Bob Cleek

But I digressed, didn't I? Sorry about that. To get right to the point with my two cents worth (Usual disclaimers apply. Your mileage may vary.) 1. Tools. I see there are various tool kits offered on the web and wondered if these are workable for the beginner. Do brands make a difference? Tools needed but not included in these kits? Tools / supplies you find indispensable? I wouldn't advise paying much money for the so-advertised "ship modeling tool kits" because 1) they usually contain a number of unnecessary, if not useless, tools and 2) are almost always Chinese-made knock-offs of higher quality American-made tools. For example, most will look like they contain hobby knives made by X-Acto, but aren't. A couple of real X-Acto handles and a selection of blades will probably cost half of what a knock-off kit costs and you don't need the extraneous tools in the cheaper kit anyway. The X-Acto blades will be of far higher quality than the Asian knock-offs and the handles will be made of better metal and plastic and will hold the blades firmly, unlike the cheapo copies. Of course, if a retailer is throwing in a "tool kit" in an introductory kit, it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick... or X-Acto knife, as the case may be. Yes, brands do make a difference. The "level" of the tool makes a difference, too. There is a reason even X-Acto knives are called "hobby knives" instead of "surgical scalpels." (They were invented to be surgical scalpels, but weren't accepted by the medical profession because they couldn't be sterilized easily.) For light, delicate, work, a surgical scalpel and blades will do a better job and probably at a lower price point. Buy the professional grade tool whenever possible. You will see selections of Asian pliers sold in the hobby catalogs. For very little more money, you can buy pliers made for orthodontists in dental catalogs of much higher quality. 2. Workstation. Do you find a standard table and chair height comfortable or does a workbench with taller stool a better choice? Seeing this work demands time and patience I would think comfort is key. How much work space is required? Lighting? It's a matter of personal preference. Myself, a standard table and chair often puts the work a bit too high and definitely so when working on rigging that may be a foot or more above the table top. I generally work on a bench and sit on a drafting stool which has an adjustable seat and footrest so I can raise myself to whatever height is most comfortable and can easily hop on and off to get things from the shop as needed. (These are a pretty common Craigslist or garage sale item available at low cost.) Workspace is also a matter of personal preference and availability. Some find card tables enough. I built my first wooden ship model on our desk in a one bedroom apartment when my wife and I were in graduate school. I prefer a stable bench, particularly because you really can't mount even a small jeweler's vise on a card table and expect to get much done without it jiggling around. These days, I enjoy the luxury of a fully equipped workshop in an outbuilding that houses the spoils of a lifetime of used tool collecting. (Cleek's Law: "Tools expand to fill the space allotted." I call it a collection. My wife calls it an addiction. ) I have a separate "surgically clean" room for my drafting table, plans storage, modeling library and a couple of "clean" benches, one a very sturdy metal machinists bench for working on rigging and small bits. The rest of the shop outside of this is the "dirty shop" that houses a battery of standard-sized stationary machine tools for full-sized boatbuilding as well as a collection of Byrnes modeling machines, a Unimat micro-lathe/mill and scroll saws, and my "woodpile. (I also work on full-sized classic wooden boats.) This is where I do anything dusty, greasy, or otherwise messy, like airbrushing and spray painting. Between that and the kitchen table, desk or card table upon which most of us started out lies the spectrum of what somebody would "need" and somebody would "want" for building models. What I have at my disposal is admittedly luxuriously excessive. It's well beyond what's required to build the finest ship models, but, then again, at this point I can mill my own wood and build my own display cases and it costs me next to nothing. (Other people's discarded furniture is sometimes a great source of modeling hardwood!) I must be the first to admit that it's very easy to wake up one morning and realize you have more tools than skills to get the most out of them. Joking about "the Admiral" aside, one does have to consider the others we live with. It's a royal pain to have to "set up" and "take down" your modeling workspace each time you want to work on your model and others often complain about paint fumes and sawdust in "their space." (We won't even begin to talk about what happens when your wife catches you melting a pot of lead on her kitchen stove! ) If one can find so much as a government surplus metal office desk to keep in a space they can call their own, so much the better. Again here, your mileage may vary. The famous naval architect, L. Francis Herreshoff, who never married and lived alone all his life, enjoyed the luxury of keeping his metal lathe in the dining room of his home. We should all be so lucky! As for lighting, the more the better. I have a collection (garage sales again) of articulated drafting lamps ("Luxo lamps") and fluorescent ring tube articulated magnifying lamps that clamp on bench tops. These provide strong light directly on the working area and can be moved around to direct the light right where you want it. Some prefer various magnifying lenses worn like eyeglasses. Others, as myself, prefer to work beneath an articulated magnifying fluorescent lamp or use the traditional jeweler's swing-down magnifying lens that clips to the temple of our eyeglasses for fine work.

Focusing on your comment that "I'm in the process of assessing this craft to see if its something I want to undertake; a decision I'm not taking lightly." Begin with a quality kit that is designed for "beginners." This forum is full of evaluations on kits and you should review those. A "fore and aft" rigged vessel will be much less challenging than a square-rigged one. Bluejacket Shipcrafters offers a fine line of "Ensign" or beginner's level kits. http://www.bluejacketinc.com/kits/index.htm#ensign Model Shipways (MicroMark) has a British Admiralty longboat kit that is highly recommended for a serious beginner's project. This kit includes a basic tool kit and paints needed to complete the model for around $100. https://www.micromark.com/Model-Shipways-MS1457TL-Longboat-Ship-Kit-with-Tools-1-48 If you sign up for the MicroMark's catalog, you will get regular emails providing premium codes for significant discounts. (Presently, IIRC, MicroMark or a similar company, ModelExpo, are having a 20% off premium code sale.) This longboat model was designed by Chuck Passaro, a MSW forum moderator and his construction of the prototype model can be found at https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/629-18th-century-english-longboat-by-chuck-c1760/. It is incredibly well illustrated and contains full explanations of every process together with answers to the many questions asked by MSW members who are now building the kit. An important point is that the "build logs" in this forum are very informative. (Some more than others, however, for whatever reason. I have no idea how the modelers who post the really fantastically photographed and instructively written logs have the time to build their model and photograph and write about it at the same time!) The detail and workmanship of some of the masters is breathtaking... and can easily scare off someone who lacks a lifetime of experience and a shop full of specialized power tools. Appreciate and learn from the masters, but realize that if you take care and don't rush your work, it is possible for anyone with patience, attention to detail, and perseverance to build a fine kit model which can deservedly be displayed with pride. It is easily possible to spend thousands of dollars on micro-scale machine tools, but it is also entirely possible to accomplish the same work with hand tools and a bit more time. As for what tools are needed, follow this maxim: "Never buy a tool unless you need it and when you do, buy the best tool you can possibly afford." Properly cared for, tools retain their value and, for those of us who appreciate them, are a joy to own. Also, remember the corollary to the above maxim, as well: "A cheap tool will have to be bought twice." I expect that every MSW member who's been building models for any length of time can give examples of the money we've wasted in our younger years buying seductively advertised "ship modeling tools" offered in the many catalogs that are available. I expect many bought the now-infamous "Loom-A-line" plastic frame that was touted as essential for tying ratlines to shrouds and is totally and completely useless for any purpose whatsoever! (Fortunately, it wasn't that expensive.) Many of the ship modeling tools sold in the popular catalogs, even when useful, are liable to be of poor quality, fit, and finish. Far higher quality hand tools can usually be purchased from professional jewelry-making and medical surgical instrument supply houses, and often for the same price, if not less, than the modeling tool catalogs. (This applies to edged tools especially.) You will probably find that you already have a lot, if not most, of the tools you will need when starting out lying around the house. The specific tools you might need to get started are little more than a hobby knife, some decent tweezers, a sharp fine pointed pair of scissors, a set of small files, and a selection of sandpaper. (And, some of the top retailers like ModelExpo and MicroMark often package those tools along with their "introductory kits" at a large discount to get you "hooked.") Beyond that, the model you build will instruct you in what you need as you go along. This section of the MSW forum on Modeling Tools and Workshop Equipment provides invaluable information. (The "search" thingy in the upper right hand corner of the page is your friend.) You will find experienced modelers commenting at length on the merits of just about every tool and material known to man or beast. If, perchance, you can't find information on a tool or material already discussed, just post your question and somebody will surely have a good answer for you. If you limit yourself to acquiring fine tools you need, that too can become a hobby in itself! Spending twenty-five bucks or so on a good tool now and then is not likely to be noticed by the purser of the household and is a healthy way to treat yourself when you deserve it! With something like the Model Shipways longboat kit, you will risk little money in finding out whether building model ships is something you enjoy doing and you won't end up being one of those people who spent a thousand bucks or more on a spectacular Seventeenth or Eighteenth Century warship model kit which might well be so intimidating that it is never started, let alone finished. So before getting off into buying a lot of tools, I'd urge you to pick put a model that strikes your fancy, keeping the first one simple. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Then look it up in the "Kit Build Logs" index (at the top of the "Build Logs" section of the forum.) There is a build log, and often several, for just about every model kit worth building in that section. Those logs written by modelers, some building their first model, will give you an excellent idea of what is involved in building any given kit. That will give you the confidence to proceed with the particular model that interests you... or at least determine "if its something I want to undertake." Lastly, stay away from eBay and only buy a kit from a retailer who will supply missing parts and plans if that comes to pass and never, ever, buy Chinese or Russian "knock off" counterfeit kits pirated from legitimate manufacturers. Not only do they rip off legitimate kit designers and manufacturers, but, simply put, they are not worth even the cut rate prices they charge for them.

Thanks much, Matiz! That's what I figured. It must be tedious splitting off all those hundreds of wedges, but they really look great. I enjoy your log very much. There's a lot to learn in it.

Even if the sole were removable in some fashion, it would still have nails (this boat would seem quite light for treenails) fastening the boards to battens beneath to keep them in position. It is indeed "a model of a model" and the prototype model may have (and perhaps quite likely did) taken some liberties with the details. It would appear that there is no provision made for bailing and cleaning out the bilge unless there is some unseen way that the sole can be removed to permit access beneath it. That would not be seamanlike at all. The bilges would soon fill with crud and that would promote rot. Perhaps the rabbets on edges of the sole planks may intend to depict that the sole sections on either side of the center plank were designed to be removed, but I can't see from the model how that would be possible without deconstructing the thwarts unless the removable sole sections were cut into sections athwartships which I would expect to be the case in a real vessel of this type. It is entirely possible that the builder of the original model took that common detail as a given and didn't bother to cut them. As said, though, it's "a model of a model," and a damn fine one at that!

I've used what we here call "nail polish." I found, however, that it tends to be glossy. I suppose that problem can be solved by thinning it with acetone, no?

Just saw your wonderful workmanship. Truly amazing. Can you explain how you make your treenails (fasteners ?) They appear to be cut from a triangular section stick, but they are so tiny! They are the correct scale. It really makes the model look great. Too many models have oversize, out of scale treenails.

Not to beat you up about it, but I think more often than not solvent cans say "use in well ventilated areas" because the manufacturer's insurance carriers want a defense to some fool who inhales great quantities of the fumes and then sues them because he got a headache. One good rule of thumb with finishes is that if it doesn't smell like a solvent, it's almost certainly not the best material for the job. Unfortunately, with VOC content regulations today, along with propaganda that has people believing they are risking their lives cleaning a paintbrush in mineral spirits, decent paints and varnishes are getting nearly impossible to find in a lot of places. I'm with Welfalck on this one. I'm not familiar with the specific brand of lacquer he mentioned. (It's probably a European product.) While thinned white glue will work, one has to wait for it to dry and set and once it is set, undoing it isn't always easy. My poison of choice is standard shellac, white or orange. (So little is used that the "orange" brown doesn't affect the color of the line.) I use it "out of the can" and it's the consistency of water. One application and the denatured alcohol in which the shellac is dissolved quickly evaporates (faster even if you blow on it gently.) The line can be worked with while the shellac is drying. More shellac can be applied if need be if the line doesn't want to behave, but that's a rare event. (Too much shellac, or too many coats, actually, will cause a glossy finish that isn't where you want to go with it.) When the shellac is dried, the line will remain stiff the way you put it. If it needs to be undone, an application of denatured alcohol with a paintbrush or cotton swab will soften it. I also use shellac to set rigging knots and servings. Shellac lasts forever (or at least 5,500 years, if the Egyptian artifacts are any indication) and is highly resistant to moisture permeation. For this reason, it also makes an excellent sealer beneath varnished and painted wood. And, perhaps most endearing of all, it's dirt cheap and won't go bad in the can. If it starts to thicken up over time, just add more denatured alcohol.

White drafting striping tape would work if you can find it in the right width and not so thick as to leave an out-of-scale edge. Otherwise, paint works fine, so long as you use 3M Fine Line tape to ensure a crisp neat separation line. I'd suggest you look at some similar boats and get a feel for the actual color of the stopping (it's "stopping," not "caulking." "Caulking" is what you do when oakum or cotton is hammered between carvel seams... or goop is squeezed out of a tube on your leaking bathtub enclosure.) Stopping is essentially putty or tar that is placed on top of oakum or cotton caulking material to protect it from the elements. The white stopping was traditionally white lead putty, which sometimes has an off-white cast and will yellow with age, although modern stopping compounds are sometimes more pure white and stay that way. In any event, when the foredecks are covered in eight or twelve coats of varnish, the "white" is going to show the color of the varnish on top of it and be more of a rather light tan than a "white." You should experiment with your "varnish" gloss finish and see if you can replicate the "look." The stopping is varnished over on the full-sized boats. They don't try to cut in the varnish around the stopping. They go for a smooth gloss finish over both the wood and the stopping. Here are a few examples. (Uncredited photos from Google images.)

MicroMark has a center marker made of steel that runs about $18. https://www.micromark.com/mini-hand-tools/measuring-marking It's one of their on-sale loss-leaders right now. I think it's going for ten or fifteen bucks on sale. (Sorry, but I didn't save their latest email advertisement with the promo code on it.)

Concept-wise, how about a "Pinewood Derby boat:" instead of a Pinewood Derby car. You can google "pinewood derby" and find all about the Pinewood Derby, a model car equivalent of the old Soapbox Derbies. Kids love them. Simple wood kits of cars that run down an incline. It's a staple of Cub Scouting these days. It's become quite a little industry with kit sales and apparently somewhat lucrative for the kit sales companies. They way it works is that there are simple dimensional limitations, a five ounce weight limitation, and stock wheels. Beyond that, it's up to the kid to make a car out of it. Prizes are for the fastest down the incline and for the best decorated and so on. It might be duplicated with boats using a pond and a big fan.

At the end of his spectacular build log on the cutter Cheerful, I asked Chuck Passaro a similar question the other day about the anchor buoys on his model being stowed well above deck lashed to the forward shrouds with the buoys' pendants and tag lines, rolled up in a "circular" fashion ("like a cowboy's lariat.") https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/8131-hm-cutter-cheerful-1806-148-scale-by-chuck/&page=36 It didn't look shipshape to this sailor's eye. Why would they go to the trouble to lash them so high? Why weren't the coiled pendants and tag lines hanging straight down like a coil on a pinrail? Why would they not stow them below unless they were to be deployed presently, in which case why wouldn't they simply be laying on deck? (This wasn't intended as a criticism of Chuck's great work, mind you, I just couldn't figure it out and presumed he knew the answer because he did it that way.) Chuck answered that he'd noticed the same thing and had the same questions, but had no answer for me, explaining that his model was based on two contemporary models in the NMM, one recognized for the accuracy of its rigging, so he opted not to deviate from the prototype model which, arguably, is the more prudent course. That said, however, I think we should always be suspicious of questionable details in plans and contemporary models because the degree of their accuracy can always vary a bit, if not a lot in some instances. One of the attractive features of modeling ships is that we can produce something which is not only beautiful, but also of some historical value to future generations if we do the job well. That job includes the historical background research, as such may be possible, as well as the modeling techniques. While I don't stay awake nights worrying about it, I have this recurring thought that in some dystopian future, an archaeologist is going to find the last extant Santa Maria model, built from a kit pirated by some Chinese copyright violator, and it will end up in a museum, exhibited as "an accurate contemporary model of the ship Columbus sailed to discover the Americas." I'm reminded of David MacAulay's classic Motel of the Mysteries (1979,) a great piece of illustrated satirical fiction set in the year 4022. It seems that back in 1985 "an accidental reduction in postal rates" quickly buried most of a country known as Usa under several feet of junk mail. Then a daring explorer named Howard Carson, who in the illustrations looks like someone from the 1930s, falls down a hole and thereby discovers something called a motel. In one of its rooms he finds two skeletons, one on a bed and the other in a bathtub, except that Carson thinks he has discovered an ancient crypt and that one body lies on the Ceremonial Platform and the other in a "highly polished white sarcophagus." To him, the toilet is the Sacred Urn, the television is the Great Altar, the remote control is the Sacred Communicator and a bra strewn across a piece of furniture is a "ceremonial chest plate." https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=motel+of+mysteries&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=78615135635402&hvqmt=b&hvbmt=bb&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6wy3pngoct_b "Contemporary" models and other sources are sometimes similarly inaccurate and more often so the farther back we reach in history. The more a modeler knows about actual naval architecture, shipbuilding and seamanship, with particular attention to the period with which they are working, the better their model will be. While model kits and internet practicums serve a valuable purpose and bring more immediate joy to many initially lacking in such background, the models they yield are sometimes consequently unreliable as historical records. Also, some modern modeling conventions in McLuhanesque fashion validate repeated inaccuracies, a few examples being out-out-of-scale copper hull sheathing plates with monster "rivets," hull and deck trunnels and plugs depicting a but a single fastening each frame, plank ends butted on frames instead with butt blocks, and, of course, the lack of spiling, unfair runs, and excess stealers in planking. Perhaps these inaccuracies may be excused as "artistic license" intended to merely "suggest" the prototype and no doubt are valuable for the satisfaction and enjoyment they provide, but that utility notwithstanding, they fall short as reliable historic records of a particular vessel or vessel type. I commend the original poster's intellectual curiosity about rigging details and nautical nomenclature and his courageous admission that he "isn't fluent in the language.". That is what makes great models! I urge him to continue in his pursuit of accuracy. I'm also impressed, and educated, by those who are able to provide valuable criticism of certain contemporary published authorities. Not every modeler is an experienced traditional shipwright, rigger, or seaman. All of us must rely on academic research to address vessels which became extinct centuries before we were born and the sort of "peer review" here provided is invaluable. Just because a book was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's contents are particularly reliable. When faced with the questions posed in this thread, it is good to remember the nautical maxim, "Different ships, different long splices." I'd hazard to guess that the vessels built to every Admiralty dockyard model and every builder's draught were modified many times over in the translation from the model or draught to the lofting floor to the stocks and finally at every change of command and certainly every refit. The British captains, if the literature is any indication, were famous for bringing their own idiosyncratic rigging arrangements aboard with them when they took command. It's hard to contemplate that a model built two or three hundred years ago hasn't over time been damaged, repaired, and rerigged a time or three, perhaps centuries after it was built. Just because a model is old doesn't mean it's accurate, either. When faced with "the lesser of two weevils," as Jack Aubrey might say, the present day modeler should know his subject well enough to resolve the ambiguities of detail they encounter with confidence in their command of their subject matter. None of us know it all and it is always best to ask when we don't instead of just "faking it." Well done, Bluto! Your question has given us all the opportunity to learned a bit more, even if it is "all Greek" to most mere mortals.

Aha! Well, if the intent was to replicate an historic contemporary model, then it's all as it should be. We are between the devil and the deep blue sea when it comes to deciding whether to go our own way or not in such instances. It calls to mind a retrospectively humorous dust-up (one of many) between a well-known historian and curator of a certain maritime museum and its government administrators who, knew little or nothing about ships and the sea, their last job having been cataloging Indian pottery shards in the Southwest or some such. The administration decided to exhibit a certain very old and highly detailed model over the curator's strenuous objection that there were numerous errors in the model which rendered it historically inaccurate. The administrators overruled his objections, finding that "Even the errors, if such they be, are part of the historic fabric of the artifact and it will therefore be exhibited in its original state." Of course, few who saw the model really would have ever known the difference. I recently saw a beautifully executed HO scale layout of an historic railroad yard and rail-ferry dock in a museum exhibit. It portrayed the area in the town where the museum was as of 1889. There were, however, three or four small boats in the waters off the piers depicting some people fishing. Each had a nicely modeled outboard motor on the stern! It may have been Howard Chapelle... I can't be sure, but it sounds like something he'd say... who cautioned against less that the highest standards of research in modeling known vessels and vessel types, noting that we never know if our model might, by chance if nothing else, survive for a few hundred years and then be the only existing historical record of its type. For that reason, we owe it to future generations to do our best. Nobody can argue with a fine model of a fine model, though!

Strikingly impeccable workmanship! It's a joy to behold. People seem to be effusive in their praise on this forum, which is nice, but not always as deserved as the praise for this masterpiece. Well played, Sir! May I ask a question about the anchor buoys. I can understand that they might be stowed temporarily on the shrouds when jilling about the harbor to deliver messages, personnel, and the like, because the anchors were weighed and will soon be set again, but why so high up on the shrouds? Why didn't they simply tie them off at deck level? When at sea, I'd think they'd send them below to minimize windage aloft and do the same in action to reduce the amount of potential shrapnel that might result if struck. Similarly, why are the buoy rodes and pendants so far up on the shrouds and not stowed separately to be lashed on when the buoy is used? Why did they carry them way the heck up there so somebody would have to climb the ratlines and carry them up and down? I'm also curious as to why the buoy rodes and pendants are depicted as coiled in a circle like a cowboy's lariat, one much higher than the other, which would indicate extremely hard-laid line. Why did the line not simply lay as do softer laid falls on a pinrail? I've done some time sailing in vessels with similar rigs and my share of full-size traditional rigging, so I'm looking at it with a "sailor's eye." I'm sure you've researched it fully, so I expect it's correct, but it's new to me and I'm curious about what seems to be a convention in modeling vessels of this period with which I have no experience and don't understand.

There aren't too many tools you can enjoy without even using them, are there?

Interlux and probably other marine paint manufacturers make "surfacing putty" or "glazing putty" (not for window panes!) used to fair surfaces when finishing topsides and other gloss surfaces. It's much like drywall plaster, but is oil based (thins with acetone) and dries hard rather quickly. It is made to sand easily, but has a very fine grain. It's softer than the wood, so you don't get an uneven surface when sanding. It will go off in the can (keep the top on at all times except when taking some out,) but is easily "rejuvenated" by simply putting a small bit of acetone on top of the thickened putty and storing the can "top down." (The acetone evaporates very quickly.) Overnight, the putty will evenly reabsorb the acetone solvent and return to a thinner consistency. A pint can will last you practically forever. It's an industry standard. I use it on full sized and model boats alike.

Definitely "cut as you go." A bandsaw with a decent re-sawing blade will save an awful lot of what would otherwise be turned into sawdust on a table saw unless you are using an expensive veneer blade, and even then, you will be able to cut much wider stock on the bandsaw. It may be obvious to many, I'm not sure, but the grain needs to be taken into consideration when milling stock. There's a lot of difference between a vertical grain plank and a flat-sawn plank in terms of how each bends, tends to split, and so on.

I worked with a master boatbuilder planking and decking a 34' sharpie with AYC years ago. It was great to work with. I took a bundle of offcuts home to my shop with a mind to use it for modeling. It's been "seasoning" for about fifteen or twenty years now. I guess it's ready to use by now. LOL

And if it gets wet, it's liable to sprout on you! LOL

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. I'd say working on full size wooden boats versus models is a lot like working with large and small lathes. If you are familiar with traditional full size wooden boat construction, you can build a model pretty easily. On the other hand, if you are an experienced model builder, you'd probably have a lot of learning to do along the way in building full size. As mentioned, it mainly has to do with the engineering aspects of assembly. That and the fact that once one reaches "a certain age," they've still got some models left in them, but building full size is an athletic exercise that we grow out of.

Amen to that! The difference between cheap measuring and drawing instruments and not-so-cheap ones is like the difference between a cheap "toy quality" modeling table saw and one of Mr. Byrnes' precision saws. The thing about precision drafting instruments, though, is that they aren't making them anymore. The labor costs for handwork to produce precision instruments has made the quality instruments too expensive to make for a market that is now infatuated with CAD technology. It's a matter of getting 'em while you still can in a used market where collectors are snatching up whatever they can and "users" are getting harder to come by as time goes on. Quality drafting instruments will hold their value, if not increase, in the future.

Buy one and you'll find a use for it. It's got pens for India inking drawings and a large dividers and a small dividers and a couple of small compasses and a big one with an extension bar. Track "drafting" on eBay and they come up now and again. Look closely and make sure it's a complete set, though. A lot of times the parts have gone missing. The set pictured is actually missing it's "horn center." The horn center is a penny-sized round metal piece with three small points on the bottom and a piece of transparent horn material in the center. It is for placing on top of a point on a drawing that is used a lot to place a divider or compass point. The horn center thus prevents a hole from being worn in the drawing from the point placements. They are almost always missing from sets. The horn center would have set on top of the leather circle in the pictured cent.

Good to know! I almost tried it before asking. LOL

Very informative and interesting! Would a 45 degree cone-shaped router bit in a router table do the same thing as the table saw blade set at 45 degrees?

Precisely why a pencil compass will never be as accurate as a lead-holding compass. Perhaps more simply put, as the pencil lead wears down, the "pencil leg" of the compass gets shorter, thereby reducing the radius of the circle drawn by the compass. It may initially be a minor variance, but enough to be significant. The same thing happens with a lead in a lead holder, particularly when the compass lead is sharpened on sandpaper, and so the compass must be reset after sharpening in any event. A conical pencil point will wear more quickly than the angle presented by a sharpened compass lead, though, and as either point wears, the line drawn widens, which creates even greater chance of measuring errors. These problems are very familiar to anyone familiar with lofting lines for full sized boatbuilding from plans drawn at a smaller scale, and is indeed why lofting full size is necessary when building vessels, rather than simply taking the dimensions off the plans.

Come on now, Shipmate! "Proprietary lead?" Naw. The good compasses use standard 2 MM drafting lead, the same as used in mechanical drafting pencils. Buy them at any art or stationery store. Many are supplied new with little cartouches that hold a few leads and, in the good quality sets, some extra points, but the lead is sold in tubes containing lead about six inches long. A compass should use hard lead (H2 at least,) which is going to last a long time, so you won't be having to add new lead very often. I'm sure you can live with that! There are pretty good "carpenters' compasses" that will hold a pencil, but you'll pay the same, if not more, for a new one of those than you will for a used good quality drafting instrument and you will never, ever, get the same accuracy out of any sort of pencil in a compass. When working to small scales, that can make a big difference. Don't give up on that proportional divider. Because they are getting scarce, it seems the Indian scrap metal recycling and knock-off industry is flooding the market with "solid brass" ones. There is no such thing as a decent "solid brass" proportional divider, so ignore those, but keep an eye on "proportional dividers" and "drafting" on eBay and I'm sure you'll find one that fits your pocketbook. Below is a decent one currently offered at a "buy it now" price of $35.00. It's a good quality Dietzgen proportional divider. It doesn't have rack and pinion adjustment, it isn't decimally scaled, and it's a six inch model, or so it appears, but it is German silver and hand fitted. You will have scaled settings for "lines" that will list common fractions and you can estimate from there for odd-ball proportions, or draw fixed distance lines in each scale and adjust the dividers by trial and error until one end matches one line and the other end matches the other line and you're good to go. This one is smaller, but perfectly good for modeling purposes, needs a bit of polishing (or not, depending upon your taste) and the outside of the case is scuffed up. For $35, it's still a good deal. Model Expo is selling the same size cheapo steel Tacro model for $99 and it is really junk. See: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Dietzgen-Proportional-Compass-Divider-22-Lines-and-Circles-With-Case/273418226161?hash=item3fa8ff09f1:g:x~sAAOSwG9ZbetgC I don't have any personal interest in this item. I'm just encouraging you to take the leap into a whole new level of tool-dom! The don't make tools this good anymore and probably never will again. We're talking "jewelry" here. Your grandkids will love to have it left to them (Or not.) LOL