Jaager

A Web search =
3 possible
A Loctite two part CA product    dangerous chemicals and probably tends to spread
A polyprop hot melt glue stick   difficult to hide, limit the amount, and not get burned fingers
One of the several Gorilla glue varieties.   no idea  - but it could be company hype passing as objective rec
 
PE and PP have a surface that is glass-like in that there is no opportunity for a mechanical bond system to work.
 

There is(?) a ship model society in DC, but that is a bit of a haul from Waterford.
 
Were I just beginning in ship modeling, I would want several projects of progressively more difficult subjects to build my skill set before I attempted to essay a frigate.   The Modelshipways new beginner series is a painless entry.  It has the advantage of providing the skills to build boats - something that most every ship has at least one of and usually several.
The 1834 Belle -  I would suggest sticking with 1:75  unless you have prior experience with changing the scale of plans. 
The model will be sufficiently large -  especially if you are not the solo decision maker.
Oh,  check this site for the numerous posts about rescuing old dusty, greasy, wrecked models for a reason to plan for a case.
 
The most common hull construction method for the French AAMM model plans - at least when the plans were drawn - seems to have been:  carved hull from WL layers. 
I think that the Belle AAMM plans are aimed at the advanced skill level.
The plans seem to be really focused on masting and rigging.
 
In view of the presently popular styles here:
Building the hull as designed: carved and shaped WL lamination is a realistic option.  Clear White Pine would probably be more pleasant to work than Basswood.  Based on scratch build forum logs here, this seems to be unpopular.
POB seems to taken hold - even for scratch.  I could probably not have a more negative attitude toward POB, so I would never ever consider it.  But there is enough data in the Body plan for it.  The outside plank thickness would have to be subtracted.  There are not enough stations to support a single layer of planking, unless all of the gaps between the molds have a filler.  With a double layer of planking, you would have complete control of the thickness of each layer with your subtraction.

My initial thoughts on 1834 Belle - were I too attempt it:
The lines/ Body plan seem to be outside the planking.  (I think they were taken off of a contemporary model.)
The frigates and larger ships of the 1815-1860 era were in general utilitarian - not sexy enough to be worth bare frame POF.
I would use my usual Station Sandwich method.  A solid wall of frames (HomeDepot 2x4 Pine) and use the lines as presented up to the wale.  I would cover the bottom - directly on the frames - with copper painted rag bond paper.
The wale and above = check Meade for appropriate outside planking thickness and subtract that from the outside lines.  It is a different country, but I do not read French and the physics of wood is not subject to national whims.
 

Some random thoughts on your project:
in 1799 three super frigates were built using the same plans as the starting point:  United States, President, Constitution.
The United States started life with a round house.  The first captain of each ship had some say about how their new command would be built.  It was a wild hare of an idea and the resulting poor sailing quality caused the addition to be removed.
A round house is a tall deck at the stern - in the 17th century it was were the poop deck would be but a round house is a lot longer.
 
The United States lasted until the US Navy's base here in Norfolk was captured by Confederate forces.
The ship would have likely undergone topside cosmetic changes about every 20 years as the then current fad changed.  I would not be surprised if United States did not gain an elliptical stern at some point.
Since it is a sister, the AOTS monograph for Constitution may help with masting and rigging and deck details if the era of your model is the same as the monograph's.
 
Plastic masts and yards at 1:96 might prove to be a bit bendy or fragile.  You might give a thought to replacing them with wood.  And also a thought to upgrading the kit supplied line,
 
@rwiederrich has some 1:96 clippers with exquisite masting and rigging - to give you something to shoot for.
USS  was not part of the official name for US Navy vessels until TR decreed it early in the 20th century.

Some random thoughts on your project:
in 1799 three super frigates were built using the same plans as the starting point:  United States, President, Constitution.
The United States started life with a round house.  The first captain of each ship had some say about how their new command would be built.  It was a wild hare of an idea and the resulting poor sailing quality caused the addition to be removed.
A round house is a tall deck at the stern - in the 17th century it was were the poop deck would be but a round house is a lot longer.
 
The United States lasted until the US Navy's base here in Norfolk was captured by Confederate forces.
The ship would have likely undergone topside cosmetic changes about every 20 years as the then current fad changed.  I would not be surprised if United States did not gain an elliptical stern at some point.
Since it is a sister, the AOTS monograph for Constitution may help with masting and rigging and deck details if the era of your model is the same as the monograph's.
 
Plastic masts and yards at 1:96 might prove to be a bit bendy or fragile.  You might give a thought to replacing them with wood.  And also a thought to upgrading the kit supplied line,
 
@rwiederrich has some 1:96 clippers with exquisite masting and rigging - to give you something to shoot for.
USS  was not part of the official name for US Navy vessels until TR decreed it early in the 20th century.

Some random thoughts on your project:
in 1799 three super frigates were built using the same plans as the starting point:  United States, President, Constitution.
The United States started life with a round house.  The first captain of each ship had some say about how their new command would be built.  It was a wild hare of an idea and the resulting poor sailing quality caused the addition to be removed.
A round house is a tall deck at the stern - in the 17th century it was were the poop deck would be but a round house is a lot longer.
 
The United States lasted until the US Navy's base here in Norfolk was captured by Confederate forces.
The ship would have likely undergone topside cosmetic changes about every 20 years as the then current fad changed.  I would not be surprised if United States did not gain an elliptical stern at some point.
Since it is a sister, the AOTS monograph for Constitution may help with masting and rigging and deck details if the era of your model is the same as the monograph's.
 
Plastic masts and yards at 1:96 might prove to be a bit bendy or fragile.  You might give a thought to replacing them with wood.  And also a thought to upgrading the kit supplied line,
 
@rwiederrich has some 1:96 clippers with exquisite masting and rigging - to give you something to shoot for.
USS  was not part of the official name for US Navy vessels until TR decreed it early in the 20th century.

To mount the blade, there must be a slot.  The slot has two outer wings of the table flying in the breeze and subject to flex.
58, 59, 60 look like they are involved with connecting the two outer wings so that the table is a single unit. 
To change a blade, they would have to be removed.  They are probably the easiest parts to go missing.
 
What you have there is a 3 wheel bandsaw. 
They are a nightmare. 
The blades do not want to track. 
They are difficult to mount.  They tend to slip off the wheels. 
For resawing, be prepared for a lot of frustration, heartache, and a low productivity with a lot of wedge slices instead of rectangles.
You may have to have replacement blades custom welded. 
Standard 3-4 tpi steel blades have way too much set.  They chew up the faces of a cut.
Wider blades will not assure better tracking.
 
Are you sure that the giftor is really a friend? 😉
 
For a bench top bandsaw,  I suspect that a 10" Rikon with the big motor - 1/2 HP - would be about a magnitude easier and more reliable.   If it is scroll cutting that will be its function, a Carter Stabilizer is worth what it costs and then some.
Lenox Diemaster2  1/4"  4 tip is my sweet spot.

To mount the blade, there must be a slot.  The slot has two outer wings of the table flying in the breeze and subject to flex.
58, 59, 60 look like they are involved with connecting the two outer wings so that the table is a single unit. 
To change a blade, they would have to be removed.  They are probably the easiest parts to go missing.
 
What you have there is a 3 wheel bandsaw. 
They are a nightmare. 
The blades do not want to track. 
They are difficult to mount.  They tend to slip off the wheels. 
For resawing, be prepared for a lot of frustration, heartache, and a low productivity with a lot of wedge slices instead of rectangles.
You may have to have replacement blades custom welded. 
Standard 3-4 tpi steel blades have way too much set.  They chew up the faces of a cut.
Wider blades will not assure better tracking.
 
Are you sure that the giftor is really a friend? 😉
 
For a bench top bandsaw,  I suspect that a 10" Rikon with the big motor - 1/2 HP - would be about a magnitude easier and more reliable.   If it is scroll cutting that will be its function, a Carter Stabilizer is worth what it costs and then some.
Lenox Diemaster2  1/4"  4 tip is my sweet spot.

To mount the blade, there must be a slot.  The slot has two outer wings of the table flying in the breeze and subject to flex.
58, 59, 60 look like they are involved with connecting the two outer wings so that the table is a single unit. 
To change a blade, they would have to be removed.  They are probably the easiest parts to go missing.
 
What you have there is a 3 wheel bandsaw. 
They are a nightmare. 
The blades do not want to track. 
They are difficult to mount.  They tend to slip off the wheels. 
For resawing, be prepared for a lot of frustration, heartache, and a low productivity with a lot of wedge slices instead of rectangles.
You may have to have replacement blades custom welded. 
Standard 3-4 tpi steel blades have way too much set.  They chew up the faces of a cut.
Wider blades will not assure better tracking.
 
Are you sure that the giftor is really a friend? 😉
 
For a bench top bandsaw,  I suspect that a 10" Rikon with the big motor - 1/2 HP - would be about a magnitude easier and more reliable.   If it is scroll cutting that will be its function, a Carter Stabilizer is worth what it costs and then some.
Lenox Diemaster2  1/4"  4 tip is my sweet spot.

To mount the blade, there must be a slot.  The slot has two outer wings of the table flying in the breeze and subject to flex.
58, 59, 60 look like they are involved with connecting the two outer wings so that the table is a single unit. 
To change a blade, they would have to be removed.  They are probably the easiest parts to go missing.
 
What you have there is a 3 wheel bandsaw. 
They are a nightmare. 
The blades do not want to track. 
They are difficult to mount.  They tend to slip off the wheels. 
For resawing, be prepared for a lot of frustration, heartache, and a low productivity with a lot of wedge slices instead of rectangles.
You may have to have replacement blades custom welded. 
Standard 3-4 tpi steel blades have way too much set.  They chew up the faces of a cut.
Wider blades will not assure better tracking.
 
Are you sure that the giftor is really a friend? 😉
 
For a bench top bandsaw,  I suspect that a 10" Rikon with the big motor - 1/2 HP - would be about a magnitude easier and more reliable.   If it is scroll cutting that will be its function, a Carter Stabilizer is worth what it costs and then some.
Lenox Diemaster2  1/4"  4 tip is my sweet spot.

To mount the blade, there must be a slot.  The slot has two outer wings of the table flying in the breeze and subject to flex.
58, 59, 60 look like they are involved with connecting the two outer wings so that the table is a single unit. 
To change a blade, they would have to be removed.  They are probably the easiest parts to go missing.
 
What you have there is a 3 wheel bandsaw. 
They are a nightmare. 
The blades do not want to track. 
They are difficult to mount.  They tend to slip off the wheels. 
For resawing, be prepared for a lot of frustration, heartache, and a low productivity with a lot of wedge slices instead of rectangles.
You may have to have replacement blades custom welded. 
Standard 3-4 tpi steel blades have way too much set.  They chew up the faces of a cut.
Wider blades will not assure better tracking.
 
Are you sure that the giftor is really a friend? 😉
 
For a bench top bandsaw,  I suspect that a 10" Rikon with the big motor - 1/2 HP - would be about a magnitude easier and more reliable.   If it is scroll cutting that will be its function, a Carter Stabilizer is worth what it costs and then some.
Lenox Diemaster2  1/4"  4 tip is my sweet spot.

To mount the blade, there must be a slot.  The slot has two outer wings of the table flying in the breeze and subject to flex.
58, 59, 60 look like they are involved with connecting the two outer wings so that the table is a single unit. 
To change a blade, they would have to be removed.  They are probably the easiest parts to go missing.
 
What you have there is a 3 wheel bandsaw. 
They are a nightmare. 
The blades do not want to track. 
They are difficult to mount.  They tend to slip off the wheels. 
For resawing, be prepared for a lot of frustration, heartache, and a low productivity with a lot of wedge slices instead of rectangles.
You may have to have replacement blades custom welded. 
Standard 3-4 tpi steel blades have way too much set.  They chew up the faces of a cut.
Wider blades will not assure better tracking.
 
Are you sure that the giftor is really a friend? 😉
 
For a bench top bandsaw,  I suspect that a 10" Rikon with the big motor - 1/2 HP - would be about a magnitude easier and more reliable.   If it is scroll cutting that will be its function, a Carter Stabilizer is worth what it costs and then some.
Lenox Diemaster2  1/4"  4 tip is my sweet spot.

To mount the blade, there must be a slot.  The slot has two outer wings of the table flying in the breeze and subject to flex.
58, 59, 60 look like they are involved with connecting the two outer wings so that the table is a single unit. 
To change a blade, they would have to be removed.  They are probably the easiest parts to go missing.
 
What you have there is a 3 wheel bandsaw. 
They are a nightmare. 
The blades do not want to track. 
They are difficult to mount.  They tend to slip off the wheels. 
For resawing, be prepared for a lot of frustration, heartache, and a low productivity with a lot of wedge slices instead of rectangles.
You may have to have replacement blades custom welded. 
Standard 3-4 tpi steel blades have way too much set.  They chew up the faces of a cut.
Wider blades will not assure better tracking.
 
Are you sure that the giftor is really a friend? 😉
 
For a bench top bandsaw,  I suspect that a 10" Rikon with the big motor - 1/2 HP - would be about a magnitude easier and more reliable.   If it is scroll cutting that will be its function, a Carter Stabilizer is worth what it costs and then some.
Lenox Diemaster2  1/4"  4 tip is my sweet spot.

Some random thoughts on your project:
in 1799 three super frigates were built using the same plans as the starting point:  United States, President, Constitution.
The United States started life with a round house.  The first captain of each ship had some say about how their new command would be built.  It was a wild hare of an idea and the resulting poor sailing quality caused the addition to be removed.
A round house is a tall deck at the stern - in the 17th century it was were the poop deck would be but a round house is a lot longer.
 
The United States lasted until the US Navy's base here in Norfolk was captured by Confederate forces.
The ship would have likely undergone topside cosmetic changes about every 20 years as the then current fad changed.  I would not be surprised if United States did not gain an elliptical stern at some point.
Since it is a sister, the AOTS monograph for Constitution may help with masting and rigging and deck details if the era of your model is the same as the monograph's.
 
Plastic masts and yards at 1:96 might prove to be a bit bendy or fragile.  You might give a thought to replacing them with wood.  And also a thought to upgrading the kit supplied line,
 
@rwiederrich has some 1:96 clippers with exquisite masting and rigging - to give you something to shoot for.
USS  was not part of the official name for US Navy vessels until TR decreed it early in the 20th century.

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/ca/c-06/olympia-232-enc/enc-review.html
 
When I did a search for USS Olympia - to make sure of the ship identity and how a ship from the Great White Fleet era could have a crewman who was close to someone still living - this link came up.  A very old plastic kit seems to have been resurrected.  I have no idea about its quality, but at least the actual plastic material will not have been subjected to 70 years of possible oxidation and continued polymerization to a brittle or powder covered surface.  
 
It is a shame that the Bluejacket version was such a short run.
 

You found contradictory information because this subject is more about opinion and what you are used to than it is a set formula.
It is also difficult to follow because there is zero discipline exercised with the definitions for the words.
 
If we could have a common agreed definition for sealer a useful one would be "a thick clear finish material that contains small solid particles whose function is to fill open pores in the wood species that have them, interact with the finish material so as to be translucent, and leave a glass smooth finish."
 
It is better to never use a species of wood that would need a sealer if the wood is to be clear finished.
If you are going to paint the wood, and it is an open pore species (that is being used anyway) a filler then sanded smooth will do what a sealer does.
A primer reduces the number of coats of paint needed on a raw surface.  If you are painting a room with an expensive paint, a low cost primer coat may save you money.  This factor is not a significant one at model scales.   But multiple thin coats may serve better than one thick one.
 
A traditional first coat over raw wood is 50% diluted shellac.  It is compatible with just about any follow on material. It is easy to apply.
Maybe not necessary, but no real downside.
 
For most of us, a sealer is probably best reserved for those building full size furniture.

Zero data, but if a pin rail on a solid mount would solve the problem and I was determined to be economical and efficient, I would give a thought to placing a pin rail at the front of the deck house.

You found contradictory information because this subject is more about opinion and what you are used to than it is a set formula.
It is also difficult to follow because there is zero discipline exercised with the definitions for the words.
 
If we could have a common agreed definition for sealer a useful one would be "a thick clear finish material that contains small solid particles whose function is to fill open pores in the wood species that have them, interact with the finish material so as to be translucent, and leave a glass smooth finish."
 
It is better to never use a species of wood that would need a sealer if the wood is to be clear finished.
If you are going to paint the wood, and it is an open pore species (that is being used anyway) a filler then sanded smooth will do what a sealer does.
A primer reduces the number of coats of paint needed on a raw surface.  If you are painting a room with an expensive paint, a low cost primer coat may save you money.  This factor is not a significant one at model scales.   But multiple thin coats may serve better than one thick one.
 
A traditional first coat over raw wood is 50% diluted shellac.  It is compatible with just about any follow on material. It is easy to apply.
Maybe not necessary, but no real downside.
 
For most of us, a sealer is probably best reserved for those building full size furniture.

You found contradictory information because this subject is more about opinion and what you are used to than it is a set formula.
It is also difficult to follow because there is zero discipline exercised with the definitions for the words.
 
If we could have a common agreed definition for sealer a useful one would be "a thick clear finish material that contains small solid particles whose function is to fill open pores in the wood species that have them, interact with the finish material so as to be translucent, and leave a glass smooth finish."
 
It is better to never use a species of wood that would need a sealer if the wood is to be clear finished.
If you are going to paint the wood, and it is an open pore species (that is being used anyway) a filler then sanded smooth will do what a sealer does.
A primer reduces the number of coats of paint needed on a raw surface.  If you are painting a room with an expensive paint, a low cost primer coat may save you money.  This factor is not a significant one at model scales.   But multiple thin coats may serve better than one thick one.
 
A traditional first coat over raw wood is 50% diluted shellac.  It is compatible with just about any follow on material. It is easy to apply.
Maybe not necessary, but no real downside.
 
For most of us, a sealer is probably best reserved for those building full size furniture.

You found contradictory information because this subject is more about opinion and what you are used to than it is a set formula.
It is also difficult to follow because there is zero discipline exercised with the definitions for the words.
 
If we could have a common agreed definition for sealer a useful one would be "a thick clear finish material that contains small solid particles whose function is to fill open pores in the wood species that have them, interact with the finish material so as to be translucent, and leave a glass smooth finish."
 
It is better to never use a species of wood that would need a sealer if the wood is to be clear finished.
If you are going to paint the wood, and it is an open pore species (that is being used anyway) a filler then sanded smooth will do what a sealer does.
A primer reduces the number of coats of paint needed on a raw surface.  If you are painting a room with an expensive paint, a low cost primer coat may save you money.  This factor is not a significant one at model scales.   But multiple thin coats may serve better than one thick one.
 
A traditional first coat over raw wood is 50% diluted shellac.  It is compatible with just about any follow on material. It is easy to apply.
Maybe not necessary, but no real downside.
 
For most of us, a sealer is probably best reserved for those building full size furniture.

You found contradictory information because this subject is more about opinion and what you are used to than it is a set formula.
It is also difficult to follow because there is zero discipline exercised with the definitions for the words.
 
If we could have a common agreed definition for sealer a useful one would be "a thick clear finish material that contains small solid particles whose function is to fill open pores in the wood species that have them, interact with the finish material so as to be translucent, and leave a glass smooth finish."
 
It is better to never use a species of wood that would need a sealer if the wood is to be clear finished.
If you are going to paint the wood, and it is an open pore species (that is being used anyway) a filler then sanded smooth will do what a sealer does.
A primer reduces the number of coats of paint needed on a raw surface.  If you are painting a room with an expensive paint, a low cost primer coat may save you money.  This factor is not a significant one at model scales.   But multiple thin coats may serve better than one thick one.
 
A traditional first coat over raw wood is 50% diluted shellac.  It is compatible with just about any follow on material. It is easy to apply.
Maybe not necessary, but no real downside.
 
For most of us, a sealer is probably best reserved for those building full size furniture.

You found contradictory information because this subject is more about opinion and what you are used to than it is a set formula.
It is also difficult to follow because there is zero discipline exercised with the definitions for the words.
 
If we could have a common agreed definition for sealer a useful one would be "a thick clear finish material that contains small solid particles whose function is to fill open pores in the wood species that have them, interact with the finish material so as to be translucent, and leave a glass smooth finish."
 
It is better to never use a species of wood that would need a sealer if the wood is to be clear finished.
If you are going to paint the wood, and it is an open pore species (that is being used anyway) a filler then sanded smooth will do what a sealer does.
A primer reduces the number of coats of paint needed on a raw surface.  If you are painting a room with an expensive paint, a low cost primer coat may save you money.  This factor is not a significant one at model scales.   But multiple thin coats may serve better than one thick one.
 
A traditional first coat over raw wood is 50% diluted shellac.  It is compatible with just about any follow on material. It is easy to apply.
Maybe not necessary, but no real downside.
 
For most of us, a sealer is probably best reserved for those building full size furniture.

You found contradictory information because this subject is more about opinion and what you are used to than it is a set formula.
It is also difficult to follow because there is zero discipline exercised with the definitions for the words.
 
If we could have a common agreed definition for sealer a useful one would be "a thick clear finish material that contains small solid particles whose function is to fill open pores in the wood species that have them, interact with the finish material so as to be translucent, and leave a glass smooth finish."
 
It is better to never use a species of wood that would need a sealer if the wood is to be clear finished.
If you are going to paint the wood, and it is an open pore species (that is being used anyway) a filler then sanded smooth will do what a sealer does.
A primer reduces the number of coats of paint needed on a raw surface.  If you are painting a room with an expensive paint, a low cost primer coat may save you money.  This factor is not a significant one at model scales.   But multiple thin coats may serve better than one thick one.
 
A traditional first coat over raw wood is 50% diluted shellac.  It is compatible with just about any follow on material. It is easy to apply.
Maybe not necessary, but no real downside.
 
For most of us, a sealer is probably best reserved for those building full size furniture.

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/ca/c-06/olympia-232-enc/enc-review.html
 
When I did a search for USS Olympia - to make sure of the ship identity and how a ship from the Great White Fleet era could have a crewman who was close to someone still living - this link came up.  A very old plastic kit seems to have been resurrected.  I have no idea about its quality, but at least the actual plastic material will not have been subjected to 70 years of possible oxidation and continued polymerization to a brittle or powder covered surface.  
 
It is a shame that the Bluejacket version was such a short run.
 

Back when wooden hulls were used as waterborne trucks and commercial cargo was involved, there was standardized insurance and insurance mandated scantlings.   After WWI, that blip was a panic driven aberration, perhaps,  wooden hulls seem to have gone individual customer and wild west as far as universal scantlings.  My guess anyway.   The addition of man made components such as plywood, metal framing(?) fiberglass,  Each vessel is probably its own world as far as looking up scantlings is concerned.
 
That said,  the physics of wood did not change after WWI.  You do not provide any basic data for this vessel, or I missed it.  So, from Meade 1869
Frame moulded dimensions for a vessel with a moulded breadth of 15 feet  (The next column is 20 feet.)
Floor timbers sided, at least                                                4.75"
Top timbers sided                                                               4"
Moulded at cutting down (outer edge of keel/keelson)     6 - 6.25"
"    at middle between keel and waterline                          4.5 - 5"
"   at LWL                                                                            3.25 - 3.75"
"   at main deck                                                                  3 - 3.25"
 
I use a raster based drawing program to loft  and use disks that are scale diameter of the moulded scantlings at each data point.  I have intermediate sizes of those diameters to shape a transition that  is strong where needed and has a curve that is pleasing to the eye.  A line that meets each of those circles at a tangent provides the inside moulded dimension.  Being a two finger typist, I took me longer to type this than actually develop a moulded curve when lofting.   I do all lofting at 1/4" : 1'  so I only had to make one set of disks and keep it in a base starter file.  I have a picture or two on my Renommee build.  
 
 

If a thickness that is almost thin enough to read thru is needed, a very sharp plane may get you a semi thick shaving.
A knife and steel straight edge for the other dimension.
A compatible wood species would increase the probability of success.  No loss to kerf, either.
You would need to research the type of plane that does this.  I expect it will need a high quality plane and a whole lot of practice.
Maybe White Pine, because the examples of long wide curls from a plane seem to come from Pine.
Holly, because it bends so well may be an option. 
Advantage Lumber still shows the low quality, non-white stock at $6.00/BF  and some stock that is more clear for $12.00/BF.
Holly that has been infected by Blue Mold is just as sound as normal Holly, it is just blue or grey.