Bob Cleek

As you've asked for "any thoughts or tips," here are just a few: I am sure "Vallejo gloss" is simply more paint carrier (liquid) added to the "flattened" Vallejo paint to reduce the proportion of flattening agent added to their flat paint. It should work fine, although it will correspondingly reduce the proportion of pigment in the paint, as well, so the paint may not cover as well as without the gloss additive. As with all painting and varnishing exercises, experimentation is essential for every different type of coating (oil or water-based types) and every different brand of coating, because they all have their own chemistries, and they often don't play well together. When using the small quantities involved in testing various finish-adjusting recipes and in mixing modeling coatings themselves, measurements are extremely critical. I would recommend that you invest in a variously sized selection of disposable hypodermic syringes for use in mixing paint and conditioners so you can accurately measure and record the various proportions used when you do your test runs. I've found index cards useful for record keeping. The mixed coating is applied to the index card along with the "recipe" indicating how many "cc's" or whatever of each ingredient. This is also very handy for mixing paint colors, as well. Like a lot of modelers who've "gone over to the dark side" and scratch build, I use basic heavily-pigmented quality artists' oil paints packaged in a "toothpaste tube," so I measure basic paint and pigment mixture out of the tube by the length of oil paint extruded from the tube, and use the syringes for adding thinners and conditioners, but if you are working with bottled pre-mixed paint, the syringes will work best for measuring the amount of paint as well. Aside from the other advantages of oil-based paints over water-based paints, I particularly prefer the artists' oils because I mix my own colors, which I find easier to do with a pallet knife on a piece of glass. It's practically impossible to have a paint finish that is "too flat" (matte finish) on a scale model in scales smaller than 1:48. At that scale and larger, the "toy-ish-ness" of the model's appearance increases proportionate to the increase of the height of the finish's gloss. "Taste" is a certainly subjective both as to the artist and to their audience, but "good taste" is generally easy to distinguish from "bad taste" and the good is usually the safer standard if one has any interest in pleasing an audience. If you wish to maintain the illusion of reality from a scale viewing distance, glossy finishes must be avoided. One of the disadvantages of water-based acrylic paints is that when cured they remain somewhat soft and so are difficult to abrade. Oil based paints and varnishes "dry" (polymerize) to a harder finish which is much easier to rub or sand. Classically, oil-based paint was applied and allowed to dry to its natural gloss finish and was then rubbed with pumice and/or rottenstone to produce the level of finish desired. In this fashion, the entire spectrum from gloss to flat is available in any color one wishes to apply. Unfortunately, however, water-based paints may not respond to fine abrasives for flattening as easily as oil-based coatings do, I've never tried to hand rub a water-based finish, so you may wish to experiment and see if hand rubbing your acrylic paint finish will work for you. (On a test piece, of course. Never experiment on the model itself. The whole point of experimenting is to have your failures occur anywhere other than on the finished work! ) Alternately, "flattening agents" can be added to both oil and water-based coatings to produce a flat effect. These are basically just "dirt," mixed in a liquid carrier, oil or water respectively. (Diatomaceous earth, to be exact.) The carriers in these flattening agents are often specific to the chemistries of individual paint brands, so not only is using a flattening agent for water-based paints inadvisable for use in oil-based paints, and vice-versa, but using a different brand of flattening agent from the brand of the paint used, or even the type of paint used when made by the same manufacturer inadvisable. Additionally, if one wishes to determine the degree of flattening effect achieved, test "chips" must be made, and the flattened paint allowed to dry completely. From these, if very careful records are kept, recipes can be followed to replicate the same degree of flattening from batch to batch. The use of flattening agents requires very careful measurements to ensure uniformity in different batches and, as the quantities of the batches mixed tend to be small in modeling, the tolerances of fluctuations in the measurements becomes increasingly more critical. Professional painters generally agree that if anything other than a dead flat result is desired, using flattening agents to replicate various degrees of gloss should be avoided if anything more than a single batch is required. (Where architectural specifications demand a specific level of gloss, professionals will generally order a specified custom production run from the manufacturer to insure uniformity.) You can try the flattening agent from the manufacturer of your paint and see if you can work with it to your satisfaction. It may be helpful to understand how flattening agents work. Basically, the create a rougher surface on the dried paint surface from which light does not reflect as readily as from a smooth surface. When the flattening "dust" is added to the paint, when the paint dries, the flattening "dust" particles stand proud above the surface of the paint film. So, the amount of dust particles determines how "rough" the paint surface will be and how much reflection will come off of it. On balance, it is far, far easier on smaller pieces, of work, like models, to hand rub the surface to the level of gloss (or no gloss) desired than to mix flattened paint, because the flattening effect can be seen as the rubbing is being done.

What's a little thread drift among friends?

Don't kid yourself. He'll hock the family jewels the first chance he gets and use the money to buy more models to support his habit. Those kit junkies are all the same!

An excellent suggestion, Mary, but I have no intention of "crossing the bar" before she does! Doing exactly as you suggest has been on my "to do" list for some time now. I also have rescued more than a few books from the dumpsters over the years, to be sure. The same principles apply to tools. I do have a habit of keeping the sales receipt for books in the book itself, which could be helpful to some extent, but while I've never "lost money" on a book, I've seen a lot of them lose substantial value when someone came out with a reprint of a highly desireable reference volume, as seems to happen with a fair degree of regularity these days. I plan to at least put "post it" notes with the date and value in the ones I know ought to be particularly valuable. I have no idea how to deal with the tools. I've got a few that most wouldn't have any idea what they were for and others that, well, I wasn't particularly forthcoming with her about how much they cost when I purchased them...

Phil, I've got the same problem. In the days before the internet, I'd spend long lunch hours (an advantage of being self-employed) scouring the dusty, musty back stacks of used bookstores for maritime reference books and amassed quite a collection for what were at that time amazingly inexpensive acquisitions by today's standards. The pickings were good because I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and maritime books were far more common in this major seaport than elsewhere far from the sea. Now I spend the same amount of time online searching for used books, but it lacks the tactile enjoyment of the old brick and mortar used bookstores and the odds of finding a treasure the bookseller undervalued are practically nil because it only takes them a minute to Google a used title and see what it's selling for these days. The bookshelves which took up every available space in the house and then the piles of un-shelved books started exceeding the limits of my dearly beloved's patience. Fortunately, I have a large workshop and office building on the property and will be framing in an additional drafting room and library into which all the bookcases will be moved, I've got about 35 running feet of six-foot-tall bookcases that will be about three-quarters full of books when all is said and done. The "silver lining" is that there isn't a whole lot of "must have" old classic references that I haven't already found over the years. The "downside" is that there seem to be a lot more new ones coming out in recent years than there used to be and they are harder to find used at "bargain basement" prices. I, too, find myself now and again trying to remember whether I have a particular volume or not. I am sure, though, that I do have a first edition of Anderson's "Spritsail Topmast." It's a little dark blue or maybe black covered hardbound book that requires a magnifying glass to read the drawing notations. I've been collecting naval architecture, maritime-associated trades, and ship modeling books and periodicals for a bit over fifty years now. Friends marvel at how many I've amassed, but it's really not been difficult at all. Picking up just a book a week on average for fifty years totals 2,400 books and, in my case, I've been lucky enough to have a friend or two for various reasons passed their collections on to me along the way. The younger modelers today have it so much easier than we did in this respect. Before the internet, we were pretty much on our own when it came to research resources, and we had to have a shelf or three of books to provide access to the essential information that is now contained in one or two of the newer comprehensive reference works published in the last twenty or thirty years. Moreover, most of the "old classics" are now readily available to modelers in trade paperback reprints while we had to scrounge. long out-of-print used hardcover editions. You can never have too many books or too many tools. He who dies with the most toys wins!

You found it! I went looking for my copy of The Rigging of Ships: in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, 1600-1720 and found my 1935 (first?) edition of Seventeenth Century Rigging and checked it first and found his reference there as well. My copy of "Spritsail Topmast" is somewhere in the piles of modeling books that I'm somewhere in the interrupted and long-delayed reorganization of my library. One of these days, I've got to get that job finished.

Nothing much to add to Chris Coyle's excellent answer. He's spot on. Here's a better link to the American Marine Models website: American Marine Models – Ship Models, Custom Models, Restoration, Appraisals, Custom Display Units. Use the "current inventory" options on the home page. Don't delay, though. I've been informed by reliable authority that Mr. Michael Wall, the gallery owner, is soon to be, or has just retired, so the gallery may soon no longer be in business. I know of no other similar ship gallery in the country. You may also wish to inquire at the larger fine art auction houses, like Sotheby's, Christie's, and Bonham's and Butterfield's about their scheduled maritime fine art and models auctions. They generally will have one or two such specialty auctions each year with a published catalog available beforehand. I would not advise buying a model at auction without a knowledgeable expert available to advise you. Lastly, you might want to post a request in the "for sale" section of this forum stating the type of model you are interested in obtaining, specifying period, type, size (Important if you are going to display it n your home. A large model can chase you out of a room!), and how much you are interested in spending. I'm guessing there are more than a few well made, although not necessarily "investment grade" models, that forum members would be willing to sell for a fair price. As for prices, if you are looking for a nice "decorator piece," your best bargain will be an assembled kit done by an experienced good modeler. The quality and workmanship can be every bit as good and the model every bit as attractive as a high-priced "one-off" "scratch built" model by an experienced modeler, or a really expensive model built by a well-known professional modeler. The difference in price between what will appear to be the same quality of model is simply the premium that "original art" always commands. It's similar to what an original painting by a famous artist will sell for and what a completed "paint by numbers" copy of the same work will bring. (Although a decent kit ship model demands a lot more experience, skill, and time, to complete than a "paint by numbers" painting does!) Also, if a model of a famous ship strikes your fancy as a decorator piece, well and good, however, kit models are one of a many, sometimes hundreds, of copies and not good candidates for investment. An original, one-off, model will command a far higher price and especially so if done by a famous modeler, than another model of a ship that's been modeled thousands of times before. Finally, a word of advice: Any quality model that you pay fair money for must be in a case! No model which is displayed without a case is long for this world. Even absent an attack from the family cat or "the cleaning lady," (common hazards,) just the exposure to dust and air pollution will degrade a model in a fairly short period of time.

I believe you are correct. My understanding is that the earlier hand-made deadeyes had convex faces and the later machine-made deadeyes had flat faces. It was believed that the convex-faced deadeyes were favored as the better form, but cost considerations prevailed. My copy of The Rigging of Ships: in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, 1600-1720, By R. C. Anderson, a common reference work on the subject, isn't immediately handy at the moment, but my online research resources indicate that the subject is addressed on page 93 of that book. I'm sure a period wonk can give you the whole story on the question.

Say no more! Yes, that cross-section confirms the way they addressed it. My doubts that they would have sheathed the armor belt in wood and then run the coppering over it was based on deductions I made after reading https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1952/july/history-prevention-fouling which seemed to indicate that applying a wooden sheathing over iron hulls which were thereafter coppered was found to be unsatisfactory and that fact spurred the development of anti-fouling paint. The timeline for those developments predated the construction of Turenne by a considerable bit and I presumed that nobody was still sheathing metal with wood to permit coppering metal hulls after effective anti-fouling paint came into widespread general use. I nevertheless found the article on anti-fouling technology in the U.S. Naval Institute's journal, Proceedings very comprehensive and quite interesting. I'm thinking that the white "boot stripe" accent line had to be painted. I can't imagine they'd leave the iron bare. It would rust, or if of wrought iron, at least turn black with oxidation. I quite agree. I read that zinc was tried in an attempt to find a sheathing metal that was closer to iron on the galvanic scale but wasn't much good and quickly abandoned. Absolutely. I'd expect the same, although I came across the photo and colored etching I posted above of Atalante in drydock, which was similarly stationed in French Indochina and it sure looks like she was being painted and the colored etching portrays her after the job was finished, rather than while it was in progress in the photograph, and it appears as if she was indeed painted. For Shipific's purposes, though, he can portray it either way and from a scale viewing difference in the scale it appears he's working with, it would be next to impossible to discern whether she was coppered or painted by looking at her. Interestingly, for anybody in this day and age, I expect I've seen more coppered bottoms hauled out "up close and personal" than most, having spent a number of years about four decades back selling classic yachts in a specialty yacht brokerage, and at that they probably didn't total more than about a dozen, but the funny thing is that all the small craft with coppered hulls were also painted with anti-fouling paint. This was commonly done because although the copper provided a mechanical barrier against marine borers, it really doesn't do an awful lot to prevent vegetative fouling. I would expect, however that this isn't as much of a problem in colder climes. Aside from large sailing ships, the only coppered hull I knew that wasn't painted with anti-fouling paint was my late friend Hal Sommer"s pilot schooner, Wander Bird (nee: Elbe 5) (Photos below.) Hal restored her from her sorry existence as a rig-less houseboat, rebuilding her entirely and coppered her bottom in the proper traditional fashion with plates hung over Irish felt. Below is a picture of Hal (in the middle) and "the Bird's" relatively new coppering. Here, Wander Bird is loaded into her transport barge for her trip home to Germany from San Francisco. Her bottom was pressure washed before loading and they blasted the bottom almost back to bare copper, so she showed a greenish tinge below the waterline when she'd been out of the water for a little bit.

Most impressive! Please keep posting. Marine live steam is a sideline interest of mine.

There's really no substitute for careful research, and I must admit with chagrin that there's no substitute for carefully double-checking somebody else's research before posting an answer to any question posed, especially when I'm not readily familiar with the vessel in question! The repeated reference to these two French naval vessels, Turenne and Bayard, as "ironclads" kept niggling at me because it appeared to me that they were built later than the so called "ironclad" period and were of a style similarly advanced beyond the "ironclad" period. So I finally spent a moment to see if I could find anything on line about either of them and, sure enough, there were Wikipedia pages for both vessels and their named "Bayard class." (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard- class_ironclad ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Turenne ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Bayard ) **************************************************************************************************************************************** From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard- class_ironclad Unlike several of their French predecessors, the Bayard-class ships disposed with iron hulls and reverted to wooden hulls, which were sheathed in copper to reduce fouling on extended voyages overseas, where shipyard facilities were less available. This may have been the result of British reports of hull corrosion with their iron-hulled vessels. … The ships were protected with wrought iron armor; their belt was 250 mm (9.8 in) thick amidships, where it protected the ships' propulsion machinery spaces and ammunition magazines. The belt extended for the entire length of the hull, but toward the bow it reduced in thickness to 180 mm (7.1 in), and at the stern, it was reduced to 150 mm (5.9 in). The belt extended from 0.91 m (3 ft) above the waterline to 1.99 m (6 ft 6 in) below. *************************************************************************************************************************************** Note for openers that these wooden-hulled ships "...were sheathed with copper to reduce fouling on extended voyages overseas, where shipyard facilities were less available." We should recognize from the outset then that the converse is also true: they weren't sheathed with copper when not on an extended voyage overseas where shipyard facilities were available. The fact that these French wooden ironclads weren't always copper-sheathed is confirmed by what we know of Atalante, discussed hereafter. Apparently, sometimes they were and sometimes they weren't. If one is modeling a particular such vessel at a particular time in its service life, at least a serious attempt to ascertain whether or not she was copper-sheathed at that time is required. Is there a log, diary, or maintenance report or receipt in a dusty file somewhere? If not, what's the "best estimate" one can make? If depicted when the vessel was on station in French Indochina, there's at least evidence to support your assuming she was not being coppered at that place in time in the absence of contrary evidence. (Just sayin'. ) **************************************************************************************************************************************** These vessels carried a ten inch thick wrought iron armor belt which extended 3 feet above the waterline and 6.5 feet below the waterline. Considering the mechanical and galvanic issues attendant to sheathing wrought iron with copper plate, we can conclude that these vessels were only metal-sheathed to protect the wooden hull exposed below the waterline, i.e., from six and a half feet below the waterline on down. There isn't ever going to be any verdigris color at the waterline of any of these wooden vessels with nine and a half foot wide belts of wrought iron around their waterlines. **************************************************************************************************************************************** From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntz_metal: (Muntz metal's) original application was as a replacement for copper sheathing on the bottom of boats, as it maintained the anti-fouling abilities of the pure copper at around two thirds of the price. It became the material of choice for this application and Muntz made his fortune. It was found that copper would gradually leach from the alloy in sea water, poisoning any organism that attempted to attach itself to a hull sheathed in the metal. *************************************************************************************************************************************** Muntz metal, was patented in 1832 in England, and England and France were allies at the time of the Bayard class' service. Pending certain confirmation which should be easily accomplished by further research, it is reasonable to presume that the "copper sheathing" on these vessels was actually Muntz metal, rather than pure copper. This would result in a "yellow metal" that would be somewhat "yellower" than pure copper. Below: Newly ("virgin") Muntz metal sheathed hull of Cutty Sark following her recent restoration and isolation from the elements in her new partially covered dry dock display building: By Cmglee - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19898346 While metal sheathing provides an effective mechanical barrier to marine borers, it is not as effective at preventing the growth of vegetative fouling which attaches itself to submerged surfaces. Additionally, with the advent of iron-hulled ships which could not be sheathed with copper-based metals due to difficulties with attaching such sheathing and, more significantly, the galvanic dissimilarities between iron and copper which caused severe electrolytic corrosion, a large number of anti-fouling paints and other coatings were developed in the late 19th century and were widely in use by the time of the Bayard class' service. The most successful, and therefore most widely used, of these anti-fouling paints had the now-familiar "bottom paint red" color owing to the copper they contained. Again pending certain confirmation which should be easily accomplished by further research, it is reasonable to presume that at least the nine and a half foot wide wrought iron armor plate armor belt at the waterline of the two Bayard class vessels was painted with anti-fouling paint of a color common at the time. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fouling_paint and https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1952/july/history-prevention-fouling ) A review of related contemporary black and white photographs, colored paintings, colored contemporary postcards, and color photographs of contemporary museum models available online appears to confirm that French iron and wooden warships of the Bayard-class' time, at least to the bottoms of their iron armor belts, were apparently painted with anti-fouling paint and that if they were wooden, were, in some cases when at sea for long periods and away from dry-docking facilities, sheathed in Muntz metal (or possibly zinc plate) which may, or may not have been also painted with anti-fouling coating of a "bottom paint red" (or possibly a light grey color. A copper sulfate anti-fouling coating called "Italian Moravian" was also highly regarded at the time of the Bayard-class. It was reputed to be expensive and difficult to apply. I do not know its color. Here again, more research is required. Some brief experimentation was also conducted with sheet zinc plating instead of copper or Muntz metal over iron, owing to zinc's greater compatibility with iron on the galvanic scale. Zinc sheet metal would appear as a flat silver-grey ("galvanized") color. Some colored contemporary postcards do clearly show a bottoms of such color. See: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1952/july/history-prevention-fouling For visual data, search Google images: "French Bayard Class ironclads." Some excerpts below. Englarge the photographs to see greater detail: Two photos below: Contemporary hand colored photographs of French ironclads: Below: Watercolor painting of contemporary iron French naval vessels: Below: From a presumably well-researched modern Eastern European modeling source: Below: Model of Alma-class Jeanne d'Arc on display at the Musee de la Marine in Paris. She was a contemporary of the Bayard-class ships and of identical French ironclad wooden construction as Turenne with a wrought iron armor belt at the waterline. Note armor belt above and below white painted waterline which from other contemporary pictorial documentation appears to be a common feature of French naval livery at that time. Note "Muntz metal" brass-colored metal sheathing below the armor plate and similar "bronze" colored ram edge at the bow. (These bronze rams were not merely a metal covering, but actually an integral structural member of the hull.) Bright sheathing color results from model's "new as built" depiction style. (Alternately identified by other sources as sistership Alma-class ironclad Armide.) (Blue color of possibly dark grey topsides is apparently a photographic lighting artifact.) Below: Black and white contemporary photograph of similar French ironclad naval vessel showing slightly visible top line of armor belt. Below: It appears the white waterline accent line (AKA: "boot stripe") appears again suggesting it was a regulation livery detail. Below: Additional French ironclads of the Bayard-class era from a modern Eastern European modeling source indicating standard French navy livery: Below: 1860's Alma-class wooden ironclad Atalante, sister to Jeanne d'Arc, a contemporary "as built" model of which is pictured above. This class' service period overlapped the wooden Bayard-class', particularly given that the latter was an intentional nearly identical "throwback" to the Alma-class' wooden ironclad construction details. Atalante is here photographed in the Fitzroy Dock, Sidney Harbor in 1873. She spent a large portion of her service life on the French Indo-China Station. She bombarded Vietnamese forts during the Battle of Thuan in 1884 and participated in the Sino-French Indo-China War of 1884–1885. She was reduced to reserve in Saigon, French Indochina, in 1885 and sank there two years later after having been condemned. Note top of her armor belt at the level of the heads of the workmen standing on the staging platform with approximately the two top feet of the armor belt painted black as are the topsides (i.e., down to the workers' waists) with anti-fouling bottom paint being applied below that line, resulting in bottom paint beginning approximately a foot or two above the waterline and continuing down to cover the the lower part of the armor belt and the rest of the underwater hull below the staging platform. (Enlarge photo for greater detail.) Below: Contemporary colored drawing of Alma-class wooden ironclad Atalante from the glass plate negative above, but depicting the appearance of the hull after the bottom painting was done and she was ready for launching! (Quite a lot to discover from these two views on account of that difference!) Note the "bottom paint red" anti-fouling paint being applied from approximately a couple of feet below the top of the armor belt on downwards to cover the submerged part of the armor belt and on down to include the wooden bottom. Note also the white "bootstripe" accent line at the top of the armor belt and the (subtle) lining above and below the armor belt depicting the wooden planking of the topsides and unsheathed bottom of the wooden hull, contrasted with the smooth wrought plates of the armor belt. As this picture confirms, it appears that the not-inconsiderable expense of metal sheathing of her wooden bottom was deemed unnecessary as she had adequate dry-docking facilities available in her station area. I didn't reach the same conclusion as you when examining the photos you posted. You'll find a clearer version of your photo of Turenne at her Wikipedia entry: See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard-class_ironclad#/media/File:French_ironclad_Turenne_NH_66099.jpg This photo will enlarge a lot without losing definition. ("Left mouse click once." Love these old glass plate negatives!) For some reason, the French Navy of the period seems to have frequently photographed their ships while they were getting painted. I have no idea why, but it's uncanny when you look at so many of them that have painting details at work. If you enlarge this photo from the Wiki page, and examine the stern quarter, you'll see painters on staging painting the topsides white. If you then examine the bow area, you'll see that they've just painted the bow area, (including the anchors and chain rodes!) and what you apparently took to be "...what looks like verdigris on copper plating on bows..." and "...a clear patina there on a ship that's made a voyage from Toulon to somewhere in China station." Look again. What you're seeing there is the aftermath of a rather sloppy recent paint job. If you had spent time around shipyards, you'd probably have recognized it for what it was as soon as you saw it. Sailors are notoriously sloppy painters. They're painting to protect the metal first and foremost. They really don't care a whole lot what the job looks like from 100 yards, which is as much as most people will ever see. As for the second picture, we know that's not "shiny copper" because that's where the wrought iron armor belt is and there's no way they're going to copper-sheath wrought iron armor plate. It certainly was tried unsuccessfully at the time iron ships first came into use, trying to separate the dissimilar metals with felt or wooden furring strips, but that was long before the time of the vessel pictured. I believe what we see in that photo is simply an over-exposure "flash" that could sometimes occur with reflected light off the water and onto the white surfaces given the limitations of the photographic technology of those times. By Unknown, Farenholt collection - history.navy.mil, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=142143958 I don't think today's younger modelers who began building ship models in the "Internet Age" can begin to appreciate the value of digital research to the hobby. Before the internet, I doubt there was anything more than possibly a book or three, long out of print and near impossible to obtain, written in French, that would have any information whatsoever about these ships. Obtaining the information posted here would have likely required a trip to France and days of searching museum archives, if they'd allow you to do so and, in the days before digital photography, copying a photograph would be a major undertaking and copying a construction drawing would require days of tedious tracing at a drafting table by a skilled draftsman, again if they'd allow you to touch the original. Now, modeling research is often only "a few clicks away!" On the other hand, such a resource has made it all the more important to conduct meticulous research because errors nobody would ever notice before are so much more easily noticed with the so much more accurate information available today.

I believe that the notice on the Byrnes website indicates that while they aren't presently shipping machines, they are accepting orders on accessories. If you haven't tried them, you might check and see if that is still so. There has been a lot of discussion regarding alternate blade sources for the Byrnes table saw. You might want to check all the posts using the forum search engine parameters "Byrnes saw" to find all the posts addressing the subject. Here's links to a couple I copied for you: This general information sheet may be helpful if you haven't seen it already: ByrnesTableSawTips.pdf (thenrg.org)

It's your model and you are certainly entitled to color it to your own taste, but if it's realism that you are about, there's no "copper sheen" or "shiny brass" look whatsoever to a coppered hull bottom. In real life, it all turns flat "penny brown" in short order as soon as it's exposed to the elements.'

If they aren't painted (most are painted,) the bare wooden deck of a working fishing boat will usually be covered with old fish oil and dirt, they end up very dark, being closer to black more than anything else. In any event, most have their decks painted over, rather than unfinished. The below photos give you some idea of what a working fishing boat's wooden decks really look like. You should experiment with scrap pieces of the same species of wood before attempting anything on the model itself. I'd try mixing a bit of brown and grey oil paint and apply it in varying coats until you can devise a recipe that works best for you. Check out the YouTube posts on the weathering techniques. The model railroad hobbyists do a lot of this kind of weathering.

If you are asking what a ship with a copper-sheathed hull looks like, the answer has to be, "It depends." In the water? Out of the water? Fouled or clean? These pictures and explanations below should help. When building a model, one has to consider what is known as the "scale viewing distance." There are details one knows are present but including them may run the risk of adding over-scale details. Coppered bottoms frequently occasion this flaw and, regrettably, it seems to be exacerbated by some model kit manufacturers who feel compelled to advertise that their kits contain "real detailed copper plates" that they expect the builder to tediously apply one at a time. The "scale viewing distance" is simply "what you would see if you were viewing the real ship from the same real distance as you are looking at the model in scale distance. For example, if you are looking at a 1:48 scale (1/4"=1") model from three feet away, you should only see the details you would be able to see on the real ship if you were standing 144 feet away from it. If you are not so completely familiar with what ships look like from a distance, photographs are an excellent way to judge what a scale viewing distance actually looks like. The same phenomenon applies to the colors one sees and these are affected as well by the ambient lighting. At a distance, colors will be flat and somewhat darker. A model with intense glossy paint and over-scale detail will appear like a toy, and defeat the "compelling impression of reality in miniature" that a good model is about. (Unless, of course, it's a toy boat one intends to produce.) From most scale viewing distances, a model should have no glossy finishes and no shiny metal parts. (Unless, of course, one is building a particular style of "builder's model" that at one time was fashionable. These would often be unpainted, relying on the different appearances of contrasting wood species and bright brass metal fittings.) Certainly, at 1:96 scale (1/8"=1'), the scale of many kit sailing models these days, from a normal three-foot model viewing distance, a "scale viewing distance of 288 feet, almost the length of a football field, copper-plating details such as tacks, and even plate overlaps, are not going to be visible. Only subtle variations in color will be perceptible. When seeking to realistically portray a copper-sheathed hull, trust the camera's eye rather than your mind's eye and avoid "overstating the obvious." Our "mind's eye" provides the details in such instances, causing a viewer to "see" things that aren't there, or merely very subtly suggested. As counterintuitive as it may be, in this fashion, it's what's not there that makes a model look "real." Above are photos of the usual appearance of a copper sheathed hull. If anything, the oxidized copper above the waterline in the top picture is a bit too "reddish" and would be a bit "browner." I can't say whether this is simply an artifact of the computer screen I'm looking at, or a digital camera color intensity setting, or perhaps the variables of the exact copper used. The more common color in this respect is the color of a used copper coin, such as a US penny. The turquoise green color at the waterline in the photos is often referred to as "verdigris." Best described, these two colors are called "verdigris" and "copper penny." They can be somewhat mottled and vary in shade or intensity a bit in real life. The verdigris green color, which is copper sulfate, occurs when copper oxidizes in the presence of a sufficient amount sulfur in the surrounding environment. Copper oxidizes rather quickly upon exposure to the air. Where there is a high level of sulfur in the air, such as in the days when sulphureous coal was burned, copper exposed to the air will quickly produce verdigris colored copper sulfate on its surface, such as is seen on bronze statues, copper roofing materials, and, famously, the Statue of Liberty. Absent a sufficient level of sulfur, the copper will form a "copper penny brown" colored oxide coating that serves as a shield that prevents further oxidation and the creation of verdigris green copper sulfate. There are sufficient sulfates in seawater to support the formation of verdigris green copper sulfate where sufficient oxygen is also present. When the friction of water movement wears away the brown copper oxide, notably at the "splash zone" above the waterline where there is also sufficient oxygen, copper bottom sheathing will develop green copper sulfate on its surface but will not tend to do so where the seawater is not as regularly in contact with the copper sheathing well above the waterline. (This is my own causation theory. It's at least accurate as to what happens, but perhaps not exactly correct as to why it happens. If one of the resident metallurgists on this forum has a better explanation, I welcome their correction! ) In any event, the color of a copper sheathed hull bottom is "copper penny brown" with a "verdigris" band around the waterline as pictured in the first two photos above (or more accurately, perhaps, between the top of the copper sheathing and the waterline.) That said, if a coppered bottom is hauled out for cleaning, and particularly if it is well scrubbed upon hauling, a verdigris-colored patina will very quickly develop. Below is a coppered hull that has been apparently dry-docked and her copper has quickly produced a copper sulfate verdigris colored patina, in this case, for whatever reason, a somewhat less intense and more pale shade. This is a very clean bottom which has been brushed, power washed, or the like, removing some of the usual "penny brown" copper oxidation along with the usual fouling growth, and washed down with salt seawater. it is customary to scrub a bottom down immediately upon it's leaving the water (or the water leaving the dock, as the case may be) while the marine growth on the bottom is more easily removed. Once a fouled bottom dries, scraping clean it becomes a much more difficult job. For this reason, if a model of a ship having a coppered bottom is depicted out of the water, coloring it as is seen in the picture below would be correct. Below the waterline, before a hull is scrubbed clean of fouling growth, it will appear in a variety of ways, depending upon the length of time the hull has been submerged, the growing environment of the area where the hull was located, and the types of flora and fauna that are prevalent in the area. Basically, the color of marine fouling is a mottled, dirty dark green and/or dark brown. When a hull is first hauled or dry-docked after having been in the water for any significant length of time, it can appear as the hull pictured below "in the slings" and just hauling out. Obviously, this is something of an extreme example, but not unheard of in areas where the environment favors the growth of particular flora and fauna, particularly in the warm tropics. A hull that has been regularly sailing will generally accumulate less fouling material than one that sits still for periods of time. Below is the appearance of a fouled hull which appears somewhat dry. Below is a barge hull with significant barnacle fouling. Photo below of modern sailboat hull with average fouling. In my experience, portraying a coppered bottom on a model is an opportunity for restrained creative "weathering" and airbrush work.

From McCaffery's miniature models I've seen "in person" in a museum and his book, I believe he uses very fine twisted wire for his standing and running rigging on his famous miniature models rather than fiber rope and you'd have to use a magnifying glass to tell the difference between his wire rigging and any fiber rigging. His book really doesn't do justice to the amazing detail at incredibly small size that he is able to accomplish with his miniatures. It's difficult to fully appreciate his accomplishments until you can see them "in the flesh." The difficulty of such fine work (and his aging eyes) may explain why he's apparently abandoned his ultra small-scale ship modeling and seems to have redirected his attention to building highly detailed 1:48 scale ship models, and carving miniature figureheads, merry-go-round horses, and dinosaur skeletons instead, although they are also so amazing as to be almost beyond belief! He's also built an amazing 1:48 scale model of HMY Royal Caroline that is detailed down to the level of his miniature models, and it is truly breath-taking. He used fine silk rope on that model. One can spend some very enjoyable time reading the website and links provided by his sales gallery from which the photos below were taken. See: Lloyd McCaffery — J. Russell Jinishian Gallery (jrusselljinishiangallery.com) 1:48 rigging detail on HMY Royal Caroline:

I have a Vanda-Lay Dremel mototool drill press stand also. I agree, it's far better than the version made by Dremel and the best option out there short of a dedicated benchtop drill press or mill. I have a dedicated new-style Dremel tool mounted in it and haven't noticed any mounting problems. I believe Vanda-Lay may offer different mounting collars for the old-style and new-style Dremel mototools. I gave them a call some time back to ask if they had a mounting collar that would fit a one-inch Foredom handpiece and they said that indeed they did and could provide one on special order. I've never gotten around to ordering one since I have another small combination drill press and milling machine. I'm presently musing about buying the additional parts and turning my Vanda-Lay drill press stand into the full-blown Vanda-Lay combo drill press and X-Y-Z milling machine to use with my Foredom flex shaft machine. I'm curious about the rigidity and accuracy of their new mill/drill and I expect its milling ability is somewhat limited by the power source options. If anybody has one, I'd like to know their thoughts. The entire Vanda-Lay line, which keeps growing, seems extremely clever and reasonably priced. The fit and finish of the entire system, which is entirely CNC-machined aluminum and stainless steel (I think the support post rods are, as I recall.) is perfectly executed. Their system keeps growing. After expanding their milling stand to include a Z-axis, they now have accessories that turn it into a wood turning lathe, a grinding stand, a table router, circular cut-off saw, and grinding and buffing mandrel. Over the years I've acquired more dedicated small power tools than I have time to use and hardly need any of the Vanda-Lay system products because I already have dedicated machines to do all this combination system does, but I still want one because they are just so darn neat. I would say that, regrettably, their main limitation is their dependence upon the Dremel mototool as a primary power source. The option of using the Foredom flex-shaft instead would, I anticipate, be a great improvement. Beyond that, if Vanda-Lay can ever develop their own foot-controlled variable-speed and reversible higher-powered and more compact and balanced power source, they'd be on their way to having an excellent candidate for the model engineering power tool niche once occupied by the venerable Unimat system which has been vacant for decades now.

I have a Dominoff PL4 which I have to admit I've only fiddled with a bit so far. Necessity will be the mother of invention and I'll get to it when I have to, I suppose. I am curious about a couple of things. The only (potential and perhaps unjustified) complaints that I have so far with the Dominoff PL4 is the lack of documentation regarding operation, which I hope will be negated by experience when I get more of it and the size of the take-up spool. The machine will make rope "continuously," limited by the capacity of the standard sewing machine bobbins, but the wooden take-up spool doesn't appear to have anything near a capacity to hold what I'm expecting to be the amount of rope that can be made from the capacity of the bobbins (which will vary to some extent by the size of the thread loaded on the bobbins.) I wonder if anyone has addressed the take-up spool issue with a workable solution. I expect I'll turn a few extra take-up spools with smaller center cores eventually and that may be the trick, but I haven't gotten around to that either. When making four-strand rope, the Dominoff machines have a fifth central "tube" which allows (from a stationary fifth bobbin on the PL4) which provides a central core strand of proportionately smaller size around which the four main strands are twisted. Its purpose is to prevent the four main strands from "collapsing" and turning into what one person described as "square" rope. The other four-strand machines I've seen don't appear to provide for a central core strand when making four-strand rope. I'm curious as to whether this central core strand really makes a big difference.

CORRECTION: I mentioned a couple of Sherline items, such as a steady rest. I had "Sherline" in my head, but as it's actually a Taig lathe, I should have said "Taig" instead of "Sherline." Same difference. Obviously, if you any item, get one that fits your Taig lathe. Eberhard is correct that a test bar can be very expensive, and this is quite true. They can be much less expensive if for use on small lathes. I'm not sure what size or style of spindle taper (if any) is on the Taig lathes, but smaller tapered test alignment bars (e.g. MT1) are going for as little as $40 new on eBay, (MT 1 Precision Parallel Test Bar for Lathe Machine Head Alignment | eBay) and, in any event, you can always easily make your own on an accurate lathe. See: Yes, they apparently are. The Taig literature notes that the stock three-jaw self-centering chuck has soft jaws, and these jaws must be trued to the individual spindle before it can be used accurately. This task will require a properly sized boring bar and boring bar holder. See: http://warhammer.mcc.virginia.edu/ty/7x10/vault/Lathes/Taig/Manual/TAIG-Manual.html See also: In checking out this interesting information on the Taig lathes, I noticed in their catalog that they do have a long, extended woodturning tool rest with two "legs." I mentioned making a longer tool rest or finding an aftermarket one, but there's no need as Taig already offers one as a standard accessory. I also saw where Taig advertised their "one step jawed" three jaw self-centering chuck as good for use in wood turning. I presume this is because the shorter jaws protrude less from the face of the chuck. I certainly will not say I know more about this point than the manufacturer does, but I will say that while a "stepped-jaw" chuck can be used to hold wood for turning, any wood turning operation done anywhere in the vicinity of protruding spinning chuck jaws, while done by some on occasion, is in my opinion (and experience) a very risky operation and unnecessary when safer curved-jaw woodturning chucks are available. Much like an airplane propeller, when such jaws spin, they often become virtually invisible... until they hit something. The rounded "cupped jaws" of most wood turning chucks don't pose the same "invisible" risk. Safety lectures are probably about as welcome as somebody ringing your doorbell with a Bible in their hand. "Safety warnings" have become so ubiquitous today that many of us, me included, tend to ignore them. (Has anybody every really read all the safety instructions now posted on every ladder we buy?) However, in the spirit of "do what I say, not what I do," I feel obligated to offer a brief sermon reminding anyone who is not a trained and experienced machinist or woodturner that a lathe is an extremely dangerous machine. You won't see a lathe, metal or wood turning, often listed in "Top Ten" lists of "most dangerous machines" because statistics are kept on the basis of how many injuries are reported per type of machine. Consequently, machines like table and chain saws always top these lists because there are so many more of them in the hands of untrained non-occupational operators. Comparatively, there are relatively few lathes in circulation for a variety of reasons, not least of all their operational complexity and price. That said, in terms of the inherent danger of any given tool in the course of its ordinary operation, lathes are not only among the most dangerous of any stationary power tool, but also capable of causing far more catastrophic injuries than many other power tools. The lathe is uniquely dangerous because 1) Its operation requires considerable knowledge and training, 2) its operation involves close proximity of the operator's body parts with unshielded moving parts of the machine, 3) its operation poses a high risk of "throwing" loose material of all sizes at high velocities, 4) its operation poses a high risk of "grabbing" any loose material which comes in contact with moving parts and when this occurs, the lathe will with great speed and strength pull that material into the moving parts of the lathe, and 5) its operation often involves high speeds and always involves tremendous torque. Certainly, the magnitude of the injuries inherent in all lathe operations tends to vary to some extent with the size and power of the lathe involved, but even the dangers posed by so-called "mini lathes" are sufficient to frequently cause the same type and degree of injury as a large size lathe. (It won't matter to a hand coming in contact with a spinning chuck jaw whether it's a three-inch or a twelve-inch chuck. Neither will the size of the lathe matter to an eye punctured by a hot chip shot out of it.) No one should ever operate a lathe without being completely familiar with all the operational details of that particular lathe and knowing and faithfully observing all safety procedures attendant to the operations they perform on it. I know this probably sounds like a pedantic lecture, but in pursuit of the rather "safe" hobby of building miniature ships, I fear that some might fail to recognize that a "miniature" lathe is not a tool that poses miniature risks. top slide tapers

I'm not all that familiar with the Sherline lathes and I may be looking at some of these and not recognizing them, but, in no particular order, a quick offhand list would be: A parting tool and tool holder for metal work. (It may be there with the cutting tools and I just don't see it.) Set of suitably-sized center drill bits for metal turning. (Required if you are turning metal rod stock between head and tail stocks.) A live tailstock center for metal work. Sherline steady rest for wood and metal turning. Buy or make (looks like an easy job) a longer wood turning tool rest. The Sherline one you have is rather short. You won't be able to turn anything longer than the tool rest you have there without moving the tool rest. Since it's mounted on your lathe cross-slide, it will be easy to move with your lead-screw handwheel, but still less accommodating than a longer tool rest. Alignment test bar ("test mandrel") for setting up concentricity of head and tail stocks. Quick-change tool post for metal working. Boring bar set and boring bar holder. Suitable knurling tool(s) A face plate and dogs. An independent four-jaw chuck, Vamda=Lay Industries Sherline lathe duplicator if you plan to make multiple identical parts (chair legs, cannon, etc.) DUPLICATOR (vanda-layindustries.com) A wood-turning chuck. (Jawed metal holding chucks are not intended for wood-turning and even in a tiny lathe like this one, can be dangerous if used to turn wood.) (Lots of cheap ones available from China.) Wood-turning live center, spur driver and cup center. (You can't turn wood without them.) A suitable dial test indicator and adjustable stand (It doesn't have to be a super-expensive one.) Small Inside and outside calipers (for wood-turning measurements.) Measuring calipers, dial or digital, your preference. (Vernier is fine, too, if you still have the eyesight for them. They are easy to use once you learn how to read the Vernier scale.) You don't have to spend and arm and a leg for the super-accurate ones. You may want to design and build a "backsplash" box with the ability to hook up a fairly powerful vacuum to it. This would be primarily for wood-turning, which generates a lot of dust and debris. If it can contain metal chips and especially "flying" cutting lubricants, so much the better. (Lathes generate a lot of mess. ) As they so often say, it isn't the lathe that's expensive, it's the tooling you need to do anything with it!

You're absolutely correct! I wasn't very clear, was I? It's all Druxey's fault. His post got me all flabunged.. I edited my post to stater it more clearly. The easiest way to remember it is "like the scales on a fish." In fact, Druxey and I were "talking about apples and oranges." The "apples being the order of applying the plates and the "oranges" being the manner of overlapping the plates. The historical research indicates that the process of applying the copper plates was, as Druxey stated more eloquently than I did: "On British Naval ships, plating began at the keel upward and from aft forward. Upper and aft edges of the plates gave the overlap." That said, it turns out there were a variety of sheathing pattern methods that evolved over time for reasons of economy and ease of application. The "keel upward, aft forward" process was apparently the earlier. Later plate application patterns were all over the map. Some did apply plates ub belts from the waterline down. Others applied them in belts from both the waterline and the keel simultaneously. Some applied the plates in bands. Other patterns applied the plates diagonally. So... the "rivet counters" have not only the plate overlaps to obsess over but also the various plating patterns used at various times on particular ships! This article on the most recent re-coppering of USS Constitution discusses the various copper sheathing patterns used on that ship over the years in a fair amount of detail: New Copper Sheathing - USS Constitution Museum (Partial excerpt follows: US Navy publication.) When coppered in the summer of 1797, Constitution‘s lower hull required “12,000 feet of sheet copper” and thousands of copper nails. There is no 18th century plan of the layout of the copper sheathing, but it is probable that the workers at Edmund Hartt’s shipyard began at Constitution‘s stern, down at the keel, and worked their way both forward and upward with row upon row of copper. Each sheet would have overlapped one inch on all sides, with the vertical joints between the sheets facing aft. This created a smooth “fish scale” affect to the hull, thereby preventing the sheets from being lifted by the action of the water. It is understood that the Royal Navy laid its warship copper with the horizontal joints facing upwards and it is possible that Constitution‘s copper was so installed, as depicted in the illustration below. Illustration by Stephen Biesty showing a shipyard worker installing USS Constitution‘s first copper sheathing in the summer of 1797. [USS Constitution Museum Collection. © Stephen Biesty, 2015.] Two mid-to-late 19th century photographs of Constitution, hauled out of the water, offer the rare opportunity to observe, at close hand, the layout of her copper sheathing. Both the 1858 Portsmouth Navy Yard and the 1875 Philadelphia Navy Yard photos clearly show the “no belt” pattern to Constitution‘s copper. Salt paper photographic print of Constitution at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in 1858. Note the jagged edge of the unfinished copper sheathing. [USS Constitution Museum Collection] USS Constitution in a sectional dock at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, ca. 1875. This photo shows the angle of the ship’s copper and a portion of the hull planking. [Courtesy Naval History & Heritage Command Detachment Boston] As described by Mark Staniforth in his article “The Introduction and Use of Copper Sheathing – A History,” the “‘no belt’ copper pattern resulted from the greater distance from the keel to the waterline amidships than at either bow or stern. This resulted in a ‘bowed’ pattern where there were more rows of copper sheathing amidships and the rows curved sharply upwards at the bow and stern.” [From The Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 9, No. 1 of 2, 1985, 30] For the 1927 restoration, a plan was drawn of the proposed layout for the new copper sheathing. Lieutenant John A. Lord’s “U.S. Frigate Constitution Copper Plan,” #25002, dated December 12, 1929, shows an outboard profile of the ship with perfectly straight lines superimposed on the lower hull, representing the lines of copper sheathing. Given the extreme curves to Constitution‘s lower hull, it is nearly impossible to lay the sheathing in perfectly parallel rows. “U.S. Frigate Constitution Copper Plan”, #25002, December 12, 1929. [Courtesy Naval History & Heritage Command Detachment Boston] USS Constitution was re-coppered in the 1973-1974 dry docking and again in the 1992 restoration. Each time, the pattern of laying the sheathing on the ship’s lower hull has essentially followed the “goring belt” method established in the 1927 restoration. And, at least since the 1973-1974 re-coppering, the uppermost two rows or so of copper have been covered with red anti-fouling paint, to prevent any marine growth right at the ship’s waterline.

The engineering thinking being that the "from aft forward" "forward plate's aft vertical edge overlapping the adjacent after plate's forward vertical edge" reduces drag and reduces the chances of plates being torn off if abraded by anything (e.g., flotsam) that might be struck. Similarly, the "bottom to top" "lower plate's upper horizontal edge overlapping the adjacent upper plate's lower edge" reduces the chances of plates being torn off if abraded by anything if the ship takes the bottom at low tide. (Of course, if the ship takes the bottom for any other reason, the copper sheathing will probably be the least of her problems! )

Yes. As explained in the old post below, the signals lockers are on the signals bridge and the lockers, port and starboard, will always be found on any ship by following the signal halyards down from the signals mast to the deck.

Exactamente! And I believe that the threads on the spindle above the Jacobs chuck accommodate a threaded collet holder for your milling bits. A Morse or Jacobs taper arbor would likely not hold the tapered arbor when side-loaded by milling forces and the arbor and chuck would fall out of the spindle at speed, which might not be pretty. The Jacobs chuck is for vertical drilling, not milling processes. You will have to purchase wedges to match the size of your Jacobs chuck.

Gregory's comment is spot on. Not all polyester threads are necessarily the same for purposes of spinning scale cordage! I want to be sure I have not misled you when I said in my post #18 that, "As mentioned, the museum curators who care for the finest museum models in Europe say that Gutermann Mara MicroCore Spun Polyester thread passed their tests for archival quality. Any decent quality spun polyester thread should be a reasonable choice if you are impatient, but the price of impatience could be the inability to get what you want in the colors and weights you want from a home-sewing store." That statement was in response to your question at post #17, "all great info friends. but the question is what can i use that is available at the simple joanns that has logevity? im stuck here. cotton over polyester or nylon?" It was not my intention to convey simply that "Any decent quality spun polyester thread should be a reasonable choice..." Rather, in the context of your question, "...what can i use that is available at the simple joanns that has logevity? im stuck here. cotton over polyester or nylon?" my statement was qualified: 1) "As mentioned, the museum curators who care for the finest museum models in Europe say that Gutermann Mara MicroCore Spun Polyester thread passed their tests for archival quality." and "Any decent quality spun polyester thread should be a reasonable choice if you are impatient, but the price of impatience could be the inability to get what you want in the colors and weights you want from a home-sewing store." Perhaps I should have answered your question more clearly, by saying, "If for some reason you cannot obtain from the Wawak Sewing Company the Gutermann Mara MicroCore Spun Polyester thread discussed in the forum's Discussions about Rope Making - Model Ship World™ section, any other decent quality spun polyester thread should be chosen as a reasonable substitute ahead of any thread made of any other currently available material." You can rig your model with whatever thread you wish, obtained from wherever you wish. If you're asking which currently readily available thread has the best archival qualities and where it can be obtained, the best answer I can give you are those to be found at Discussions about Rope Making - Model Ship World™.