smaller diameter.  The height that a blade can rise above the table is set by the machine and is usually around 2" or less with a 10" blade.  A 10" blade can be set to as small an exposure as anything smaller.
The target would be a 10" rip blade with as small a blade thickness as can be had for a quality blade.
 
I have an old Craftsman 7.5"  - I think it was a contractors portable for its designed use. 
I used a hollow ground planer blade - all steel - The kerf was less than other type blades.  Because of the grind, the depth of cut was less for even a 7.5".  The teeth were not designed for rip cuts thru thick stock.  It tended to burn the wood if I was cutting 1" stock. 
 
The message is not that a 10" saw will not be adequate for milling 1" stock - it certainly will.  And it will probably be faster than a bandsaw.  If you are careful with the feed, the cuts are almost always straight.  The blades are much less likely to wander or do wedge cuts.  It will not be easy, but with the right fence increment fixtures,  which you will probably have to design and fabricate, the thickness of a cut can be just as controlled as a Byrnes.
 
The cost is:
That there will be significantly more loss of stock to kerf.
Doing multiple passes and flipping stock to cut thicker stock will probably be messy and need a lot of thickness sander work - more significant loss.
The degree of tissue damage possible because of inattention or poor technique is greater with a 10" than a Byrnes or a bandsaw.  
A kickback missile will have significantly more kinetic energy.
 
 

I do not think that you will find it helpful to opt for a blade with a smaller diameter.  The height that a blade can rise above the table is set by the machine and is usually around 2" or less with a 10" blade.  A 10" blade can be set to as small an exposure as anything smaller.
The target would be a 10" rip blade with as small a blade thickness as can be had for a quality blade.
 
I have an old Craftsman 7.5"  - I think it was a contractors portable for its designed use. 
I used a hollow ground planer blade - all steel - The kerf was less than other type blades.  Because of the grind, the depth of cut was less for even a 7.5".  The teeth were not designed for rip cuts thru thick stock.  It tended to burn the wood if I was cutting 1" stock. 
 
The message is not that a 10" saw will not be adequate for milling 1" stock - it certainly will.  And it will probably be faster than a bandsaw.  If you are careful with the feed, the cuts are almost always straight.  The blades are much less likely to wander or do wedge cuts.  It will not be easy, but with the right fence increment fixtures,  which you will probably have to design and fabricate, the thickness of a cut can be just as controlled as a Byrnes.
 
The cost is:
That there will be significantly more loss of stock to kerf.
Doing multiple passes and flipping stock to cut thicker stock will probably be messy and need a lot of thickness sander work - more significant loss.
The degree of tissue damage possible because of inattention or poor technique is greater with a 10" than a Byrnes or a bandsaw.  
A kickback missile will have significantly more kinetic energy.
 
 

I do not think that you will find it helpful to opt for a blade with a smaller diameter.  The height that a blade can rise above the table is set by the machine and is usually around 2" or less with a 10" blade.  A 10" blade can be set to as small an exposure as anything smaller.
The target would be a 10" rip blade with as small a blade thickness as can be had for a quality blade.
 
I have an old Craftsman 7.5"  - I think it was a contractors portable for its designed use. 
I used a hollow ground planer blade - all steel - The kerf was less than other type blades.  Because of the grind, the depth of cut was less for even a 7.5".  The teeth were not designed for rip cuts thru thick stock.  It tended to burn the wood if I was cutting 1" stock. 
 
The message is not that a 10" saw will not be adequate for milling 1" stock - it certainly will.  And it will probably be faster than a bandsaw.  If you are careful with the feed, the cuts are almost always straight.  The blades are much less likely to wander or do wedge cuts.  It will not be easy, but with the right fence increment fixtures,  which you will probably have to design and fabricate, the thickness of a cut can be just as controlled as a Byrnes.
 
The cost is:
That there will be significantly more loss of stock to kerf.
Doing multiple passes and flipping stock to cut thicker stock will probably be messy and need a lot of thickness sander work - more significant loss.
The degree of tissue damage possible because of inattention or poor technique is greater with a 10" than a Byrnes or a bandsaw.  
A kickback missile will have significantly more kinetic energy.
 
 

The foot print is not as large as would be guessed.   Not that much more than a 9" or 10" bench top - considering that they either stay occupying valuable bench space or have to be parked - and are not light weight or easy to lift.  The 14" saws are on wheels so that they can be moved into an open enough area to allow for lumber excursion.  One factor that you really want - if there is any way to get it - is to have a 220 V  outlet and a motor that is rated for that power.  
 
Blacksburg may be a location with access to old Apple trees -  a species that is as good as can be used,  but in Florida - there is Orange, Lemon, Grapefruit, and ... Loquat.
 
Addon:     I have found that two feet is a sweet spot for lumber stock length.  That is way longer than any one piece of a ship could be, fits on a bench, is convenient to stack, and not too heavy to feed into a blade -  even an 8x4 12" wide board is not toooooo much.

I absolutely agree.   When I was fighting with my EmcoMeyer 3 wheel, and having endless tracking problems,  I had it in mind that a wider blade would tracker better.  I now believe that blade width has nothing to do with it.  I think that a wider blade is for a larger machine working thicker stock.  It is probably more about blade life and the tension that the blade needs.   For wood and a 14" saw,  1/2" width is probably as wide as is needed.  A 3/4" blade probably does not track any better, costs more, and generates more friction within the cut.
 
I think that when a blade starts cutting more slowly, begins wandering - it means that it is dull - it is soon going to break. 

I add my vote to what Chuck  recommends. 
I fought with a 3 wheel bench top for way too long. 
I went an increment further with a Rikon 10-353.  It is 3HP.  It has also about doubled in price since I bought it.
A 14" bandsaw with more than the minimal powered motor is what is needed for serious resawing. 
Any bench top bandsaw will struggle with real resawing.  The blade on an undersized and underpowered machine is likely to wander or bow in the cut.  The loss of wood to misshapened cuts is significant. 
If you are serious about this, a benchtop machine is a ticket to frustration and regret,  the very definition of false economy.
 
I would not call any of this an investment, but if you buy a big boy machine you can always haunt the kit forums and when a post about "where to I find wood strips?" comes up from someone stateside, you could always try doing a deal IM  if you have the time.   You can also obtain wood species that are not available any other way, if you are young enough.   Apple, ornamental species of Pear, Hornbeam, Hophornbeam, Dogwood, Hawthorn, etc.   You may find wild Holly that is not snow white - but the yellow and Blue mold infected wood is perfect for our uses.  And besides,  the color of the much desired snow white stock does not match any wood that was used for actual ship building.  Sugar Pine and Basswood is about as close to white as any shipbuilding wood could get.
 
@Chuck  If you have not done this already,  if your blades do not last as long as you wish and a carbide blade costs more than you want to pay, a Lenox Diemaster 2 Bi-metal blade is likely more cost effective.   It lasts many times longer than a steel WoodSlicer - a tad more kerf and a tad more set - but the much longer lifespan more than compensates.
https://www.bandsawbladesdirect.com/lenox-diemaster-2-bi-metal-band-saw-blades
a 9' 7"     1/2"x0.25" 4tpi   is $51.12

Alan,
 
Next time you might consider scraping instead.  There are specific tools for this, but a Gem single edge razor blade or the straight edge of a piece of broken glass will also do the job.  It leaves pores open that sanding will fill with junk.  Burnishing may be more effective at sealing pores, but that whole process sounds like a bad idea for a wooden ship model.
 
Prime the scraped surface with 1/2 strength shellac, then follow with as many coats of full strength shellac as it takes to get the depth and degree of gloss that meets your taste.  If it goes too far, 0000 steel wool or a Scotch Brite pad can be used to dull too much sheen.
 
I also suspect that Renaissance wax will provide a finish layer that will satisfy you.  If not, Mineral Spirits will undo it.  
I also suspect that shellac will work on your burnished surface.  There is not much that it will not cover or act as an undercoat for.
 
To save on risking having to perform a tedious and time consuming undo, should things not work as desired, you should do a serious trial of whatever you select on scrap first.
 

No.   It may not be available.  My search points to it being another protein based adhesive.
 
I suggest that you give Old Brown glue a test, but use dots.   Try a layer of wedding gift tissue paper along with it.
It should mechanically separate.  Hot ethanol will have it roll up into little balls.
 
StewMac has this really neato seam separator knife:
 

This is an unsolved problem for me, too.
 
I need a bonding agent that will survive significant shear force and will readily release without affecting the PVA bonds next to it.
 
Duco is a cellulose nitrate adhesive that releases with acetone.  PVA is unaffected by acetone.  But Duco as poor shear strength in my experience.
 
Fish glue is a hide glue -  they are protein based adhesives.  The protein is totally denatured in the presence of ethanol and heat.   It is a strong adhesive that has a long history of competence. 
The traditional form of hide glue is from a hot pot.  This avoids needing a solvent, but is complex and time consuming.  More work is needed than squeezing out a blob.
I assume that the solvent in Seccotine is water.   Franklin makes a liquid hide glue, but the water content is significant.  Old Brown glue is supposed to be better quality, but still water.
I use it for temporary timbers filling the spaces between or within frames.  It is better to have a solid hull when shaping, faring, and sanding.  No movement of timbers and the edges are crisp after it is done.
I could not avoid using too much hide glue, so even the timbers of a pilot schooner were too thick to get a bond release without the heat gun cooking the Maple frame timbers.
I suppose I should have used dots of glue.  Also, if a layer of newspaper or similar loose fiber paper was a part of each layer, the ethanol would wick in more readily, but glue would be needed on each side of the paper and I want quick and dirty.
 
I next tried Scotch perm double sided tape.  Ethanol affects it.  It has good enough shear strength most of the time.  But to increase the strength, I burnished the first side.  It increases the hold.  Too much.  It releases well enough, but the burnished side lease the adhesive behind.  I can find no solvent for it, so it is a mechanical removal process, between frames.  It is maybe 200 or more gaps.  HMS Centurion is still waiting for me to recharge my initiative to tackle that tedium.
 
My current thought is to use rubber cement.   Apply a layer on each surface.  Left it dry.  Stick the two together.
The solvent is N-heptane.   It does not affect PVA bonds.  I suppose that using it as a solvent instead the a rubber cement thinner wants it being done where there is excellent ventilation and no chance of ignition.

I absolutely agree.   When I was fighting with my EmcoMeyer 3 wheel, and having endless tracking problems,  I had it in mind that a wider blade would tracker better.  I now believe that blade width has nothing to do with it.  I think that a wider blade is for a larger machine working thicker stock.  It is probably more about blade life and the tension that the blade needs.   For wood and a 14" saw,  1/2" width is probably as wide as is needed.  A 3/4" blade probably does not track any better, costs more, and generates more friction within the cut.
 
I think that when a blade starts cutting more slowly, begins wandering - it means that it is dull - it is soon going to break. 

I add my vote to what Chuck  recommends. 
I fought with a 3 wheel bench top for way too long. 
I went an increment further with a Rikon 10-353.  It is 3HP.  It has also about doubled in price since I bought it.
A 14" bandsaw with more than the minimal powered motor is what is needed for serious resawing. 
Any bench top bandsaw will struggle with real resawing.  The blade on an undersized and underpowered machine is likely to wander or bow in the cut.  The loss of wood to misshapened cuts is significant. 
If you are serious about this, a benchtop machine is a ticket to frustration and regret,  the very definition of false economy.
 
I would not call any of this an investment, but if you buy a big boy machine you can always haunt the kit forums and when a post about "where to I find wood strips?" comes up from someone stateside, you could always try doing a deal IM  if you have the time.   You can also obtain wood species that are not available any other way, if you are young enough.   Apple, ornamental species of Pear, Hornbeam, Hophornbeam, Dogwood, Hawthorn, etc.   You may find wild Holly that is not snow white - but the yellow and Blue mold infected wood is perfect for our uses.  And besides,  the color of the much desired snow white stock does not match any wood that was used for actual ship building.  Sugar Pine and Basswood is about as close to white as any shipbuilding wood could get.
 
@Chuck  If you have not done this already,  if your blades do not last as long as you wish and a carbide blade costs more than you want to pay, a Lenox Diemaster 2 Bi-metal blade is likely more cost effective.   It lasts many times longer than a steel WoodSlicer - a tad more kerf and a tad more set - but the much longer lifespan more than compensates.
https://www.bandsawbladesdirect.com/lenox-diemaster-2-bi-metal-band-saw-blades
a 9' 7"     1/2"x0.25" 4tpi   is $51.12

Alan,
 
Next time you might consider scraping instead.  There are specific tools for this, but a Gem single edge razor blade or the straight edge of a piece of broken glass will also do the job.  It leaves pores open that sanding will fill with junk.  Burnishing may be more effective at sealing pores, but that whole process sounds like a bad idea for a wooden ship model.
 
Prime the scraped surface with 1/2 strength shellac, then follow with as many coats of full strength shellac as it takes to get the depth and degree of gloss that meets your taste.  If it goes too far, 0000 steel wool or a Scotch Brite pad can be used to dull too much sheen.
 
I also suspect that Renaissance wax will provide a finish layer that will satisfy you.  If not, Mineral Spirits will undo it.  
I also suspect that shellac will work on your burnished surface.  There is not much that it will not cover or act as an undercoat for.
 
To save on risking having to perform a tedious and time consuming undo, should things not work as desired, you should do a serious trial of whatever you select on scrap first.
 

The foot print is not as large as would be guessed.   Not that much more than a 9" or 10" bench top - considering that they either stay occupying valuable bench space or have to be parked - and are not light weight or easy to lift.  The 14" saws are on wheels so that they can be moved into an open enough area to allow for lumber excursion.  One factor that you really want - if there is any way to get it - is to have a 220 V  outlet and a motor that is rated for that power.  
 
Blacksburg may be a location with access to old Apple trees -  a species that is as good as can be used,  but in Florida - there is Orange, Lemon, Grapefruit, and ... Loquat.
 
Addon:     I have found that two feet is a sweet spot for lumber stock length.  That is way longer than any one piece of a ship could be, fits on a bench, is convenient to stack, and not too heavy to feed into a blade -  even an 8x4 12" wide board is not toooooo much.

The foot print is not as large as would be guessed.   Not that much more than a 9" or 10" bench top - considering that they either stay occupying valuable bench space or have to be parked - and are not light weight or easy to lift.  The 14" saws are on wheels so that they can be moved into an open enough area to allow for lumber excursion.  One factor that you really want - if there is any way to get it - is to have a 220 V  outlet and a motor that is rated for that power.  
 
Blacksburg may be a location with access to old Apple trees -  a species that is as good as can be used,  but in Florida - there is Orange, Lemon, Grapefruit, and ... Loquat.
 
Addon:     I have found that two feet is a sweet spot for lumber stock length.  That is way longer than any one piece of a ship could be, fits on a bench, is convenient to stack, and not too heavy to feed into a blade -  even an 8x4 12" wide board is not toooooo much.

Druxey was not referencing not doing a model version of the prototype, for historical reasons.  There have been at least two 18th or 19th or even 20th century models that used iron and that are subjects of recent journal articles.  These articles showed that the iron was gone and the wood around the holes where they were is black.   Our atmosphere contains enough water that when combined with the organic acids in wood works relentlessly oxidize the iron.  "Rusting never sleeps."
 
I have decided to place the deck clamps,  then use a jig to determine the top of each sill and the bottom of each lintel.  This way both are sloped to follow the deck camber at each port.  If you intend to plank the topside out and in - an oversize hole in the frames will be hidden.

I add my vote to what Chuck  recommends. 
I fought with a 3 wheel bench top for way too long. 
I went an increment further with a Rikon 10-353.  It is 3HP.  It has also about doubled in price since I bought it.
A 14" bandsaw with more than the minimal powered motor is what is needed for serious resawing. 
Any bench top bandsaw will struggle with real resawing.  The blade on an undersized and underpowered machine is likely to wander or bow in the cut.  The loss of wood to misshapened cuts is significant. 
If you are serious about this, a benchtop machine is a ticket to frustration and regret,  the very definition of false economy.
 
I would not call any of this an investment, but if you buy a big boy machine you can always haunt the kit forums and when a post about "where to I find wood strips?" comes up from someone stateside, you could always try doing a deal IM  if you have the time.   You can also obtain wood species that are not available any other way, if you are young enough.   Apple, ornamental species of Pear, Hornbeam, Hophornbeam, Dogwood, Hawthorn, etc.   You may find wild Holly that is not snow white - but the yellow and Blue mold infected wood is perfect for our uses.  And besides,  the color of the much desired snow white stock does not match any wood that was used for actual ship building.  Sugar Pine and Basswood is about as close to white as any shipbuilding wood could get.
 
@Chuck  If you have not done this already,  if your blades do not last as long as you wish and a carbide blade costs more than you want to pay, a Lenox Diemaster 2 Bi-metal blade is likely more cost effective.   It lasts many times longer than a steel WoodSlicer - a tad more kerf and a tad more set - but the much longer lifespan more than compensates.
https://www.bandsawbladesdirect.com/lenox-diemaster-2-bi-metal-band-saw-blades
a 9' 7"     1/2"x0.25" 4tpi   is $51.12