Bob Cleek

Not to hurt your feelings, but you will never get the accuracy you are looking for (and deserve!) with instruments designed for use by high school geometry students. You need the same tools the draftsman who drew the plans with which you are working used to draw them. As with any other tool, you get what you pay for. Fortunately, thanks to manual drafting ("mechanical drawing") being replaced in the industry by CAD, there is quite a bit of high quality drafting and measuring tools available on eBay. (Admittedly, there used to be a lot more, but the collectors are like seagulls over a garbage barge.) As you have learned from experience, the expense of fine drafting instruments is all about their rigidity and ability to "hold a set." The "joints" or "unions" of high quality instruments will not have to be reset all the time. Moreover, if you are only interested in drawing circles or marking arcs, you need a compass. Not one that holds a pencil, but one that holds a 2mm drawing lead, which is easily obtainable from art and stationary supply stores. (The difference is analogous to the difference between holding something in a collet and in a three jaw chuck.) These leads are easily kept razor sharp with a swipe on a flat piece of sandpaper. If you want to transfer measurements, you need a pair of dividers. A compass will do the same, but the dividers will not mark up your plans with pencil marks when in use and will be easier to use accurately. The high quality dividers (as pictured below) have hairspring adjustments. (You set the measure by spreading the legs. The hairspring adjustment "fine tunes" the point thereafter so that the setting can be absolutely perfect. (Important in scaling, where one can "split the line" when placing a point because, at full scale, the drawn line on the plans could be a half inch wide! That makes a big difference when taking off a vessel's lines to construct a table of offsets.) If you are working with different scales, you will find a pair of proportional dividers invaluable. (Keuffel and Esser's Paragon 10" model pictured top below.) These come in various sizes. (The 10" ones are preferable, as are all with rack and pinion setting.) The best are those which are scaled decimally, so that the proportion expressed as a decimal can be set exactly. (The pair below have Vernier scaling feature allowing for proportions set to .005) When a distance is set on one side of the proportional dividers, the proportionate distance, as desired and set, will be readable from the opposite set of points. (It can also be used as a regular divider, obviously, but is less convenient than using a regular divider.) The lower picture is of a set of Keuffel and Esser Paragon drafting instruments, known as a "three bow set," having a basic selection of dividers and compasses and ruling pens. "Paragon" designated K&E's top-of-the line instruments, all hand-fitted of German silver (a nickel and copper alloy, also called "nickel silver.") They are generally considered the finest drafting instruments ever sold by a US vendor. (Dietzgen, the other US top-quality vendor's top line was their "Gem Union" instruments.) Other fine quality brands are Aarau Kern, Bowen, Alteneder, and Charles Bruning. All of the worthwhile instruments (and all of junk, as well) will be made in Germany or Switzerland. Most of the top vendors will have "lines" that range from "student" to "apprentice," to "professional," and usually an additional "finestkind" line, like K&E's "Paragon" and Dietzgen's "Gem Union." The Keuffel and Esser and Dietzgen catalogs are on line and can be googled. (https://books.google.com/books?id=P1gZAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=three+legged+divider&source=bl&ots=PY4vqrKjTl&sig=lNmQcCSIBxrsoATGVrhgzG8FJGM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MRltVK2YHIqaigLF3oGICw#v=onepage&q=three legged divider&f=false)These are full of information on the products they offered and their ranges of quality. You don't need the "top of the line" for modeling, but a good "professional" quality set, or even just a pair of dividers and a compass from a good quality set, will serve. The collector's market is looking for pristine "mint quality" sets with all the instruments present. There are many partial sets with missing instruments, or instruments singly, that are offered on eBay at a fraction of the cost of a "perfect" set. Look under "drafting," and you should be able to find something suitable. A pair of "Paragon" proportional dividers as pictured below will go for between $50 and $200, depending on the condition of the case, or lack of a case, and the instrument's condition. (A bit of tarnishing isn't going to affect the performance of the instrument at all.) A full "three bow" Paragon drafting set as pictured will probably run between $150 and $300, assuming the case is in decent condition and all the instruments are there. If the case is trashed, the felt faded and worn, the case grippers shot, an instrument or three are missing (like ruling pens, which you might not need,) and the like, two or three bows, a pair of dividers, and a of compass with leg extensions, which may be a bit tarnished and the steel threads a bit rusted, might be had for as little as $25.00. Like anything on eBay, you have to know what you are looking at and be willing to wait. Bottom line, "dime store" student compasses are never be satisfactory for serious use. If you find the prices high even for the used stuff on eBay, just remember that the price of a Paragon "three bow" set as pictured below (that one sold recently for about $235) when new cost about $750 in today's money. These were and are serious technical instruments. Few of us would ever have been able to afford to purchase them for hobby use until CAD made them obsolete in most of industry. Instruments of this quality are no longer made, (the labor cost of hand-fitting is prohibitive today,) so they are likely to only increase in value over time. Serious modelers beware! Collecting drafting instruments, many, if not most, of which are invaluable additions to a modeler's shipyard tool kit, is highly addicitive!

I'd agree wholeheartedly. I'm just wondering if modeling judges will disqualify "scratchbuilt" models with 3D printed parts once somebody finds a way to sell a wide range of download-able (and easily infinitely scalable) 3D parts printing programs. A catalogue of every part imaginable, downloadable in CAD format from the internet, would not be all that difficult to create. (And might be a nice retirement income enterprise for some CAD-savvy forumite!)

Those were my initial impressions as well, but I reserved judgment, given that I allowed that this was possibly a more serious tool than their "Unimat 1," which decidedly is just a toy. I was suspicious because they didn't seem to be touting its accuracy tolerances. That's a pretty important parameter for a modeling machine. A well-tweaked old Unimat SL/DB can achieve +/- .0005" spindle runout, but I don't know about this new one. Too much plastic for my taste (apparently, from the pictures) on this one. Like the old classic Unimat, I'm not surprised if the tooling costs an arm and a leg and probably won't accept "generic" aftermarket tooling. I've been wrong before, though. I'm keeping a lookout for one. In these post-"brick and mortar" days, it's not like you can run down to your local hobby shop and lay hands on one.

Very impressive work! I see where Dremel has come out with a 3D printer now, too. Priced around $1,800, IIRC. Now the "$64,000 Question:" Is using a 3D printer still "scratch building?" Not to start a war, or anything. Just wondering.

I just noticed on MicroMark's latest catalog back page that they are offering a "next generation" Unimat multi-tool. Called the "Unimat Powerline," with a chuck thread mount of 12X1mm, the same as the old Unimat 3, and with all the optional accessories much the same as the Unimat 3 and the earlier classic Unimat DB and SLs. They are asking $750 for the basic machine. Like any machine tool, I'm sure the tooling costs go up from there. It's marketed by "CoolTool" in the US and made by somebody in Austria, as were the classic Unimats, but EMCO, that manufacturer is out of business, AFAIK. The present "Unimat" outfit, "CoolTool" bought the Unimat name and first sold a "Unimat 1," which was simply a woodturning lathe for kids. This is the first I've seen of this new "Unimat Powerline" machine tool system, which they are marketing as equivalent to the classic Unimat. It is usually the case that "multi-tools" rarely do everything they claim to do well, but if this does what they claim, it could be a viable replacement for the original Unimat lathe and mill. (A Byrnes' saw or sander it definitely ain't, but with a CNC package option, it is probably priced competitively with anything else in its class.) See: http://www.thecooltool.com/en/ Does anybody know anything about this new machine tool system?

"Ashley's" is an excellent book with beautiful illustrations. It is generally rather easy to follow if one is looking to tie a particular knot, bend, or splice. That said, I believe many academics would agree that The Encyclopedia of Knots and Fancy Ropework, (Cornell, 1939) by John Hensel and Raul Graumount is a more academic work on the total of all forms of ropework. Any serious knot enthusiast should probably have a copy of both on their shelves. Additionally, George Biddlecomb's 1848 The Art of Rigging, available in paperback, is also "an oldie but goodie."

Friskit is intended for use with airbrushes on flat surfaces. It works well for masking, but I would do some testing before expecting it to hold up to heavy paint flows from a brush. It's also quite expensive. Less expensive, although far from cheap, is 3M Fine Line tape, an automotive finishing product. It comes in widths down to 1/4", which is good for modeling. You can use the Fine Line tape for your edge and put regular (cheap) masking tape on the other edge when spraying.

Like Cliff above, I've been using a Paasche double-action airbrush I bought in the 'seventies and it's still going strong. I also lament the loss of the Floquill paints to what seems to me to be rather misguided and exaggerated environmental concerns. (No need to drift into an argument over VOC content, air quality, and climate change here. It's a matter of scale.) I've had good results thinning some artists' acrylics with denatured alcohol. I just don't see how thinning with water makes much sense unless one is painting watercolors on paper. When the surface isn't absorbent, the water sits there too long, takes too long to dry, and tends to run excessively. Oil-based coatings, on the other hand, "stick" better because the solvent (alcohol with acrylics) dries very rapidly. I prefer the results with oil-based paints and so I've found using high quality artists' oils (in the toothpaste tubes) thinned with linseed oil and turpentine and with a touch of Japan dryer to be an excellent replacement for Floquill. Artists' oils are also a whole lot less costly, ounce for ounce when applied, than the "bottled" stuff. They are charging an awfully lot for a little bit of pigment and a whole lot of thinner which is going to dry quickly and become useless once the bottle is opened.

As mentioned above, you get what you pay for in paint. "Craft" paints will simply not have the amount of pigment, ground finely enough, to really get the job done without many coats and this will tend to fill in the detail more than desired. Given that "artists' oils" or acrylics in tubes will last a very long time after opening (unlike jarred paints,) their use is actually more economical. I prefer oil paints to acrylics, particularly for airbrushing (acrylics can tend to "spit," especially when thinned with water. Acrylics that can be thinned with denatured alcohol are quite good, dry quickly, an advantage if spraying, and permit water clean-up, although I prefer solvent clean-up myself. Your mileage may vary.) The most expensive component of any coating is the pigment. The tubed oils and acrylics cost more because they have more pigment and less solvents (or water) in them. It's a lot cheaper to buy good paint and then thin it with much less expensive solvents. For oils, the standards are linseed oil (available in the health food stores as "flaxseed oil") and turpentine. If you try to buy these solvents in art stores, they often charge an arm and a leg for them. You can buy the same in a regular paint or hardware store in a quart or gallon can for a fraction of the cost. If you live somewhere that they've outlawed oil-based paints and solvents, you can still find what you need on line, or go to acrylics, if you wish. Considering the amount of time we invest in building a model, it's really foolish to cut costs on materials which cheapen the final results of our labors. I've never found it necessary to use a spray booth for airbrushing. So little particulate and fumes are sprayed with an airbrush, it seems overkill, not to mention that the vacuum in the booth only draws ambient dust right into what you are painting. These boxes seem to have been a product designed for people who use "rattle cans" to spray model cars and the like. Aerosol paint cans put out relatively huge amounts of paint in a wide spray, unlike airbrushes.

And if you have the misfortune of spilling an alcoholic drink on it... big mess... big time. (Don't ask me how I know this!)

Shellac is about as close to "waterproof" as any finish coating can get. It is sometimes used in full-sized yacht construction as a sealer beneath finish coats of varnish or paint. I apply a liberal coating of shellac to wood on models, particularly solid hulls. It is a good sealer, fine sands easily, and stabilizes the wood, minimizing movement with changes in ambient humidity. As noted by others, it also adequately mimics a varnished brightwork finish on models. Tung oil will take a considerable time to cure unless thinners (for brushing conditioning) and driers (to speed drying) are added, in which case, it becomes varnish. Unlike "spar" varnishes, however, it does not contain UV inhibitors and will degrade in sunlight.

In my years of "simply messing around in boats," I've seen a number of coppered bottoms on small yachts and one major sheathing job done on a large pilot vessel. I've also applied my share of gold leaf in the wind, doing names and hailing ports on transoms. I have used the various "leafs" of copper, aluminum ("silver") and the rest. I'll just respond to a few points raised in the discussion. Copper sheathing comes in stock sheets, sized about 14"X24" or thereabouts. It's not particularly heavy. I've only encountered what seems to be the same gauge sheet, and I presume it doesn't get thicker to match the size of the vessel because all it has to do is prevent borer damage and they are all pretty much the same size. It is laid over Irish felt, a type of felt similar to roofing felt and made of flax and asphalt. As mentioned, on larger ships, there may be an additional sacrificial layer of softwood between the copper and felt and the structural planking. Copper tacks are used to fasten the copper sheathing, not "rivets." Seemingly, a lot of modelers try to portray iron rivets by dimpling their copper foil, but the fact is, a copper sheathed bottom should be as smooth as possible to reduce friction and not studded with large rivet heads. Viewed from any distance, the copper tacks will be barely visible and hammered as flush to the copper as possible. (The softer Irish felt underlayment makes this possible.) It takes a practiced eye and a hard look to notice that a hull is coppered from any distance (e.g. 50 yards) except for the run of the seams, if they stand a bit proud. (See the photos of the newly coppered Cutty Sark's in the post immediately above this one.) The metallic foils pictured in the OP are thicker than real gold leaf and much easier to apply. They are, however, not always what they appear to be. Many types which are called "copper" or "silver" and so on, are actually something else again and simply copper or silver colored. This product is basically a craft material, such as might be used in making Christmas tree and table centerpiece decorations and the like and it cannot be expected to stand the test of time. If you try it, make sure it is really and truly solid copper. They do come in a variety of finishes, some mottled and patinated. Some may be suitable for depicting a newly coppered hull, but once a coppered hull hits salt water, it will be a uniform verdegris green color if it is clean, and a mottled greenish brown if fouled. In all but unusually large scales pasting copper foil on a model will be out of scale and decidedly so if one attempts to dimple "rivets" on the copper sheets. If one is compelled to depict the texture of coppering, appropriate to the scale, they would be well-advised to very lightly score the otherwise perfectly smooth area and then paint "copper green" over it. (Assuming one is using a fine model paint that will not unduly fill the light scratches of the scoring. The watchword here is "subtle." If overdone, if will be out of scale and distracting. There are two types of real gold leaf. (and they come in a variety of carat grades as all gold.) One is "gold leaf," which is just very thin gold leaf bound in "books" of twenty-five 3 1/8" x 3 1/8" "leaves" laying loosely between the "pages" of the "books." (The faux gold and other metals leaf pictured above are "leaves" 5" square.) This is the gold leaf that is tricky to use. It cannot be handled except with a specially designed "gold leaf tipping brush" that picks up the leaves with a static charge. It is not intended for outdoor use! Forget about it. Gold leaf is too expensive to practice on. The other type of gold leaf is called "patent gold leaf." Patent leaf is lightly stuck to a tissue paper backing and the edges of the tissue may be handled with the fingers. As with all leaf, "sizing" if first applied and allowed to dry to a tacky state and then the leaf is simply laid on the tacky sizing and the gold is lightly burnished with a cotton ball. The patent gold leaf can be applied something like a blotter to the size so that irregular surfaces, such as carvings, can be completely covered with repeated applications. Bits of flaking or torn leaf can be brushed off or pushed to another uncovered tacky area with a soft bristle paint brush. The burnishing blends all the pieces of leaf together. Using patent leaf isn't difficult at all. The real trick is to be sure to use proper sizing. There is special sizing for gold leaf which dries quickly and stays tacky for a good while, but one can get the job done just as well with thinned varnish, which takes a bit longer to dry to tacky, or shellac, which dries tack-free rather quickly and is suitable only for small pieces that you will have time to gild before the tack dries up. One can come close with many of the fine gold paints available today, and even closer using a dusting of ground brass powder over size on small pieces, but there is nothing that truly mimics real gold.

I've agonized over coppering models for some time and have yet to see the point of trying to imitate the detail of copper sheathing on a model of scales normally seen. It seems that many modelers, perhaps led on by model kit manufacturers, are infatuated with applying copper foil to their models. The problem is scale. Aside from color, a prototype properly coppered hull (now something of a rarity because antifouling coatings are more efficient and much less expensive) won't be all that apparent from any distance. It certainly won't be bright shiny copper-colored, either, unless it was very recently coppered. Similarly, despite the obsession with "rivets," on model copper sheathing, no full-sized ship ever had its copper "riveted" to the hull. Copper sheathing is fastened with small copper tacks. So small, in fact, that they are virtually invisible at any distance. They certainly aren't standing proud like rivet heads on a riveted iron hull, as most attempt to portray them, and grossly out of scale at that. The prototype copper tacks had flat heads that were perhaps a quarter inch in diameter and were driven with a flat-headed hammer to set them flush with the copper sheet to the greatest extent possible so as to produce as smooth a hull as possible. Unless one is working to a scale in which a quarter-inch tack can be perceived from a distance which permits a view of the entire vessel at one time, I have, thus far at least, failed to see the point of attempting to accurately depict coppering with copper foil and "rivets" on models. I've found that a paint color approximating patinated copper (a dark "apple green") is much better suited and does not distract from the overall appearance of the model. Even unpatinated new copper on ships doesn't look like what the great majority of coppered model hulls look like. Below is Cutty Sark's newly coppered hull. This may have been addressed in this forum before, but I thought I'd offer my two cents' worth on the subject. To my eyes, despite the amount of tedious work many models with individual copper plates and "dimpled rivets" require, I'm led to conclude the modeler never actually had any hands-on familiarity with their subject. Your mileage may vary, of course.

In the picture of the prototype, note that the line is led in the wrong direction (angle,) causing the serious chafe pictured.

Holy Smoke! I'd sure like to see a tutorial by whoever made those sails.

Wefalck makes an important point: It's not just crating and securing the cased model properly that is important. (Hopefully, every model is properly cased... we won't even begin to talk about cleaning ladies with feather dusters...) Jarring shocks can damage even well-secured models, particularly their rigging. Hitting a pothole can often pop a shroud or a brace or the like pretty easily. It even happens to the pros: http://minneys.blogspot.com/2016/06/blow-out-one-hundred-damaged-ship-models.html

CA does a fine job of "pointing" thread so that it can be poked through holes, but in my book, that's about the extent of its value in rigging. (It is also worthwhile for "tack welding" wood parts, but I don't trust it for long term fastening at all.) It's nasty stuff with which to work and is irreversible. While nobody's mentioned it, I use white (clear, not "orange") shellac for cementing thread knots, as well as for "forming" lines which must depict a catenary or for coils. The utility of shellac, which is readily soluble in denatured alcohol, is that it hardens as the alcohol evaporates, which it does rather quickly. It is thus possible to have a "thin cut" (heavily diluted) shellac mixture penetrate readily into the fibers and then stiffen the whole knot as the alcohol evaporates and leave no evidence of its presence. A thread soaked in shellac, accomplished by simply touching the thread with a small brush, will "harden" as the shellac dries and become stiff enough to be formed into whatever shape one desires, taking a "set" when it is finally entirely dry. In the unfortunate event that a knot is shellacked and later must be untied, application of denatured alcohol will soften the shellac and permit untying, although the process may be somewhat tedious. Waxing rigging can form something of a barrier to shellac, but if one doesn't overdo the waxing, the shellac seemingly has no difficulty finding its way past the wax and permeating the entire thread. Repeated coats, relative to the "weight of cut," will build up on the surface, and will leave a shiny surface which is fine if desired and easily avoided by use of a lighter cut and/or fewer coats. Shellac, readily available at any decent paint store, usually in a "medium cut," can be thickened by allowing the alcohol to evaporate some, or thinned by adding a bit more alcohol. (Shellac is also sold in "flake" form, to which the end user adds their own alcohol. Fine furniture finishers often purchase shellac flakes because it is cheaper to buy in quantity flake form and add mix in their own alcohol and avoids "shelf life expiration" issues sometimes seen with pre-mixed shellac.) The dilution of shellac is described by the number of pounds of shellac flakes which have been diluted in a gallon of denatured alcohol. Commercially mixed shellac sold in paint stores is usually two or three pound cut. Regardless of dried shellac's "cut" or age, it can always be again dissolved with alcohol and so is very forgiving for modeling purposes. I also use thin shellac for sealing all wooden parts on a model. It is inexpensive and penetrates well. It is relatively impervious to moisture and stabilizes the wood against the movement resulting in ambient humidity fluctuation. It doesn't raise the grain and sands easily, producing a very smooth surface. It takes paint and varnish well. Shellac is a versatile material that doesn't seem to be widely understood or used in this day and age, or so it seems. Shellac's longevity is excellent. Shellacked archaeological artifacts go back at least 3,000 years. I've studied the Admiralty models at Greenwich and I can't imagine any of them were built without shellac used as described above. It's also non-toxic, save for the denatured alcohol. Shellac is sprayed on apples and citrus fruit to make them shine. It's use to cement knotted and wound thread, as described here for models, is standard practice among fly-tyers. Shellacked belayed halyards and faked mainsheet coil on scratch-built 3/4" scale 16' catboat below. All "bright" wood unstained and sealed with shellac alone.

I've put sails on a couple of fore and aft rigged models. The result was tolerable in one instance and not in the other. The more successful of the two was at a rather large scale, .75" to 1'. Aside from the difficulty of depicting the shape of the sail, which can only be approximately represented by a flat piece of cloth, as all sails have "shape" or "draft" sewn into them with panels shaped with curved edges much the same as planks do, it's impossible to achieve realism in small scales. I've done restoration work on one antique (well, maybe 90 year old) model with furled sails and, fortunately, they were apparently of linen and survived, but were extremely compromised structurally and required care in handling. I've seen many models with sails which had cotton sail material which deteriorated and with particular rapidity when uncased. The problem is that replacement of decayed sails is often impossible without considerable deconstruction that further damages the historical integrity of an old model. Certainly, "decorative" models and dioramas might demand sails, but the general curatorial consensus is that omitting sails on "museum quality" models is the preferred option. While few kit manufacturers outside the US notwithstanding their advertising even come close to "museum quality" in their materials, it seems the better practice to build with the intention that the model will last at least 100 years without requiring restoration in the ordinary course. The NRG has promulgated standards to that end and I'd encourage serious modelers to do their best to meet them. (http://www.shipmodel.com/pdfs/ship-model-classification-guidelines-1980.pdf) The USN NAVSEASYSCOM, which commissions builders' models for the Navy's ship model collection, even requires inspection of the models they commission at various points in the construction process to ensure strict compliance with their standards, which are similar to, but a bit more stringent than the NRG's standards. It's hard to believe anyone who is sufficiently detail-oriented to undertake building a serious ship model would not follow these standards if they knew of them. Save some exceptions, one of the primary reasons to omit sails, beyond the fact that they often obstruct the view of the rigging detail, is that unless they are of fine quality linen material, they probably aren't going to last all that long. Anything one does for fun is subject to their taste alone, of course, but I think ship modeling is one of those things that most agree is best done as well as one can.

When working to close tolerances, I'd hesitate to put a work piece in the freezer to "cool it down" before turning. Temperature dictates the size of the work piece. When a "frozen" work piece warms back up, it will be larger than when it was cold. A tool cutting a larger diameter work piece will heat up much faster than when reducing their respective diameters by the same amount because the tool has to remove a lot more material to turn a quarter inch off of a two inch diameter rod than off of a one inch diameter rod. When size matters, you can never have too much lubricant.

Good sources of quality tools are medical and dental supply houses. Many jeweler's supply houses do carry good stuff, as well, but at a seriously high price. eBay can also be a promising hunting ground, if you know what to look for. Outfits like Micro-Mark have many hard-to-find tools, but sometimes at hugely inflated prices (wait for their sales) and often at a much lower quality. For example, MicroMark sells a cheaply made pair of 6" proportional dividers made by Tasco for around $100, or as low as around $60 on sale, but you can often find a cased 10" German silver Keuffel and Esser "Paragon" model with rack and pinion adjustment (their top of the line) on eBay for the same price, and seven and a half inch dividers of similar professional quality for much less. Notably, the K&E Paragon model 10" dividers have "universal decimal scaling," accurate to, IIRC, .005 using its Vernier scale adjustment. Micro Mark 6" chromed steel: Keuffel and Esser "Paragon" 10" proportional dividers:

Ditto to that! Designed for Swiss military field mechanics, it's also known as the "Swiss Army Vise." My 30 year old Zyliss vise is one of my favorite tools. It will hold anything in darn near any position. It can even be used as a wood lathe driven by your drill motor. It's the closest thing to a good patternmaker's vise and far less costly. Portable, it can be clamped to a bench top or whatever's handy. Some time back, they subcontracted the casting to some Chiawanese outfit and went to pot metal. Find an older one on eBay and forget the "70% off" sales. They are trying to unload the crappy Asian units that keep getting returned. Or you can use it as a stationary disk sander or grinder (with a grinding wheel in the drill motor!) If you have the luck to find one and the money to buy it, there's nothing better than an old fashioned patternmaker's vise. The patternmaker's vise, while appearing like a conventional woodworking bench vise when "at rest," actually has the ability to be moved in all directions so as to provide a convenient angle of attack for the patternmaker's chisels and rasps. Really the ultimate in "planking vises." For fine work, I prefer a jeweler's vise with a detachable head so the head can be mounted in a bench vise if you want both hands free to do the work and standard machinist's vises of various sizes that are also used on my drill presses, milling machine, and lathes. This somewhat unusual jeweler's vise has pegs that fit in holes on the face of the vise to hold irregularly shaped items and will screw off the handle and fit in a larger bench vise if you want. It's perfect for holding small pieces for very fine detail painting, too.

Thanks a million for the heads up, Jim! I just scored 'em. They were just used once to make a motor mount and landing gear for a model airplane. The poor fella came down with a serious medical problem and isn't able to use his shop anymore. I'll have to drive a hour and a half each way to pick them up, but that's a lot cheaper than what the shipping would have cost. What amazed me was that these had been on eBay for as long as they had, nearly a month, and hadn't been snapped up already. The seller told me he had dozens of offers at the asking price but they wanted to have him ship them and he didn't want to deal with the shipping so he turned them all down. Lucky for me, none of them thought to have somebody pick them up and ship the machines for them. Like a lot of people, I had been sniffing around the fire plug to buy a "Jim saw" for a long time, but hadn't yet lifted my leg. However, time and tide wait for no man, so I grabbed these when the opportunity presented itself. Don't worry, Jim. You may have missed this sale, but you'll be hearing from me in the near future. I'll be looking to buy tooling. He who dies with the most tools, wins! Thanks so much for passing the word!

Have you tried canting the Unimat headstock towards you and supporting the tailstock end of the work with your hand for use in tapering spars "free-hand?" Another option is to remove the tailstock, cant the headstock to obtain the desired angle, support the end of the work in whatever creative fashion suits your fancy, and use the cross-slide with an appropriate wood-cutting tool to cut an exact taper. (Gently, gently...) I expect you probably have, and these are somewhat funky ways to do it, but I mention them in case you haven't tried them. Truth be told, my 10" Atlas is my usual go-to weapon for attacking spar tapering, as well as milling, given that I've got the tool post milling attachment for the Atlas.

Before you get into things like lacquer thinner and paint strippers, try denatured alcohol. Back in the day, I believe a lot of that sort of coil wire was insulated with a coating of shellac and the color of the wire suggests this. If it's shellac, you're in luck. Just soak to soften and wipe off with a rag soaked in alcohol.

Yes, it's easy to do the math to get a decimal equivalent, but there are a lot of other settings where the chart is really handy. Older K&E 10" Paragon decimal scaled proportional dividers came with a fabric-hinged folding cardboard chart (which is often lost and missing) and the later models have the settings "cheat sheet" on a piece of metal attached to the bottom of the case. If all else fails, a bit of googling should turn up a copy of the "cheat sheet" easily enough, or, at worst, a photo of the bottom of the case with a readable settings plate.