Bob Cleek

I believe the main reason is because, as I was taught, at least, you never take a measurement off your drawings and transfer it to your material. Not ever. I suppose one might get away with doing that when modeling, and I've certainly done it on more than one occasion, but it is decidedly bad practice, or so we were taught. This is because the drawing can never be trusted and the stated measurement taken up; from a scale rule is always the more accurate measure. This principle is more critical in large-scale high-tolerance engineering drawings and much less so in small-scale architectural or cartographic drawings, but none the less, "best practices" dictate it in all circumstances. It is also easier and faster when drafting or building to use a rule scaled to the scale you are working with than to mathematically calculate the scale equivalent from a full-scale rule. This is particularly so when one is not picking up lines from a drawing, but rather working from the stated measurements on the drawings. When working from stated measurements on the drawings, picking them up at the drawing's scale, or any other scale, is most simply and efficiently done by picking the stated distance up from the proper scaled rule. The fewer transitions of the physical measurement, the less opportunity for error. Of course, in many instances, the need for a rule in any scale other than 1:1 can be eliminated by the use of a good decimally scaled set of proportional dividers.

Sealing bare wood before painting is decidedly a good idea, particularly considering the open-grained species provided by many kit manufacturers. For a number of very good reasons, my own preference for sealing is clear ("white") shellac which can be purchased pre-mixed at most any paint or hardware store. (Zinsser 1-qt. Clear Shellac Traditional Finish and Sealer (Case of 4) 00304H - The Home Depot) Shellac is compatible with all common coatings, whether oil or water based. There is no need to apply anything over shellac before painting nor anything over the paint after painting. The less applied to the model, the better, so as to avoid the loss of crisp detail from thick coating applications.

Sarcasm? Not quite sure. Could it be that Floquil paint is again available? I checked eBay where there has long been old bottles of Floquil offered for sale, but now I see a lot more and a new style label for "Floquil Marine Colors." I don't recall Floquil ever having a line of marine colors. "Railroad colors," yes, but "marine," no. Could it possibly be true that Floquil is being made again? "I love the smell of Dio-sol in the morning... Smells like... like modeling!" I sure did love Floquil paints, as did everybody. Just like doing anything your mother used to yell at you about because "it might put your eye out" guaranteed it would really be fun, Floquil seems to have proven the point that whatever they say might cause the loss of brain cells and destroy the environment as we know it guaranteed to be the best stuff for the job!

Let me say at the outset that Kurt Van Dahm (kurtvd19 - Model Ship World™) is the expert on all things airbrush around here. You should shoot him a message and I'm sure he will be happy to give you the best answer you will get from anybody. He is also some sort of a rep for Badger Airbrush Co., I believe. Anyway, he can recommend the best airbrush and compressor to acquire in your price range and probably know where to get the best deal on it. As for your question about thinning acrylic paint for airbrushing, the answer is yes, it is entirely possible to thin regular acrylic paint to the consistency required for airbrushing. (In fact, most airbrushers condition all their paint for airbrushing regardless of what some manufacturer says on their tiny overpriced bottles. Pre-thinned paint "for airbrushing" is just paying good money for more cheap thinner and less expensive pigment!) That said, you should be very careful to use the particular paint's manufacturer's recommended thinner. Some acrylics are thinned with water and some with alcohol and some with a proprietary thinner which is probably alcohol and Windex or something, but who knows for sure. YouTube is full of videos teaching how to make your own acrylic paint thinners to save money. Such homebrews should always be tested before use on a finished piece, of course. Many hobby paint manufacturers sell clear flat coatings for spraying over finishes that are too glossy. Flattening solutions can also be added to the paint and many manufacturers sell their paint not only in many colors, but also in a variety of finishes between flat and high gloss. I only use flat finishes on ship models. Gloss finishes are for automobile models, I expect. While I have had good results with alcohol-thinned acrylic paints, water-thinned acrylic paints have proven something of a challenge. Airbrushing is designed to spray atomized paint on a surface where it dries very quickly. Unlike alcohol, water doesn't dry quickly at all and it's easy to spray "wet on wet" and make a mess of it. For this reason, I am not a fan of water-thinned acrylic paint, or any other acrylic paint (for a variety of reasons,) but that is just my own personal preference. I have gone increasingly to using tubed artists' oil paints, which can be thinned with any number of solvents with different drying characteristics and can be conditioned with retarding or accelerating agents and flattening additives to achieve a wide range of effects. In the long run, quality artists' oil paint is far less expensive than small bottles of paint sold by the hobby companies, of better quality in many cases, and much easier to mix your own colors from a small pallete of basic colors. Other folks' mileage may differ, I'm sure.

I've only skimmed my copy of the latest issue of WoodenBoat magazine, but I see where there is an article in it on a gozzo (the lateen-rigged Ligurian fishing boat you've mentioned) that has been designed for yacht use with a low doghouse. I don't know about the doghouse, but the plans in the magazine look to be sufficient to build a model from. There's wide range of details on those fishing boats and you can probably learn something from any plans you can lay hands on. One of the catches with indigenous working watercraft is that so often they are built by tradition and by eye with perhaps a mould pattern or three handed down from father to son boatbuilders and drawn plans are hard to come by.

See: Pine tar is a very dark brown, close to black. "Coca Cola color" is really the best description I've heard. The degree of brown depends upon how much tar is put on the cordage. Standing rigging was heavily tarred (as much as it would soak up) to preserve it and so was so brown it was nearly black. At scale viewing distances, standing rigging would appear black. Pine tar applied to a baseball bat to afford a "sticky' grip for the batter's hands: Coal tar, essentially creosote, is entirely jet black: In the Age of Sail, pine tar was a "naval store," and an " essential strategic material." The finest pine tar came from the forests of Sweden and was generically called "Stockholm tar." Obviously, every European navy required pine tar and they all had to be in Sweden's good graces if they wanted to have access to Swedish "Stockholm tar." As with strategic materials even today, nations would try to influence third party producer nations not to sell such materials to their enemies. Britain was forever fighting with her neighbors and a reliable supply of pine tar was virtually essential to her survival. One of the more important reasons England was so possessive of her American colonies was because they ensured that England had her own supply of pine tar and was immune to the vagaries of the European pine tar market. Coal tar is a by-product of the production of coke and coal gas from coal. When the Industrial Revolution powered by coal commenced, coal-rich Britain found itself with plenty of coal tar and less need for pine tar. It would stand to reason that ships built and maintained in the Colonies would have used pine tar, which was readily available in America, for longer than would the British maritime industry that had coal tar more readily available. It would also be presumed that as America joined in the Industrial Revolution, with her rich coal resources, she also would have gone over to the less expensive and more readily available coal tar, as well.

For sure. The drafting machine scales are actually nothing other than regular scales with a couple of threaded holes to attach the clip for attaching them to the drafting machine arm. They were made in every scale imaginable. The common scales are still widely available on eBay. Some of the odd-ball scales may be a bit more difficult to find. They run around five or ten bucks a piece. Before they were plastic, they were made of metal, and before that, of boxwood and celluloid or ivory. The boxwood ones were the same scales that came in the fitted velvet-lined cases with eight, ten, or twelve scales in the box, each having one, or sometimes two scale markings on them. I've picked up quite a few such scales over the years. I have plastic and metal ones for my drafting machine and a fair number of the old K&E Paragon boxwood ones, although not a complete set of those. Sad to say, for quite some time when the beautiful old boxwood rules were plentiful, modelers encouraged probably by some article in a modeling magazine, snapped up as many as they could as a source of cheap boxwood and "recycled" them! I'd love to find a boxed set, but they are very pricey when they turn up on occasion. Only based on my own experience, I'd guess one person in ten, or less, knows that accurate professional scales are supposed to be used by picking up the distances with a pair of dividers (preferably a hairspring divider to make the most minute adjustments) and comparing them to the scale with the dividers. Most think they are like school rulers that double as straight edges and stand-alone measuring tools.

Perhaps a tedious step, but not challenging, especially if the planks aren't sprung. To begin with, the studs are welded using a template that ensures all are equally spaced and if they've done that correctly, you're starting out in pretty good shape. To replace a plank, patterns are made from cardstock or doorskin. Squares a bit smaller than plank width are cut and holes matching the stud diameter are drilled in the center of the squares. The squares are laid over the studs with the stud running through the hole in the square. Longer strips of cardstock or doorskin a smidgen less wide than the distance between the adjacent plank(s) and the studs are laid against the adjacent plank edge and on top of the squares laid over the studs. The squares on the studs are attached to the strip of cardstock or doorsking with a hot melt glue gun. The strip and the squares are then lifted off the studs in one piece and form the template for drilling the holes in the plank to accommodate the threaded studs. If they did a good job of setting the studs, This template can be used repeatedly. If a stud is out of place, the square with the hole at that stud is simply peeled off the template strip, placed over the offending stud, and hot melt glued to the template strip again, thereby eliminating the need to make an entire new template.

A 1:32 scale or a 3/8" to the foot scale? Or a 1/32" to the foot scale? Truth be told, I didn't go looking for the specific scale you were asking about and just posted the sites that had printable scales. My bad! I neglected to mention that In addition to the internal copying errors issues encountered in printers themselves, printed scales also pose the risk of changing size along with relative humidity. It's not about being exceptionally anal-retentive about measurements, (that being a relative thing among modelers,) but rather, it's just that your measurements are never going to be any more accurate than your rule and errors are so often cumulative. 1:32 or 3/8" to the foot scale is a standard architectural drawing scale and it should be found on any standard architect's triangular scale. (Not to be confused with an engineer's triangular scale which is scaled decimally.) Any modeler would be well-served by owning one. Buy one with decent scale engraving, not a pressed plastic job. You want an accurate scale. They aren't expensive and very commonly available. Get a decent pair of dividers to pick up your measurements from your rule while you're at it if you don't already have a pair.

Google is your friend, or Bing, as the case may be in this instance: printable scale rulers - Search (bing.com) See: Printable scale rulers - Printable Ruler (printable-ruler.net) Printable Ruler - Free Accurate Ruler Inches, CM, MM - World of Printables 9 Sets of Free, Printable Rulers When You Need One Fast (thesprucecrafts.com) The catch with printable rulers is the ability of the particular printer to print the rule accurately. In the first instance, most copiers and printers these days have a built-in "counterfeiting prevention feature" that prints a slightly off-size copy to prevent people from printing money. Others have less than sufficiently exact sizing scales. At best, if copying a scale, you have to fiddle a lot to adjust the sizing on the machine to get an exactly accurate copy. These printable scales, being in digital format and not going through a copier, may well have overcome those limitations.

Personal message sent via forum message feature. I just noticed the original post was dated almost three years ago! One of the dangers of checking the "new posts since last visit" feature, I suppose!

Like a lot of "Old Pharts," I'm familiar with Marine Models Company kits from years gone by. They were high quality kits for their time, equivalent to the old Model Shipways "yellow box" kits. What you see above is what you get. Their plans were generally well done, but don't expect an "idiot-proof" step-by-step instruction manual and laser-cut wooden parts. Kit manufacturers fifty years ago in an age when most gentlemen had a certain degree of manual arts skills acquired from the osmosis of life, if nothing else, expected more of their customers that they would be entitled to expect from today's generation of "keyboard jockeys." Regrettably, some of MMCo.'s metal castings seem to have contained a fair amount of lead and may be subject to deterioration from oxidation. They should be able to be replicated in cast resin, using the lead originals as patterns. What these kits provided were a set of plans, a rough, machine-carved solid basswood hull, a few metal fittings, some dowel spars, and string. It would be an excellent "transitional" model, for one interested in the clipper ships and looking to make "the leap into hyperspace" to scratch building. (Or "go over to the dark side" as some may believe!) This is a 1:192 (1/16" to the foot) model which will limit the detail one will be able to provide and it will otherwise pose a challenge in terms of its relatively small scale but it is still capable of producing a nice model if built with care and attention. Red Jacket was the first ship of the White Star Line and had a long live in many trades. She appears to be very well documented and there is a lot of information and plans for her online. A forumite build a very nice example of the very similar Bluejacket Shipcrafters' Red Jacket 1:96 scale solid hull model and posted a piece on the completion of that build. (See:

I believe the current technology you would want to explore for this task (as would most modelers requiring scale lettering and symbols) is the Cricut Everything Maker. (https://cricut.com/en-us/cutting-machines/cricut-maker/everything-maker) Without getting ahead of my skis describing what this machine does, and it does a lot, I'll just say that it is a small CNC cutting machine which, among other things like fabric, leather, thin wood, and cardstock, can apparently cut frisket film to a high degree of accuracy and detail. (Frisket film, if you are not familiar with it, is a adhesive-backed plastic masking film used by artists to mask areas for airbrushing. https://www.dickblick.com/categories/painting/airbrushing/frisket-film/) The Cricut machine connects with a home computer or smartphone and graphics can be fed from these into the machine. There are a wide range of mediums that can be used in the machine. In addition to frisket film, the machine will produce adhesive-backed transfers for hard surfaces or iron-on transfers (for fabric,) such as tee shirt printing. Beyond that, all I know is that Cricut Machines are all the rage with lady "crafters" these days. My daughter is the district administrator for all the art and music programs for a local school district and happens to have a Cricut machine of her own. There are a range of Cricut Machines ranging in price from around $500 to $1,000. (Ouch!) You may want to find someone you know who has one and could either cut you some frisket masks or some iron-on transfers. All they'd need would be the artwork on a digital file. There is also at least one outfit that will make iron-on transfers for you for a couple of bucks a piece. See: https://ninjatransfers.com/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Cricut&utm_term=cricut heat}&tw_source=bing&tw_adid=80058377713213}&tw_campaign=Cricut&msclkid=46a9d50453211902fe31b1edd7361892&utm_content=Ad group 1 As it happens, the Cricut Machine is a small-scale version of the larger machines which produce the same larger adhesive-backed lettering used by full-scale sailmakers for putting sail numbers and other printing on sails. This machine appears to offer lots of promise for use by ship modelers, especially cardstock modelers! (With apologies to everyones' pocketbooks, my motto: "He who dies with the most tools wins!") YouTube is full of Cricut Machine videos. For an overview: See also:

As for the arrangement drawn above, not all that far back. The drawing shows the standard USN arrangement for laying wood decking "veneer" on top of a welded steel deck. Welded ship construction became common during WWII. Two inches of wood on top of the steel deck was specified for a light cruiser, apparently. That's not a whole lot of wood. I've not previously encountered the practice of laminating an inch of teak on top of an inch of Doug fir. The mention of using this laminated decking on "new work," suggests this was a wartime economizing practice. Even with supply lines open, there was not enough teak to supply the naval building program. Only cruisers and battleships rated teak decks. All the Iowa class BB's had teak-sheathed weather decks, but they were built "finestkind" regardless of wartime shortages. (Interestingly, the Montana class BB's, while authorized, were never laid down due to construction delays caused by wartime steel shortages and, by the time supplies were available to build them, the heavy battleship had been rendered obsolete by the aircraft carrier.) Teak, which became widely available to the British beginning around 1824 when they fought the First Anglo-Burmese War (shortly followed by the second) to take control of the primary source of the valuable timber, was favored for decks because teak weathered very well without the need for any paint or oil, provided a good footing, was abrasion resistant, and easy to maintain. Teak was not favored for other warship construction applications, though, because teak splinters something fierce on impact and large wood "splinters" flying from the impact of cannon shot caused more casualties in the wooden warships than anything else. The Navy built something like 143 aircraft carriers during the war, primarily the 24 large Essex class carriers and 50 Casablanca class escort or "jeep" carriers. All American carriers until the Midway class had Douglas fir wooden decks laid over structural steel as in the drawing in the post above. (In contrast to the British carriers which had armor-plated steel decks.) The wooden decks were favored because they were far lighter than armored decks, permitting more planes to be carried, and battle damage was easily repaired. They were also cooler in the tropics and therefore far easier on the plane tires when landing. (They did not, however, stand up to the Japanese kamakazi attacks as well as the armor-plate decked British carriers!) These wood-sheathed steel decks were not structural nor essential for watertightness, so their caulking was for the purpose of keeping water from running beneath the wood and rusting the deck. They used a special welding rig which would spot-weld the threaded spuds right to the steel deck as is still done today: Stud machine-welded to steel plate: Stud welding rig in use on steel deck: I'd be interested to know how they fastened teak decking to riveted iron decks before ship-welding technology came along. I've never had the opportunity to see a wood-sheathed riveted iron deck dissected. On wooden ships, the wooden decking was a primary structural feature of the ship and the wooden decks in an average-sized shop were easily four inches thick. These planks would be mechanically fastened to deck beams with spikes, bolts, or trunnels and the caulking would be driven "hard" into the seams which put tremendous rigidity into the hull structure. Decks were caulked with a "hawsing iron" which is a massive iron similar to an axe. It's a two-man job with one holding the iron in the seam and the other hitting it with a "beetle," a large two-handed mallet. Hawsing iron: Shipwright with an armful of beetles:

Very nicely done job! To my eye, your omission of the deck plank butts and plank fastening plugs or trunnels gives a very good effect without cluttering things up. Your nibbed planking against the covering boards is "finestkind!" That must have taken a bit of time to work out. Just a minor note: the tar, or "marine glue" in later times, which was poured hot into the deck seams is called "stopping" or more modernly "seam compound." The seam is caulked with oakum, or cotton "rope" in small craft, which is driven into the vee-shaped seam. The seam is created by planing the sides of the planks at a slight angle after they are initially fitted flush against each other. The seams are primed with paint, the caulking is driven home, and then the caulking material is soaked with thinned paint and allowed to dry. The "stopping" is then poured hot on top of the driven caulking material. The stopping is intended to protect the caulking material from the weather. The watertightness of the seam is provided by the driven caulking material and the swelling of the plank edges below the caulking seam against each other as with a wooden staved barrel. The width of the vee-shaped seam at the outboard face of the plank is dependent upon the thickness of the plank. The planks should be tightly butted against each other at their inboard edges with the vee-shaped seam above that. The angle of the vee need only be sufficient to hold the caulking material. There are rules of thumb as to how deep, and therefore how wide, the seam has to be to hold the caulking material. I'd have to go hunting for it, but offhand my recollection is that the depth of the seam should be about half the length of the plank thickness. (It's been a while since I last hung and caulked carvel plank.) Consequently, caulking irons are made with varying thicknesses to their edges to fit the different widths of the vee-shaped caulking seams. The irons' edges are identified as to their width by the number of "creases" in the edge of the seam. The creases are lengthwise indentations on the edge of the iron which gives the iron face a corrugated surface. A larger vessel's plank seams will require a "double" or "triple crease" iron, the "double" being twice the thickness of the single crease, and so on. Ship's caulking irons in a range of sizes: Approximately 7'' long. The "ship's iron" has a larger head that a "boat iron." Blades are 2-1/2'' wide "Ship's irons'" thicknesses below correspond to the seam width. The vee-shaped seam at the deck surface would be slightly wider than the properly sized iron so as to accommodate the stopping: Right to left: 1/32'' - #00 "Double aught crease iron" 1/16' - #0 "Single aught crease iron." 1/8'' - #1 "Single crease iron." 3/16 '- #2 "Double crease iron" 1/4''- #3 "Three crease iron." 5/16''- #4 "Four crease iron." (Not pictured below.) See: Ship Caulkers and Their Tools (sydnassloot.com) and C. DREW & Co. Shipwrights Caulking Tools (numismalink.com)

Just a general opinionated observation for what it's worth: I think that the overwhelming majority of modeling details which are less than optimal are the result of overscale small details which the modeler focuses upon and obsesses over at the expense of the overall impression of reality which is the true objective of the modeling endeavor. Slightly underscale details do not similarly offend the experienced viewer's eyes because our minds, being what they are, unconsciously compensate for details that are smaller than they should be but not for those that are larger and give us a "poke in the eye." It's always better to err on the side of subtlety. When miniaturists undertake to portray a subject with the level of detail found in a ship model, the smaller the scale the more the modeler must be an "impressionist" rather than a "realist." I've found that scale and historical accuracy should always take precedence over all else. If you do the research on scantlings for your vessel, you'll likely find that the stopping in its deck seams was narrower than a half inch. In most vessels other than naval warships maintained "Bristol fashion" with regularly holy-stoned decks, the decks will be quite dark, discolored by weathering, dirt, and the drips of pine tar and paint falling from aloft and tracked by the sticky bare feet of sailors climbing in tarred rigging softened by the hot sun.) Indeed, the deck of a working whaler would appear uniformly black from the grease spread by the rendering of blubber. The appearance of a ship's deck from a scale distance (i.e. if one were observing the prototype vessel from a full-scale distance) will very often lack the details of plank seams and fastening plugs or trunnels that so many modelers seem so determined to portray in miniature when in real life they'd be invisible or nearly so. Needless to say, carvel-hung hull plank seams wouldn't be discernable when viewed from the usual distant scale viewing distance because they were always finished fair and painted over. They weren't intended to be seen. Hull seams might become more apparent over time as the hull "worked" and became "tired," but even then they were painted over and would not show seams of contrasting paint color. Of course, there are modeling styles that deviate from what the eye would see of the prototype vessel. The most common of these would be the "as built" framed models whose purpose is to accurately portray timbering details and are finished "bright" (unpainted) as some of the Admiralty Board models seen in the higher quality maritime museum collections. Even in these often-unplanked open-framed models, where plank seams and fastenings may be shown, proper scale may well dictate that such details are nearly invisible or only very subtly suggested. In the finest 1:48 scale museum pieces, unfinished pearwood deck planking is sometimes merely drawn with a pencil line the width of a human hair, omitting plank ends or fastenings of any kind. The viewer's eyes see only the barest suggestion of "planking" with no hint of fastenings or plank butts, but their brain correctly says "planked decks." It is this "tricking the eye" that produces the illusion of reality in fine scale models. Overscale details such as prominent fastenings and plugs, particularly when set where no shipwright ever would have put them, too close to the plank edge or even a single fastening in a plank end, and shiny polished "real copper" plates with tacks having rounded heads two scale inches in diameter giving the overall effect of a terminal case of acne, may demonstrate the modeler's dedication and patience, but to no good effect beyond that. I post this opinion not to criticize any particular modeler's efforts, but rather as an exhortation in the interests of "better modeling." We often see a less experienced modeler proudly posting work in this forum which exhibits out-of-scale and inaccurate details, often after obviously spending a tremendous amount of time creating them. At that point, it's too late to comment gracefully on such flaws and so nobody mentions them, directly at least. Alternately, when newer modelers ask questions regarding their intentions to pursue such errors, experienced modelers circumspectly express their opinions in suggested alternative courses of action in order to avoid causing offense or hurt feelings. The result of this, together with the marketing gimmicks of some kit manufacturers ("Over 1,000 parts... includes real copper plates!") seems to only perpetuate these mistakes. So I offer these comments only generally to those who may wish to consider them. For those who might ask, "So what makes you an expert?" I can only answer, "Because these are all mistakes I've made myself!" Tom Lauria, a master modeler who has an excellent collection of YouTube videos on ship modeling, has a good video entitled Scale and the Compelling Impression. I highly recommend it!

Well, never was there ever a ship with a completely shiny coppered bottom, so I suppose your choice to have it shine is a stylistic one. I've polished more than my share of brass over the years. Here's a review of options from the really tough jobs to the easy ones. I wrote this before I saw BenD's post. If he says Brasso alone did that job for him, I'd definitely say, go for it! The "rub" is the rub, though. If your plating won't stand up to the rubbing that polishing requires, some of these products which work chemically rather than mechanically with an abrasive may be helpful. The first caveat is that I have no idea what you used to glue the plates down, so I can't say for sure that they won't come falling off if you just dip the whole hull in a de-oxidizing solution. That would be a relatively easy fix, put perhaps wreak havoc with the hull structure itself if it's plank on frame or bulkhead rather than solid wood. These suggestions should be taken with a grain of salt (which I think will also work) and always, always test these methods out on a sample piece before using them on the hull itself. All of these methods employ chemicals which breakdown the copper oxide tarnish. They work chemically and hard, rough rubbing should not be necessary. Repeated applications will be helpful in removing stubborn tarnish as there is some degree of "neutralizing" as each does its work. Take your choice, in order of ascending effectiveness: 1. Mix five parts water, one part vinegar, and add salt until the salt stops dissolving in the mix. Apply to the copper surface with a soft cloth to clean off the copper oxide, then rinse well. A soft toothbrush or cotton swab can be used on uneven surfaces. This is the cheapest, and probably mildest solution, but also the least effective. 2. Use Simple Green all-purpose cleaner. It's a great cleaner and will also remove copper oxidation. It's a mild liquid "soap" with a pleasant aroma commonly available anywhere cleaning supplies are sold. It contains a mild amount of citric acid. It's not particularly aggressive, but repeated applications will remove copper oxidation. See: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Simple-Green-All-Purpose-Cleaner-Concentrate-Spray-Bottle-Original-32-fl-oz/22301219?wl13=1755&selectedSellerId=0&http://clickserve.dartsearch.net/link/click?lid=92700060762254883&ds_s_kwgid=58700006715445296&ds_s_inventory_feed_id=97700000003583668&ds_a_cid=654818135&ds_a_caid=13956209185&ds_a_agid=126452889113&ds_a_lid=pla-1392082700544&ds_a_cid=116919406&ds_a_caid=361575031&ds_a_agid=120066732282 3. Use Barkeeper's Friend copper cleaner available online or from many stores. It's sold for polishing kitchen pots and pans. It comes in two forms, powdered and as a cream. Pick your own poison. I find the two equally acceptable. Follow the instructions on the container. Apply to the copper surface with a soft cloth to clean off the copper oxide, then rinse. As with any of the acidic cleaners, the longer it stays on and wet, the longer it works. You won't get far expecting instant results with acidic cleaners. Give them time to work. Barkeeper's Friend recommends waiting a full minute before rubbing it off, as I recall. A soft toothbrush or cotton swab can be used on uneven surfaces. This product is not as aggressive as a stronger solution of citric or oxalic acid and probably contains some other "magic ingredients" that their advertisements will tell you make their product better than the rest. See: Amazon.com: Bar Keepers Friend Powder Cleanser (2 x 12 oz) Multipurpose Cleaner, Stain & Rust Remover for Bathroom, Kitchen & Outdoor Use on Stainless Steel, Aluminum, Brass, Tile, Ceramic, Porcelain & More : Health & Household and Amazon.com: Bar Keepers Friend Soft Cleanser Liquid (26 oz - English/Spanish) - Multipurpose Cleaner & Rust Stain Remover for Stainless Steel, Porcelain, Ceramic Tile, Copper, Brass, and More (2) : Health & Household 4. Use CLR Cleaner ("Calcium, Lime, and Rust") as directed on the bottle. This product is sold primarily for removing rust and calcium deposits built up on plumbing fixtures. It is available in most hardware stores. It is a harsh chemical product that contains citric, gluconic, lactic, glycolic, and sulfamic acid. Don't ask me what all these acids are for, but this stuff is definitely the thermonuclear option! Use as directed on the bottle. It can be diluted with water for a less aggressive effect. You may want to experiment with varying strengths to see which works best. As with the rest, a soft cloth, toothbrush, or cotton swab should serve to apply the stuff. See: Amazon.com: CLR PRO CL4PROEA Calcium, Lime and Rust Remover, 28 oz Bottle : Health & Household 5. Mix a solution of citric or oxalic acid (available in paint and hardware stores as "wood bleach) and water following the instructions on the container. Apply to the copper surface with a soft cloth to clean off the copper oxide and rinse off. A soft toothbrush or cotton swabs can be used on uneven surfaces. Wear surgical gloves when handling this mild acidic solution for extended periods of time. It won't harm bare skin, but prolonged exposure will cause delayed burns of the sensitive tissues under your fingernails, causing indescribable agony for an interminable couple of days following overexposure. (Don't ask me how I know this!) See: Buy the Savogran 10501 Wood Bleach, Concentrated ~ 12 ounces | Hardware World and Amazon.com: Pure Original Ingredients Citric Acid (1 lb) Eco-Friendly Packaging, Natural, Food Safe : Health & Household After removal of the oxidation, you may wish to polish the copper to a higher shine. You may wish to try any copper polish for the job before using "the hard stuff" above. In fact, if the oxidation is slight, you may accomplish the finish you want using a copper polish alone. However, I may will run into some difficulty in trying to do so, though, because most polishes contain mild very abrasives and work by abrading the surface and your surface is decidedly not smooth. Their polishes' effectiveness will depend upon the surface's ability to withstand rubbing. Any copper polish is fine. Brasso (a cream,) Flitz (a paste or cream,) and Nevr-dull (an impregnated cotton wadding and USN bosuns' favorite) are all proven winners and folks each have their own preferences. See: Amazon.com: Brasso Metal Polish, 8 oz Bottle for Brass, Copper, Stainless Steel, Chrome, Aluminum, Pewter & Bronze, 8 oz (Pack of 3) : Health & Household, Amazon.com: Flitz Multi-Purpose Polish and Cleaner Paste for Metal, Plastic, Fiberglass, Aluminum, Jewelry, Sterling Silver: Great for Headlight Restoration + Rust Remover, Made in the USA 1.76 Ounce (Pack of 1) : Health & Household, and Amazon.com: Nevr Dull NEVER DULL POLISH 5OZ : Health & Household. (Full disclosure: I don't own any Amazon stock. I just use their links to identify the stuff. All of these products should be available in any hardware store or even many supermarkets. ) After you've polished your coppered bottom (making sure there's no polish residue remaining on the surface... perhaps easier said than done,) it will immediately begin to tarnish again, so coat it with a real clear gloss lacquer (and not a varnish which can yellow.) This is not a job for weak "eco-friendly" coatings. It's worth risking cancer for. (Just kidding... use only in a well-ventilated area... and all that.) Apply in multiple light coats, rather than thick coats. It's sold in spray cans if you want to make your life easier. You must thoroughly coat the surface with the lacquer, though. Even the slightest uncovered area will continue to tarnish and look terrible against the contrasting bright shiny polished copper. In fairness, I have to add that I've seen a lot of professionally lacquered brightly shined copper and brass items over the years and it seems that after a certain number of years, depending upon the local environment, they tend to develop tarnished black "spots," sometimes called "the pox," beneath the lacquer. This is probably a function of oxygen permeating the coating in some fashion. Manufacturers always lacquer coat their bright work because that keeps it looking "just polished" on the shop shelves and that can be many years, but, eventually, sooner or later, "the pox" strikes and there's no cure but to strip the lacquer from the piece entirely and keep it "bare" and polished regularly. This actually looks better than the factory lacquer because the detail doesn't polish as well and is thereby highlighted, but you have to keep up with the polishing. In the case of a rough-surfaced delicate miniature coppering job, you will probably never be able to strip it and refinish it short of destroying it. This will be your one shot at it. I must say that trying to polish a rough-textured surface like you've got there may prove to be an exercise in futility. You will have to polish it all, including every nook and cranny. Alternately, you may achieve a rather nice antiqued effect if the polishing isn't uniform, with darker, tarnished areas in the edges of the plates accenting them visually. Do remember to experiment and test your choice of methods before you hit the model itself. This is the sort of thing that is really easy to end up looking a lot worse than better if it goes sideways. I get it that you like "shiny," but you will not go wrong if you allow your copper to tarnish naturally to a "used penny" color. That's how it looks in real life after it's been in the air for a while. Exposed for longer and it will become green like the Statue of Liberty. Excellent forum post on painting faux coppered bottoms:

Sure. It happens all the time. You have to use one of the price-comparing apps to find out where the lowest price can be found. The Chinese manufacturers do it all the time. The buyer should beware of imitations, though. They might look exactly like the higher priced one and yet be of far inferior quality. With much of this sort of stuff, it is fortunately cheap enough that you can take a chance without getting hurt much if it turns out not to be as advertised.

I came across this interesting gizmo online. It's designed to tie snelling knots on fishing hooks or to tie loops in fishing line. I wonder if anybody has any experience with using one for model ship rigging. It seems that a nice small scale "hangman's noose" could be tied with it. That might make stropping small rope-stropped blocks, etc., a much easier task. ... Or not? Anybody know? See: https://www.lilybady.com/products/hooks?fbclid=IwAR0pQEdMc-qHnEvZ5kg6zR-34OO9sMP9zTNAX9NkKNJm6fguHtPssSGp1I4 for full particulars of the thing. Fifteen bucks online.

The truth of the matter is that there isn't a mini-table saw selling anywhere for around a hundred bucks that is suitable for the purposes you intend to use one for. This is because the two essentials in any small table saw are accuracy and torque. Each requires manufacturing costs directionally proportional to the degree of accuracy and the amount of torque the machine can produce. The $100 Chinese mini-table saws generally run 12 VDC high speed / low torque motors running around 5,000 RPM. A high speed motor is fine for lightweight work or for abrasive work. (e.g.: a ceramic cutting disk on a Dremel mototool for cutting brass tubing.) For cutting, torque, the twisting power of the motor shaft, is required. Less expensive powered tools trade speed for torque. In some applications, this is acceptable, but not where the motor lacks the torque to meet the demand of the job and "stalls out" or overheats. Simply put, high torque motors cost more to produce, which puts them outside the range of the $100 Chinese Amazon Specials. Similarly, accuracy in any powered tool depends upon mass. The weight of a powered tool is generally the quickest way to judge its quality. In micro-table saws we're not talking forklift grade weight, but the principle still applies. "Fit and finish" is also critical to accuracy. Saw fences that are adjusted with stamped metal wing nuts are a sure sign that the machine isn't going be capable of the accuracy one requires to do decent modeling work. Stamped metal parts instead of CNC-machined parts are another indicator of low quality and undependable accuracy tolerances. If all you have to spend is a hundred bucks, I agree with Allen and Roger: you'd be better off tuning up your full-sized table saw with a finishing blade and dance with the girl you brought. Of course, a decent specialty table saw blade can cost you more than $100 these days, as well. It is worth noting that MicroMark and Proxxon, retailers of modeling tools and supplies, each also offer respectable micro-table saws. While they are in the same price range as the Byrnes table saw, the Byrnes machine is a much better built machine, more technologically advanced, and generally considered a better value for the money. If I were you, which I'm not, I'd save my money until I could afford to buy a Byrnes Model Machines table saw. Byrnes Model Machines - Thickness Sander (Yeah, I know it says "thickness sander," but that's actually the saw page.) They are presently on vacation but are supposed to return the end of this month. The price of their saw isn't listed at the moment, I guess because they aren't shipping any until they return from vacation. One will probably run you six to eight hundred bucks, depending upon the cost of shipping and the options you elect to have on it. I know this is a lot of money for anybody, but for anyone who wants to even just cut their own strip wood for modeling, this saw will pay for itself in surprisingly short order. It will also hold its value and you will be able to readily sell it if you ever wish to do so. (Which, if the lack of eBay listings are any indication, isn't likely to happen.) I don't own stock in the Byrnes Model Machines company, but I hold Jim Byrnes and his products in high regard. The Byrnes "Jim Saw" is universally recognized as the finest micro-saw of its kind ever made and is an especially excellent machine that will afford you pride and joy of ownership and use for generations to come. It's worth skipping a few dinners out, shots at the local bar after work, or even a few hours of overtime on the job to acquire one! While it's advice that's ignored as often as it's offered, when you need a tool, buy the best tool you can afford. The most expensive tool is the one you have to buy more than once!

You certainly can. A bit of burnt umber, some yellow, and some white and you're good to go. No need to bother with the "flesh" color at all, actually. (You may want to save the bottle for posterity. It will be a collector's item some day. "Flesh color" has become a politically incorrect "Eurocentric" term these days. Mixing colors isn't rocket science, although there can be some surprises using synthetic paints where the base color wasn't a "pure" pigment. If you don't remember from grammar school, a "color wheel" indicates which primary colors when mixed together will yield secondary colors and so on. See: Color wheel - Wikipedia For your purposes, however, I would suggest you go to a local artists' supply or crafts store and simply purchase a small bottle of acrylic craft paint of a suitable color, or colors. It's the same stuff and probably a lot less expensive than the "model paints. You can also purchase higher quality acrylic artists' oil paints sold in tubes. A few small tubes of basic ship modeling colors plus black and white and you should be able to mix whatever you'd need for a ship model. Find out what thinning solvent is required for whichever brand of acrylic oil color you purchase. It will be water or denatured alcohol. Use this thinner to thin the oil paint which will be the consistency of tooth paste as iti comes out of the tube. You will probably find that your thinned paint may still have somewhat of a gloss finish, and you can obtain "flattening solution" from the same retailer you buy your oil paint from that can be added to yield a matte finish. You may also wish to obtain some "accelerator," which can be added to your thinned paint to make it dry faster. (Artists' oils are made to dry slowly so an oil painter can work on a painting over a a span of days without the paint on the canvas drying overnight.) Follow the instructions on the containers for the use of such additives or ask for assistance at the store. They should be able to advise you about these "paint conditioners." You will find that if you carefully replace the caps on your tubes of oil colors and keep the cap threads clean when replacing the caps, your tubed acrylic artists' oil colors will last practically forever without drying out. As a plastic modeler, you probably already know the versatility of painting acrylics on plastics. Obtaining very realistic wooden effects using various weathering techniques are possible. You might want to watch a few YouTube videos if you aren't already familiar with these tricks of the trade. The war gaming figure painters have developed this into a fine art and there's much to discover in their videos. The YouTube instructions on the use of acrylic artists' oils on plastic models will also be helpful. The learning curve isn''t steep. Once you become comfortable mixing your own colors and your own paint for brush or airbrush, you'll never pay those inflated "modeling colors" again.

I concur with the above posters. It's a particularly charming "decorator" model that may have some nominal value as an antique at this point, assuming someone has a place for it in their interior decoration scheme. It's probably of German or Spanish origin from the first quarter of the 20th dentury and made for the export market. It is decidedly not an "ex-voto," "church ship," or "votive model." The very few authenticated votive models contemporary to the period of your model are much more simply crafted, if not downright crude when compared to than your model. Additionally, your model exhibits a significant number of obviously mass-produced parts made with tooling that would not have been available to the average sea-going builder-donor of an actual votive model. Note particularly the many accurately turned pieces that indicate the use of a lathe, metal castings, especially the anchors and figurehead that are of cast metal, and (brass?) nails and escutcheon pins. It's highly unkikely that a 15th century European seaman giving thanks for a safe voyage would have access to such tools and materials. The 15th century "Mataro" votive model in the Maritime Museum in Rotterdam, Holland. See: Model Making History; Matar� - the Oldest Museum Model (lifeinscale.net)

From Wiki: http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Cunt_splice **** splice A '**** splice', often softened to 'cut splice' or 'bight splice' for publication and in genteel conversation, is formed by eye splicing two different pieces of line into each other the same distance from the bitter end of each piece, forming "a Collar or Eye...in the Bight of the Rope. It is used for Pendents, Jib-Guys, &c."[1] Because the Eye is in the middle of the resultant rope, tension in the rope will tighten the eye around a wooden collar or fairlead. In Master and Commander, the bosun, Mr. Watt, personally works a **** splice into the breeching for the twelve-pounder bow-chaser that Aubrey mounts in HMS Sophie.[2] References ↑ Lever, Darcy. The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor: or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging and to Practical Seamanship. (c)1998 by Dover Publications, Inc.: p.5 ↑ O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander. (c) 1969 by Patrick O'Brian. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and New York, First Edition: p. 63. What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced but, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel, q.v., this image of a carronade aboard HMS Victory. It is conceivable that the gun's cascabel knob would have been placed in the splice. In that case, as the gun recoiled, the increased tension in each side of the splice would have tightened it around the cascabel knob. ****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** The repeated interruption of four asterisks redacting the well-recognized name of the subject splice in the article above are apparently artifacts of some sort of automated "net nanny" Bowdlerizing algorithm. The gymnastics employed by cunning linguists to avoid the use of a visually descriptive Anglo-Saxon nautical term is rather pretentious. Note at footnote 2. above that the editorial comment, "What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced, bur, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel." Is incorrect and misleading. Allanyed's explanation above of varying practices according to the period is correct. When a breaching rope was simply turned about the cascabel ball, it was commonly lashed together at the point where the rope crossed to form the loop in order to securely fasten the rope to the neck of the ball so it couldn't come adrift in use. For modeling purposes, where scale renders actual splices impossible, faux splices can be created by tapering the bitter ends of the ropes by scraping the individual strands with the edge of a sharp blade or carefully trimming them at an angle with a sharp scissors. The tapered ends, rather than being tucked as in an actual splice, are then laid against the rope and secured with adhesive and a simple whipping applied over the area where the "splice" occurs. This creates the tapered appearance of a true whipped splice while avoiding an unsightly out-of-scale "lump" where the splices occur.

I have a Vanda-Lay Dremel-powered drill press. Vanda-Lay makes some interesting tools and their quality is probably second only to Jim Byrnes' Model Machines tools. That said, there is no question that the Byrnes thickness sander is the better tool and the better buy, as well. I see from checking Jim's website that they are not taking orders for machines at the moment because they took time off for summer vacation, but will be back shipping machines in mid-August. I suppose this is why they don't have the prices for the machines listed on their website at the moment! As I recall, the Byrnes sander is about the same, or even less money than the Vanda-Lay thickness sander with the motor. I have to say, owning a Byrnes thickness sander, that it is the "better buy," even if it costs a bit more than the Vanda-Lay. These sanders require some power to work effectively. I don't doubt that you can power one with a hand drill motor as Vanda-Lay suggests and a few have noted above, but I would think that would put some serious power demands on a hand drill motor, particularly if you are using it for a prolonged period. I also don't think there are any hand drill motors that put out anything like the RPMs that either the Byrnes motor or the power tool motor Vanda-Lay sells for somewhere around $300 do. The fact that the Byrnes' integral motor takes up far less bench space than the Vanda-Lay, regardless of how the Vanda-Lay is powered, is no small consideration, not to mention that the integral motor on the Byrnes machine is far more "elegant" than the cobbled-together power options for the Vanda-Lay. There are two big differences that put the Byrnes head and shoulders over the Vanda-Lay. The first, but not the greatest, difference is that the Byrnes is exceptionally accurate and is easier to adjust. It has an indexed adjustment knob that allow adjustments in increments of .002". The Vanda-Lay may be just as accurate but I expect it is more fiddily to set. The second, and biggest... huge... difference in the two machines is that the Vanda-Lay has a three-inch wide drum. It will only sand wood three inches wide or less. The Byrnes machine has a six-inch wide drum! The Byrnes sander will handle twice the width capacity of the Vanda-Lay and the Byrnes offers the option of loading its six inch wide drum with two different grits of abrasive sheet, each three inches wide, on the six inch drum. This allows you to use half of the drum for coarser sanding and the other for finer sanding, should you desire to do so. So, for the same price, all else considered, the Byrnes is twice the machine in my estimation. I realize that price is often a serious issue for all of us. All I can say in that regard here is that the difference in price isn't much to get twice the machine in the Byrnes. It can't be said enough that the cheapest tool in the end is often the most expensive one. You could buy any one of the Byrnes Model Machines, use it for ten years, and if you didn't beat it up, probably sell it easily for half or two thirds of what you paid for it. Not so with the Vanda-Lay. If it's a difference of even a couple of hundred bucks, how long will it really take for you to forget the "pain" of that? These days, where I live, at least, that's maybe three half-way decent dinners out with the Missus. If you get the Byrnes, you won't be sorry.

Great finds! Those old MoTorBoaTing magazine Ideal Series plans books are really great. Apparently, Hearst Publishing still owns the copyrights on the Ideal Series. There's something between twenty and thirty volumes to the set, but I've only seen a handful here and there and always grabbed them when I could. Some are full of really classic William and John Atkin designs. Years ago, I tried to find out of Hearst Publishing would allow me to do a "Best of" anthology of plans from the Ideal Series. The jerks wouldn't even reply to my letter.