Bob Cleek

How come nobody's mentioned a computer and a credit card?

Ah! "Three's the charm!" as they say. It looks "shipshape and Bristol fashion." Nicely done. You have to look twice, or maybe thrice, to realize the finished photos are of a model and not a full-sized vessel.

For the money a Sherline costs, I'd be tempted to go one step up to one of the Chiwanese 7X14's, preferably one from one of the higher end retailers like Little Machine Shop or Grizzly. They all come from the same factory or factories ("The People's Patriotic Mini-Lathe Collective,") but the quality control differs. They are available as "lathe-mill combos" and there are complementary stand-alone mills that share tooling with the lathes. These small lathes have been produced in such quantity that there is now a lot of reasonably priced tooling available for them, much more than for the Sherline products, or at least for much less money. I expect the Sherline stuff has better fit and finish, but its capacity, power, and strength is somewhat limited. The 7X14's (or whatever bed length) have greater capacity, which is always nice to have.

Copper tubing is the usual material for model steam engine piping. Stuart boilers are sold with all required boiler attachments, but apparently without connecting piping (steam supply line, etc.) It is important, however, to make sure you have the proper connecting fittings, valves, lubricators, drain cocks, safety valves, and other equipment. Stuart sells feed water pumps, both manual and steam-driven separately. They also sell fuel tanks separately. (Some boilers are set up to burn bottled propane gas in standard disposable gas bottles, so no fuel tank is needed. Gas valves, connecting fittings, and lines are required, of course. I've restored model steam engines, but am not intimately familiar with Stuart engines and boilers. Everything you might need for installation of a model steam plant is available from the Stuart catalog, including boiler connection piping. See their catalog at: https://www.stuartmodels.com/ You will find a wealth of information on the site http://mainsteam.co.uk/ . They have lots of information, a forum, and a YouTube library, including three step-by-step how-to-do-it videos on setting up the boiler connections for your Stuart beam engine. See the below videos. (Google is our friend. )

How did you do the lettering, Chuck? It's beautiful and I think it's much classier than a brass plate. I can't tell from the photo if it was laser-etched or what.

Interesting information, Michael! It seems that sheaves in the end of bowsprits with cranse irons is a more common phenomenon than I realized. Being on the west side of the Pond, I don't have the same number of pilot cutters to use as a sample. I'm still troubled by their running the traveler line past the cranse iron and its attendant hardware, though. That's a significant chafe occasion going past all those fittings and its an important line. If it chafes through, there will be hell to pay under sail. As for the stitching, it appears that they've opted for a straight stitch because it can be done on a machine with less time, skill, and expense, as the examples appear to be. I'll stand fast on the point that the two-needle "baseball" stitch makes a neater, stronger, and more long-lasting job of it. It seems a lot of what's seen today wouldn't pass muster in times past. Just because there's a picture of it on the internet doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that is how somebody else did it. If you spend some time running the traveler in and out under tension as would occur when setting the headsail flying, I expect if the arrangement is prone to hanging up and fouling, it will be readily apparent.

A truly beautiful job on this pilot cutter! As others have noted, the metalwork is spectacular. Just a few comments from an old "pilot cutter type" sailor which I hope may be helpful: As you can see, there will be chafing between the leather of the jib traveler and the seizings on the whisker stay splices. Keeping it all as simple as possible and as free from chafe and chances for hang-ups and tangles is to be desired. This style of traveler poses the inherent problem of binding when running in and out the spar. As the traveler sheet pulls the ring, the ring will tend to "lay down" on the spar and bind There are a number of ways to deal with the jib tack hook and the bail for the traveler "messenger lines" (or whatever one calls them, ... "different ships, different long splices.") Some are as basic as a "U" welded to the traveler ring. Classically, the sheet bail is shaped like a somewhat elongated "U" shackle with the ring running through the "eyes" of the "U" shackle. The ring also runs through the eye of the jib tack hook which is positioned between the two "eyes" of the "U" shackle with the ring running through all three "eyes." This permits the bail and the hook to rotate on the ring independent of each other. Instead of a "U" shackle, a short bar or other forged fitting is often designed so that the ring runs through a center hole in the bar and "eyes" at the fore and aft ends of the bar are available to shackle or splice on the messenger lines running forward and aft of the ring connection. This is a preferable arrangement, IMHO, because it does not require the bail to reverse its lead, fore or aft, depending upon which way the ring is being pulled on the bowsprit which, with a bail, will run afoul of the jib tack hook one way or the other when the messenger line is pulled. Where the ring is not solid and is bolted together at the top, the bail and hook is arranged similarly to how it is done when on the ring alone. The "eyes" of the bail can be outside of the "tabs" or "ears" and the hook between the "tabs" or "ears," with the bolt running through the eyes of the bail, the tabs on the ring, and the hook eye. Alternately, if a bar is used instead of a bail, the bolt goes through the middle hole on the bar. Another common design which permits easy removal of the traveler ring, is to break the ring at both the top and bottom, with "tabs" or "ears" as you have them pictured above both at the top of the ring and at the bottom of the ring. At the top will be a bail and the hook and, if one wishes a second messenger line to complicate the rigging, a second messenger line can be attached at the bottom of the ring which can come in very handy to overcome any binding or hang-up when sliding the traveler ring in and out the bowsprit. Double messenger lines will, of course, require another turning block below the cranse iron and the question of whether redundant messenger lines are worth the trouble will depend on the size of the vessel more than anything else. Yet another version of the fitting is to use a "T" or triangular-shaped metal plate with three holes. One hole half way between the corners of one side of the triangle, or at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal "legs" of the "T" has the ring or ring joining bolt run through it. The hook and the two ends of the messenger lines are attached to the other three holes at the extremities of the piece. This is the simplest solution of all. In earlier times, the tack hook tip was "bent and balled" to permit mousing, which is required to keep the tack cringle from coming adrift of the hook. In later times. "pigtail" or "S" hooks of various designs which reduce the chance of the cringle shaking free, have been employed. The rings are not properly leathered with the plain seam stitch shown. The leather's width was cut to the match the circumference of the ring, or be a tad shy of it, then wet down and sewn together with a "baseball" stitch, stretching the leather so that the edges met exactly and the leather shrunk tight. This was a stronger stitch and finishing the seam in this way prevented fouling. This would also resolve the chaffing issue with the whisker stay splice serving seen in the photo above. I expect that using a thinner piece of leather (it may be planed thinner on the inside face) stretched and shrunk in place will avoid "scrunching" as the leather goes around the curve. While I'd defer to some more authoritative source than my own recollection, I've never seen a sheave in the end of a bowsprit in conjunction with a cranse iron. The sheave in the end of a bowsprit is common for small craft with reefing bowsprits which set headsails flying and do not carry whisker stays. In such, the line to which the headsail tack is attached runs through the sheave in the end of the bowsprit and down to a turning thumb cleat and back up to a cleat on the bow rail. This arrangement can be set up with, or without a bowsprit traveler. This is the standard arrangement in Irish hookers. (Below) "Bent and balled" tack hook, un-moused, as tack is not attached. (Bowsprit reefed.) (Below: Irish hooker showing "jib tack + bobstay" rigging run around thumb cleat on starboard cutwater and up to the bow bitt.

They do make a holder to fit the standard one inch diameter Foredom handpieces. That may well work for the micromotor you are contemplating. I'll bet they'd be able to cut on special order a holder with a diameter hole for any such tool.

Just a thought.... instead of stiffened thread, have you considered monofilament fishing line for the skylight rods?

If anybody is in the market for a small dedicated drill press, the 8" Harbor Freight model that has gotten good review just went on sale in the latest HF catalog at $55. At that price, it's worth taking a chance.

I'm sure you'll be happy with your purchase. If you want a quality piece of workmanship at the best price, albeit within the limitations of the Dremel mototool power source, there's nothing better than the Vanda-Lay tool system. There's nothing to complain about with their fit, finish, and accuracy. Just remember it's a Dremel tool system, not a dedicated drill press or milling machine with the power to hog off large amounts of material at one pass.

You are asking a question about milling wood. I'm perhaps going to "go against the grain" of some of the above posts, but it is a lot more important to mill your wood with the proper grain direction for reasons other than what the grain looks like. The appearance of the grain or "figuring" of the wood used in a model should, at most all scales, be nonexistent unless for some stylistic reason it is desired, such as in a bright-finished half-hull model. This means that the model's wood must be either of a species with very muted grain or figuring or painted. Most woods used also should be relatively hard, so the fruitwoods and certain tight-grained hardwoods ("hardwood" having nothing to do with the hardness of the wood, of course) like boxwood and eqivalents (e.g. Castello,) holly, cherry, hard maple, and the like are preferred. Contrary to reports above, a holystoned deck (washed with salt water) will appear nearly as new wood, since the holystoning is indeed equivalent to sanding. Merchantmen may have let their decks go to weathered gray when nobody was looking, but a naval vessel kept "shipshape and Bristol-fashion" would always have freshly holystoned decks which would be of natural color. That color would quite light, as they were also bleached by the effect of salt water swabbing. Holly and maple are good options for modeling deck planking because they are light enough to permit slight staining to reach an accurate color. (Light wood can be stained darker, but dark wood cannot be stained lighter, of course.) Decks were frequently planked with "Oregon pine," i.e. Douglas fir, and similar species, and so would appear in a model the color of Doug fir, but due to scale, the grain of the planking would not be discernible. (Teak was not favored for decks on men of war in the Age of Sail because it splinters terribly when struck by shot and the splinters cause the resulting wounds to fester quickly.) The grain orientation of every piece of wood that goes into a real wooden vessel is specifically chosen for the purpose the piece will serve. Wood is stronger in its vertical grain direction than the horizontal or face grain direction, as anybody who's ever played baseball knows. Hit the ball with the grain facing in the wrong direction and the bat breaks. So, too, in real life shipbuilding as well as in modeling, the wood should have its grain running so that it presents its strongest side to the greatest stresses. Additionally, in wooden ship construction, the grain direction is important because wood shrinks and swells with moisture most between the annular rings. Quartersawn or "vertical grain" wood, that with the grain running in the direction pictured below, is used for carvel planking and decking because when the closely fitted planks swell with moisture in the water, they will become wider and their edges will press against each other, creating, with the caulking driven between them, a watertight seal. This grain orientation, like that of the baseball bat, is also the direction providing the greatest resistance to localized impacts, such as those created by the naval ordinance of the time. The photo directly below shows a good plank which will swell properly and not break easily when bent into the curve of the hull. A face-sawn piece of wood would not serve as well for a plank because it won't swell properly and may break outright or split face run-out and lift a large sliver. This is a problem it seems a lot of modelers encounter when building with scale planking sawn with the wrong grain orientation for use as planking. (This same principle applies to wood strips chosen for uses as battens. Grain orientation can affect both the durability, flexibility, and fairness of a batten's curve. It also applies to steam-bent frames, which must be bent with the correct orientation to avoid breaking the frame when bending it.) Correspondingly, face-sawn wood will hold fasteners better, in general. It also is less likely to split when fastened at the butts. That problem is easily avoided, however, by not placing fastenings too close to the end of the plank and always drilling a properly sized hole for the fastener. So, it's important not only to pick modeling wood for its appearance, but also for its strength (fine grain,) and for its grain orientation all at the same time. However, picking the grain orientation for reasons of appearance is 1) irrelevant if the wood is to be painted, and 2) if it is to be left bright to depict wood and the grain is visible, that feature will certainly never be to scale. The grain is never accurately visible at scale size. This assumes, of course, that the intent is to represent a vessel as it appears in real life. If you are varnishing the hull because you aren't interested in what the vessel actually looked like in real life, that's a matter of artistic license and you can do what you will. That said, if one wishes their model to best be able to hold together over time and not bust itself apart with changes in humidity, as well as be strong where it should be, grain orientation (but not appearance) remains as important in the model as it is in real life wooden ship construction. In summary, what the wood looks like in terms of its appearance in the model is one thing, but the direction of the grain, a function of how it is sawn, is more important for a lot of reasons other than appearance. See: http://www.hardwooddistributors.org/blog/postings/what-is-the-difference-between-quarter-sawn-rift-sawn-and-plain-sawn-lumber/

It's an easy fix. While the speed varies with the distance from the center of the disk, one way to get variable speed is to get one of those Harbor Freight "router speed controllers." They run around $25 and, of course, there's always HF's "20% off" coupons and so on. I know. It's sold by Horror Fright. Save the receipt. They'll take anything back if you have the receipt. (And won't if you don't... Don't ask me how I know this.) I have one and have found it handy for lots of small tools, especially my Unimat DL lathe. Those cheap foot pedal speed controls sold for scroll saws and Fordom tools also serve the purpose well.

The end of the lanyard is secured around the shroud. What you are looking at in the picture is a very lubberly rigging job. Probably done by some farmer.

The Dremel drill press has always gotten poor reviews. A good alternative, and a much more versatile model using the Dremel mototool is the Vanda-Lay drill press or, if you want even more versatility, their Acra-mill drill-mill option. http://vanda-layindustries.com/ Drill press without Dremel tool mounted. (They also make holders for 1" diameter Foredom handpieces.) Acra-mill in various configurations. (It's essentially the drill press with an x-y table.) Not a bad deal for $160, all things considered. (Compared to the Asian $79 specials, remember, they don't include an x-y tablel!) It's limitation is, of course, the Dremel mototool's limited power, but, all things considered, it should be excellent for wood and light metal work. I don't have the mill, but I have the drill press and am quite satisfied with it. I have other drill presses, as well, but for small bits held in collets, the Vanda-Lay drill press does the trick and doubles as a holding stand for the Dremel tool, which can be rotated to horizontal for small buffing and polishing applications. Vanda-Lay also sells a $50 11" lathe attachment for their Acra-mill. Like Jim Byrnes' "Model Machines," Vanda-Lay is a small "mom and pop" operation in Southern California. They responded quickly to my email inquiries. Seemed like good people.

What I was saying is to forget about the plank seams entirely. You are working at 3/16" scale. Your boat is a lot smaller than the one in the picture. Consider this: What's the scale distance from which someone will view your model? Imagine your model viewed from a couple of feet. How much of the viewer's "frame" is it going to fill? If the photographer taking the photo of the boat in that picture were moved back so the entire boat, stem to stern, keel to maintop and then some was in the frame, do you think those plank seams would be visible? Obviously not. Consider also: The hull in the picture appears to be painted to look like copper (there are copper-looking anti-fouling paints,) but isn't covered in copper. Those seams aren't faired very well. Odds are they didn't look like that when they were first stopped.That isn't unusual for seams below the waterline which don't show when the boat's in the water, but topside plank seams are properly faired with a harder stopping (putty) and sanded fair before painting. I think it's fair to say that the general consensus in answer to your question is to seal the hull well, apply filler and surfacing putty and sand perfectly fair, then paint it. Perfectly fair means no lumps, bumps, or divots and smooth as a baby's bottom.

I posted this in response to a similar question in another thread. It applies here as well: If somebody is building an "Admiralty Board" style bright finished hull (i.e. unpainted,) the plank seams are often highlighted by coloring the edges before installation. This is somewhat a matter of style and a taste. Otherwise, in a painted hull depicting the vessel as it would appear in real life, at all but very large scales on super-detailed and "distressed" models, which we rarely see, plank seams are not appropriately visible. In full-size construction, the seams are "stopped" (filled with putty) to protect the caulking material and sanded fair. the hull is thereafter painted. A well-built full-size vessel whose planking is properly fastened should not "show her seams." More significantly, the seams of the hull of a real-life ship at "scale viewing distance" wouldn't be visible at that distance even if they were visible close up. I realize there is a certain reluctance to render the obvious careful work of a good planking job invisible by painting it properly, but out-of-scale plank seams are just wrong. There seems a strong tendency, indeed, even a convention, these days to incorporate out-of-scale detail in an apparent effort to emulate full-size practices. This seems to be encouraged by certain kit manufacturers for the sake of making their kits "more complete" or accurate. Commonly seen are bottoms sheathed with wildly over-scale-size "real copper plates" which modelers spend huge amounts of time "dimpling" with "rivets" (which were never used) that, at best, are at scale the size of railroad spikes, or larger, misplaced and often over-scale-sized plank fastenings and fastening plugs, frequently of contrasting color, which would never be the case in real-life practice, and incorrectly colored rigging (e.g. lightly colored deadeye lanyards.) Such affectations will ruin an otherwise excellent model. If you hull isn't fair, there is nothing for it but to putty the depressions and sand it fair. That is going to foreclose a bright finished hull. You can scratch in the plank seams through the putty, but I'd urge you to consider whether you are intending to build an accurate scale model of a vessel and depict her with plank seams open by two or more scale inches. You ask, "Would a slightly rough hewn quality make it seem more authentic to the building standards of the time?" In a word, no. Your understanding of "the building standards of the time" is incorrect. These vessels were built by master craftsmen. There was nothing "slightly rough hewn" about them. Spend some time looking at real ships, or pictures of real ships, taken from a distance that makes them appear to be the same size as your model will be when someone looks at it from a few feet away. Your model and the real ship should appear as much the same as possible. Like women who always look better at closing time, ships always look better the farther away you are when looking at them. "Too much out of scale detail" is a fault found far more often than "not enough." Your hull needs to be 1) sealed (shellac works well and is far less expensive and works better than the stuff sold by model paint companies,) 2) liberally filled with marine grade surfacing putty (sometimes called "glazing putty," which has nothing to with windows) and, when the putty has set up, sanded perfectly fair and smooth. https://www.go2marine.com/product/205507F/surfacing-putty.html?WT.mc_id=b1&msclkid=7830403141f71de2c52a1bc6efdc414c&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Go2marine Product Ad Campaign(BSC)&utm_term=1100402429854&utm_content=Bing Product Listing Ad This product is made for this application and sands easily and takes finish paint well. It is thinned with acetone. Keep the top on the can at all times, as exposure to the air will cause it to skin over. Add a teaspoon of acetone to the can before closing it after use. Make sure the top is well sealed. Store the can on the shelf upside down to prevent evaporation in the can. The added acetone will be absorbed by the putty overnight and keep the putty the correct consistency.

If somebody is building an "Admiralty Board" style bright finished hull (i.e. unpainted,) the plank seams are often highlighted by coloring the edges before installation. This is somewhat a matter of style and a taste. Otherwise, in a painted hull depicting the vessel as it would appear in real life, at all but very large scales on super-detailed and "distressed" models, which we rarely see, plank seams are not appropriately visible. In full-size construction, the seams are "stopped" (filled with putty) to protect the caulking material and sanded fair. the hull is thereafter painted. A well-built full-size vessel whose planking is properly fastened should not "show her seams." More significantly, the seams of the hull of a real-life ship at "scale viewing distance" wouldn't be visible at that distance even if they were visible close up. I realize there is a certain reluctance to render the obvious careful work of a good planking job invisible by painting it properly, but out-of-scale plank seams are just wrong. There seems a strong tendency, indeed, even a convention, these days to incorporate out-of-scale detail in an apparent effort to emulate full-size practices. This seems to be encouraged by certain kit manufacturers for the sake of making their kits "more complete" or accurate. Commonly seen are bottoms sheathed with wildly over-scale-size "real copper plates" which modelers spend huge amounts of time "dimpling" with "rivets" (which were never used) that, at best, are at scale the size of railroad spikes, or larger, misplaced and often over-scale-sized plank fastenings and fastening plugs, frequently of contrasting color, which would never be the case in real-life practice, and incorrectly colored rigging (e.g. lightly colored deadeye lanyards.) Such affectations will ruin an otherwise excellent model. If you hull isn't fair, there is nothing for it but to putty the depressions and sand it fair. That is going to foreclose a bright finished hull. You can scratch in the plank seams through the putty, but I'd urge you to consider whether you are intending to build an accurate scale model of a vessel and depict her with plank seams open by two or more scale inches.

Wefalck is correct. Additionally, lapstrake planked small craft were intended to be hauled out a lot of the time. The drying out kept fouling to a minimum and made cleaning the bottoms easy. There was not much need for concern about marine borers. Additionally, the additional weight of the copper would have been a negative with such a vessel.

Those butts are right where I'd expect them to be if I were building the boat full-size.

While relatively thick oak planks over forty feet long may have been used to plank large vessels early on, they must have come from what would have been those rare specimens which were not only large, but also suitably shaped, domestic oak trees. The huge impact of England's shipyards on the forests of not only England, but of the world, is a fascinating study in itself. See: (http://www.wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Melby-Patrick.pdf ) I would expect that England had probably consumed most of the available oak trees capable of yielding forty+ foot straight, vertical grain planking stock by 1700, if not before. Such trees take 150 to 180 years to become harvestable. The Royal Dockyards were consuming oak faster than England could grow it. Britain was importing timber as early as the 13th Century and by the mid-Eighteenth Century was importing "deal" (planking stock up to eight inches wide and 20 feet long) from the Ukraine, Poland, and Norway, and by the end of the Eighteenth Century from her American Colonies which produced sufficient mast stock to permit abandonment of "built up" masts for a time. At the time of these longboats, oak would be used primarily for structural timbers in small boats. They would be planked with softwoods, likely larch imported from the Baltic states. Long lengths would likely be reserved for spars, while second-choice timber would be sawn for deal, planks which rarely exceeded 20 or 24 feet in length. In any event, the length of planking is limited by the shape of the plank. Small boat planks are necessarily curved to fit the shape of the hull. The more the curve, the wider the stock it's cut from must be. Getting a sufficiently curved exceptionally long plank from a single piece of stock requires that the stock be wide enough to be able to saw the curved plank out of it. The longer the curved plank, the more wood is wasted. Moreover, the more the curve, the weaker the plank becomes since there will generally be grain runout at either end. So also, the wider the stock, the more problem with cupping and the longer, the more problem with twist. My guess is a vessel the size of these longboats would be planked from 20 or 24 foot larch stock. While the practice in vessels with large frames may have been to butt planks on the frames, the practice with smaller boats with smaller frames would have been to employ butt blocks placed between the frames so as to avoid weakening the frame with the plank fasteners. Unless there is some reliable contemporary evidence to the contrary regarding their use, I'd consider properly placed butt blocks to be an essential detail in a model of this scale. I wouldn't necessarily rely upon a contemporary model for such a detail, however. The model could easily be planked without planking butts and the placement of butts was always at the builder's discretion, depending upon the planking stock they had available, so butt blocks would not have been a feature necessary to depict on a contemporary builder's or Admiralty model. I don't have the Mays book Chuck referenced, but from his description, I understand "planking expansion" to me a draft of the plank spacing, but not the specific placement of plank butts. (The standard schedule for butt separation is well documented, of course.)

Plywood? Egads!!! No plywood in a Concord coach. 4'x8' plywood sheet as we know it wasn't commercially available until 1928 and even then it suffered the limitations of the adhesives of the time. Glued veneers were around beginning in the 1850's but not suitable for outdoor use. It wasn't until shortly before WWII that adhesives technology had advanced to the point that "engineered wood" was suitable for exposed applications. The war production USN PT boats and Higgins landing crafts were some of the first and more well-known applications for it and, as the saying goes, "they were expendable." Concord coaches were distinctive for the leather strap suspension, which made for a far more comfortable ride on rough American roads, particularly in the West. They were made of oak, ash, and basswood (to save weight.) The wood was solid and shaped with hand planes using the same techniques used in wooden boatbuilding. All metal fittings were iron. Made in Concord, NH, they were widely used in the US and also exported to Australia and South Africa. I don't know what they cost then, or in today's dollars, but they were by far the most expensive coach of their time and remained in service in some places into the early 20th Century. A fair number have survived and been restored. It's not unusual to see one in local parades in the Western United States. They are "Old West" icons these days and very cool. Growing up in San Francisco, there was (and I guess still is) an original Wells Fargo Co. Concord stage coach in the lobby of the Wells Fargo Bank headquarters lobby museum. I never miss the chance to stop by and check it out when I'm downtown. There's one in the Wells Fargo Museum in Sacramento, Ca., too.

I save the foam when anything comes boxed with foam that looks like it might be useful, then cut to fit as needed. Beyond that, I have found that the split foam tubing sold at the hardware store to insulate pipes is great for making cradles. Just cut sections to the length you need and then stack them up lengthwise to make a "cradle" and run some masking tape around each end to hold them together. Keels fit between the two tubes at the top of the pile and you're good to go.

Is there any reason why white shellac wouldn't serve as well as a sealer? I've always used shellac. It seems using the wipe-on polys would be messier and offer a weaker faying surface to glue. I'm not advising shellac, just wondering if anybody has any thoughts on comparisons of the two.

Sanding difficulties with paint are primarily limited to water-based paints containing latex and some acrylics. If the solids contain rubber (latex) or "rubbery" type material, you have trouble sanding it. (Sanding rubber isn't advised.) This is another reason, among several, that experienced painters prefer oil-based paints for modeling. There's really no comparison between the two types of paint.