Bob Cleek

I always put the side that has the most errors closest to the wall.

Quite true, so long as it's tempered with the realization that if something has been done one way for a long time, it is more likely than not to work well and was the product of a greater number of minds better than one's own. New materials provide opportunities for innovation and improvement, but new materials must be viewed with considered suspicion until they, too, have stood the test of time. It must also be remembers than new ideas come along a lot less frequently than new materials and few, if any of us, ever have an original one. As Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Not at all. I'm happy to be able to share what experience I have. That said, compared to the skill and experience of many forumites, I'm just a journeyman and hardly a master! One other general observation I can share is that in recent decades amateur ship modeling has advanced greatly and what we see being done by hobbyists now is often many times more accurate and refined than the norm even thirty or forty years ago when many of us geezers were cutting out teeth on primitive kit models. The internet has made so much more information readily available and forums like this one have exponentially increased communication within the field. This has in some ways rendered things in the older books on the subject obsolete as new tools, materials, and techniques have been developed. The old ways still work, but not everything in the old books is current practice.

No. The procedure you have mentioned would create a big mess. Do some experimenting before you commit to any approach and draw your own conclusions. You will find that while thinned PVA will stiffen thread somewhat, wetting it again will do nothing to change that after the PVA has cured. If you want to dissolve PVA, you can do so by soaking in isopropyl alcohol, which will soften the PVA in the thread and leave you with sticky thread to work with which makes no sense to me at all. I don't see the need to shellac all fiber rigging. i use it when I want to "set" a knot that may potentially come undone (especially if the bitter end is cut off close to the knot, in which case i cut off the bitter end after the shellac has dried. In addition to using shellac to "set" catenaries to shape and to make reefing points lay naturally flat against sails, I also shellac coils of rigging line which I want to hang naturally as the prototype would. (Round "donuts" of coiled line on belaying pins look really stupid.) Others, like Eberhard, use thinned cellulose nitrate lacquer, which I believe the British call "nail varnish," which behaves pretty much the same as shellac, but thins with acetone instead of alcohol. Having used both, my own preference is for shellac, which is inexpensive and easy to work with and serves also as my all-purpose sealer on all bare wood. Shellac is about as impervious to moisture as any material available. Its archival qualities are also well-proven. Which of the two to use on rigging is, I believe, simply a matter of personal preference. I routinely used beeswax to eliminate the fuzz from rigging lines for some time, but abandoned it in favor of simply passing the line through a flame quickly to singe off the fuzz. (A technique called "flame finishing" in the thread industry. You will see some thread described as "flame finished" on the label. This means the thread has been "de-fuzzed" during manufacture.) I found the beeswax tended to prevent the shellac from soaking into the thread and risked imparting a slight gloss shine where the shellac dried on top of the beeswax. As mentioned, beeswax is also acidic and seems to catch dust easily. "Flame finishing" works very effectively and the modern polyester threads, such as the mentioned Gutermann Mara brand, have little, if any fuzz and appear to have been given the imprimatur of knowledgeable museum curators as to their archival longevity, in Europe, at least. Druxey is correct that beeswax is used by leather workers to lubricate sewing cord and was used by others generally to lubricate thread. This became essential when sewing machines came into use and the friction of the thread passing through the eye of the needles created so much heat that the thread would burn (or melt with synthetics) and break unless it was lubricated. Modernly, most all thread is sold pre-lubricated (or "pre-finished" as the term is used in the trade,) so there's no reason to need to use beeswax to lubricate it. As you are new to the craft, I would strongly urge you to experiment extensively before you try anything on your model. All experienced modelers do this. Experiment on scraps that can be easily discarded thereafter. Your model is the last place you want to "try out new techniques." Always test paints and varnishes for finish and color suitability, and compatibility with any underlying coatings, before starting to paint your finished work. Rather frequently, a color won't be just right or a paint will do something unexpected, like wrinkle or "orange peel" or just bead up and not stick or dry when applied on an incompatible underlying finish. You'll save yourself a lot of grief by testing beforehand.

I've never heard of such a process. I tie the ratlines on the shrouds and then I apply white shellac, which soaks into the thread and locks the stiches. As the alcohol evaporates, the thread will stiffen as the shellac dries. This permits shaping any desired catenary into the ratlines. Some others used thinned PVA instead of shellac. I prefer shellac because is is easily dissolved by an application of denatured alcohol. PVA can also be dissolved in isopropyl alcohol, but with more difficulty and mess than shellac. Perhaps others have a different technique.

I hate buying new paints! Of course, that's probably because I remember Floquil paints and finishes. I learned how to paint growing up with cousins who ran a large painting and decorating company. That was a long while ago and I've been painting and varnishing full size boats and furniture for much of my life, together with ship models. I have to say I'm an unabashed Luddite. I believe much of the traditional techniques and materials remain the best option. While I strongly support environmental values, I'm dismayed that regulatory agencies so often "pick the low-hanging fruit" and restrict things like VOC's in paints and solvents, which contribute relatively little to envioronmental air pollution, while ignoring other widespread corporate industrial carbon omissions, often for no reason other than that they have a more powerful lobby. Thus we end up with paints and varnishes, or "coatings" as the industry now calls them, which last a third as long and probably have three times the carbon footprint to manufacture than do the old oil-based materials. Living in California, I can't go to the paint store and buy real turpentine or paint thinner because their sale has been banned (except in very small bottles sold in art supply stores.) Luckly, I can still buy acetone, they tell me because it's sold as a "cleaner" and not a "coating," and I can buy Rustoleum oil paint because it's a "rust inhibitor, and not a "paint." (Surprisingly, the hardware stores sell five gallon drums of acetone! Who needs five gallons of acetone from a hardware store? Ask your local meth cook!) Oil paint can also be purchased in marine chandleries because "marine paint" is exempt from the prohibitions. Rattle cans can still be purchased, but like booze, you have to be over 18 to buy them. It's getting pretty crazy and I've had to devise work-arounds, but it's doable. (It's not against the law to possess paint thinner. It's just a crime to sell it.) I use Zinsser white shellac for sealing bare wood (and also for sealing rigging knots.) It's thinned with denatured alcohol. I use Interlux marine sanding base coat or an equivalent for fairing surfaces, such as topsides. I use Interlux surfacing putty or an equivalent for heavier fairing of surfaces and such. I use quality artists' oils in basic colors to paint models, together with the appropriate additives to condtion them to taste for brushing or spraying at the degree of drying time and the level of gloss or matt I desire. In my opinion, most of today's modeling-specific paints and other finishes are extremely expensive and not particularly easy to use. Their chemistry is complex and there are often incompatibilities between the different brands. The manufacturers take advantage of the fact that their customers don't know how to condition paint or mix colors, hence, we see varieties sold "for brushing" and others "for spraying!" I will concede that where exact color matching is essential, as with modern naval and armor models, pre-mixed paints may offer an advantage in mixing colors (if you trust the paint company's version of "olive drab" and "field gray" as of a certain date during WWII !) That notwithstanding, while I've obtained good results with acrylics, they aren't near the quality of traditional oil-based paints, which also will not raise the grain on bare wood. I've found the pigment size on quality artist's oils is entirely suitable for modeling detail. They are easy to condition for whatever application method one desires. They thin with common solvents and flow control is a function of how much linseed oil one wishes to add. Drying time can be accelerated using Japan drier and the finish controlled to the user's taste with flattening additives or clear matt overcoating. Many pigments can be quite expensive and the quality one is looking for will be reflected in tubed artists' oils, but with oils you aren't paying for packaging in minute amounts, nor is there any need to buy dozens of seven or eight dollar one ounce bottles of different colors. Six or eight tubes of basic primary and secondary colors should enable the ship modeler to pretty much mix any color they'd wish and tubed artists' oils have far less tendency to "dry up" in the tube. How many times have barely used bottled model paints been thrown out because they went bad or dried up in the bottle, no matter how much care was exercised in replacing the screw caps? Interestingly, the "gaming figure" modelers who employ a wide range of colors seem to be the first of the modeling fraternity who have discovered this fact and are going over to artists' oils in increasing numbers if their YouTube posts are any indication. I encourage anybody to try artist's oils (using them correctly) and see if they don't find them a better alternative. It's a matter of taste and opinion, but, as the saying goes, "Try it. You may like it."

Apparently, some kit manufacturers have come to realize that P.T. Barnum was right: "There's a sucker born every minute." I think that Chuck's "installment sales" model is a good one, from the modeler's point of view. It reflects the fact that he wants his customers to have a good modeling experience and perhaps come back for more. Other manufacturers don't care whether the models they sell ever get finished or not. They realize many kits are purchased by inexperienced folks who judge a kit by the picture on the box and the number of "parts" the box claims to maintain. Packaging is part of their marketing plan. When somebody gives up on one of Chuck's models, they don't buy the remaining phases and Chuck loses out. When some of the European kit manufacturers sell those high-priced "mega-kits" with a million parts and acres of gingerbread, they get their profit up front and the customer eats it when they give up on their build. I'd be interested to see what the established kit manufacturers' profit margins look like. Once they "tool up" for cast parts and amortize their "research and development" (which for some isn't much,) their materials costs are negligible compared to what they sell their models for, many of which have been on the market for years with little or no upgrading.

Duh-oh! Now I get it. An obvious solution I completely overlooked. Thanks!

You win the internet today for those planking clamps, Rob! An amazingly elegant solution.

It's hard to say what's "not enough space" in a workshop. The bench top, of course, is another matter entirely. I try to have a place for every tool and every tool in its place. If I'm going to use a number of tools repetitively, and they threaten to clutter my bench top, I use a wheeled tool cart so tools in use are readily at hand, and unused tools aren't piling up on my bench. There are two models from Harbor Freight which are relatively cheap and a pain to assemble, but great time-savers and tool storage solutions. They hold a lot and it can be laid out in organized fashion so tools can quickly and easily be located. When I'm not working, the tool cart can be rolled out of the way into a closet or wherever. This is the four drawer model. One will run you $200, but "Horror Fright" has them on sale for 20% off frequently. If you've got one of their stores within driving distance, you can save the shipping cost. They have a five drawer model as well, for forty bucks more. If I had it to do over again, I'd get the five drawer model, but they didn't have them when I got mine. (They come in a bunch of colors, if that matters to you.) https://www.harborfreight.com/tool-storage-organization/tool-storage/tool-carts/30-in-4-drawer-tech-cart-black-64818.html I also have a couple of mechanic's tool chests on roller bases. These cannot be beat for storing small hand tools. Mine are Kennedy brand, one of the better quality brands I bought ages ago at Costco, which occasionally has such things for sale. Here again, Harbor Freight has the cheapest and the US General brand is sufficiently good for hobby use. It's not like you have to buy Snap-On brand chests for five times the price just to keep up with the other mechanics in the shop! Here's a reasonably priced $300 roller chest. Note that the shallow drawers are perfect for laying out small tools so that they can be seen instantly when the drawer is opened, instead of digging through a jumble of junk in a deep drawer. They are perfect for things like pliers, files, and knives. https://www.harborfreight.com/tool-storage-organization/tool-storage/26-in-x-22-in-single-bank-roller-cabinet-yellow-56233.html The top chest is matched to fit on the lip on top of the rolling chest above, or can be used separately. It expands the amount of shallow drawer space a lot and the combination of rolling base and top chest can store everything you'd probably ever need, at least until you got into table saws, lathes, and milling machines and their tooling. Figure another $200 for the top chest, so you'd be in for $500 for a stacked set that would permit every hand tool you'd ever need to be at hand conveniently and safely stored away when not in use. As with all Harbor Freight merchandise, signing up for their email ads and mail catalogs (which, rumor has it, they are discontinuing) will get you all their coupons and discount sales codes which generally knock off around twenty percent off their retail list prices. (Disclaimer: I don't own stock in Harbor Freight and I don't consider their products "finestkind" by a long shot, but approached conservatively with an eye to quality and value, there are many bargains to be had from them... along with a lot of junk. Stay away from anything that runs on electricity or has to perform precision work!) https://www.harborfreight.com/tool-storage-organization/tool-storage/26-in-single-bank-top-chest-green-56231.html If one doesn't think they need as much storage as a rolling base and top chest, an old fashioned machinist's tool check may serve their needs until they realize that their initial needs assessment was erroneous. Old-time master machinists favored the US made Gerstner International chests, made of oak and lined with felt. They are a bit pricey beginning at around $450, but they are quite beautiful, so you could probably get away with keeping it in the dining room if your a "dining room table" modeler. https://www.amazon.com/Gerstner-International-GI-T24-11-Drawer-Chest/dp/B076H7WGWG/ref=asc_df_B076H7WGWG/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309807921328&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2792838456457911656&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9032113&hvtargid=pla-569775039015&psc=1 Harbor Freight again comes to the rescue with an $80 knockoff that's no where near the "fine furniture" quality of a Gerstner chest, but passable in a utilitarian way. If you wear a Rolex, you'll want the Gerstner. If you're like most folks, the Harbor Freight knock-off is just fine. (Asian made, but not a copyrighted design. Politics aside, I figure it's somebody's "rice bowl," and since there's nothing electronic about it, it ought to last. Like anything bought at Harbor Freight, save your sales receipts! They'll take anything defective back and replace it, but you've got to have the receipt.) https://www.harborfreight.com/eight-drawer-wood-tool-chest-94538.html I have also found magnetic tool holders to be very handy all around my shop. Some I have fastened to walls and other's I've placed on metal rolling tool cabinets (the magnets will hold them in place on metal surfaces.) These are another item that's "safe" to buy at Harbor Freight, although they are widely available elsewhere, probably from the same Asian factory with somebody else's label on them, for a higher price. Harbor Freight sells them for $4.79, but they are often discounted. I bought a half dozen at one "parking lot sale" for something like $2.75 apiece. They're great on the side of a tool cart for holding pliers, scissors, and files within reach when working at the bench. https://www.harborfreight.com/18-in-magnetic-tool-holder-60433.html I realize this post may seem to some like overkill when it comes to tool storage. I've come to learn from professional tradesmen that organized tool storage is essential to working efficiency. While not at all a professional, I've learned that while my time may not be worth as much as the professional, having tools conveniently at hand makes enjoyable tasks far more enjoyable and onerous tasks far less protracted. I've also found that having the right tool readily accessible greatly reduces my bad tendency to use the wrong tool for a job and mess it up because I was too lazy to fetch the right one.

Go ahead and work to your own standards. If you enjoy the process and the result pleases you, it will have all served its purpose. There's no "perfect" model. I have models I built decades ago that gave me great pride of accomplishment at the time and which people still admire and complement. However, when I look at them now, I see all my mistakes (including one schooner with all the deadeyes careless upside down!) and I have to resist the urge to pull them apart and correct my less-sophisticated work. Every model tends to be a bit better than its predecessor. That's how skill grows over a long period of time and much work. That said, your desire to have a Vasa "that looks ok for someone who is not a specialist in ship models" is a bit like someone whose piano playing level is somewhere around playing Chopsticks saying that they want to play Chopin "that sounds okay for someone who isn't a concert pianist." That player would certainly be able to learn to play Chopin that sounds okay for somebody who isn't a concert pianist, but the real question is whether, with such a "just good enough" attitude, they'd ever be able to make the commitment to get to the point where whatever they're playing is even recognizable as Chopin. There's a lot of wise advice in this thread. It's difficult to encourage someone to pursue a course when the goal they desire will take far more time and effort than they've made clear they wish to commit to it. This isn't to say "Don't attempt it." You may well find it very enjoyable and surprise yourself with abilities you never knew you had. Building any ship model is just an exercise in completing a lot of tiny steps in sequence. As the saying goes, "Experience begins when you start."

Parenthetically, David Crockett's figurehead, with its rifle, is on display at the San Francisco Maritime Museum, or was. (One never knows what the NPS is going to do down there and I've not been by in a number of years. I hear they did a major renovation so... who knows? When a bunch of park rangers whose last job was cataloging Hopi pots in the desert end up running a maritime museum and historical park full of wooden ships, it never bodes well... but I digress.)

WOW! I just checked out their website. Micro-Tools has a lot of really useful tools and at really reasonable prices. I had never heard of them before. They've got in a single place all sorts of tools you'd have to search all over hell and back to try to find elsewhere and, it would appear, when you did find it elsewhere, you'd be paying more. Thanks for the link!

Apropos of nothing relevant at this point in the discussion, but in the spirit of "every bit helps," I'll pass on the fact that Glory of the Seas' nameboard is hanging on the wall in the J. Porter Shaw Library, Fort Mason, San Francisco (SF Maritime Historical Park.) It is mentioned at 1:57 of the video on the library website: https://www.kahnfoundation.org/j-porter-shaw-maritime-library/

And just to make life a bit more miserable for the anally constrained obsessives, let's not forget that the measurement of a "foot" was not internationally standardized in the times discussed here. Individual nations and even individual cities had their own "foot" measurement standards and even some trades had their own "foot" measurements. Where some may have updated their measurement standards or political boundaries may have shifted, there were simultaneously "old feet" and "new feet" in some locations. This is often a cause of confusion today when a contemporary draughts and records list the length of a particular vessel in "feet" and the contemporary model doesn't measure out to scale in the present "Imperial foot" which was only internationally standardized in 1959. I once had a terrible time trying to resolve the published discrepancy in the length of a yacht built as recently as 1939 until I realized the naval architect's drawings were done in the UK to British feet and inches, while the vessel was built to the offsets in British measurement units by a yard in Sweden using Swedish feet and inches! See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(unit)

And the shape of the bows, and what timber was on hand at the time, which decreased in size as the forests became consumed by a wooden navy's prodigious consumption of timber. When there came to be less large trees, ships came to be built of smaller pieces and hence scarfs and doublings increased. When it came to the point that ships became so large and the timber so small that the number of scarfs in a keel were insufficient to hold a ship's shape for long and her ends began to sag, or "hog," shipbuilding engineers like the famous Seppings began to devise ways to engineer construction to build rigidity into the hulls which was derived from devices like specialized knees and diagonal strapping. For a wonk, reconciling the changes in ship design and construction with the increase in the size of ships and the consequent decrease in the size of available trees is a fascinating study.

I don't think ship modeling is a dying hobby at all. It may have been bigger with kids in earlier days before Lego co-opted modeling for kids, which I don't consider necessarily a bad thing. (It gets their creative juices flowing in much the same way.) Plastic model cars and the like were very popular when I was a kid, but I can see how my ten year old grandson can't muster the patience and attention span to build a plastic car kit when he's been raised on the instant gratification of video games. Nevertheless, now that I've opened my mind to take an interest in his world, he's teaching me to play Minecraft and I realize he's been building his own virtual world online with as much creativity as I ever exercised building plastic model kits at his age. Serious model railroading and model ship building were always primarily adult pursuits. They require specialized knowledge and dedication and lots of free time. It's an Old Guy's thing and always has been, and never a whole lot of Old Guys at that. Who else has the time and the money? That's not a bad thing, either. It's difficulty and demands keep the riff-raff out. In all my 71 years, I've only been in one store dedicated to ship model building. It was short lived and closed back in the mid-seventies. (I understand there is now one about an hour away, "Ages of Sail," which I may check out if I'm ever in the neighborhood. My impression is that it's a brick and mortar store with a large mail order business, sort of like the small Chinese restaurants who do more take out business than dine in business. ) If anybody's looking for a walk-in place open seven days a week with lots of very expensive ship models on the shelves and tons of racks full of parts and pre-milled strip wood and every color of model paint made, good luck with that unless you live near one of the big mail order outfits. It's just not a business model that ever penciled out. That said, the creative modeler should be able to find just about anything they need in local crafts stores, art supply stores, hardware stores, and the like. Those wishing cast scale parts and such will have to suffer the inconvenience of mail order, but how often does one need to do that anyway? (And never, if you learn to make them yourself.) Aside from an occasional specialized tool, I practically never buy modeling supplies on line and I expect a lot of serious modelers are the same. The only modeling things I bought in the last couple of years were a jeweler's hand vise, from a jeweler's supply house, and a few spools of Guttermann thread for rope making. I shop around and always compare quality and prices because I find higher quality tools in places like medical and dental instrument supply houses and commercial jewelry supply houses than I do in the "usual suspects" mega-hobby catalogs. And I don't think there will be any argument that once you go "scratch," you'll never go back. It does take a bit of up front capital to obtain the tools, but there's always a work-around for just about anything except a Byrnes saw, with will pay for itself when compared to buying a couple of boxed model kits The correct tools save time and huge amounts of money. Instead of scanning the catalogs to see what kits are available for hundreds of bucks a pop, the door to thousands of modeling subjects is opened. Often models nobody else has ever built! The plans are sitting there in books and museums and archives all over the world, many available at no cost whatsoever. (For instance, MIT just finished scanning the entire collection of N.G. Herreshoff's plans and offsets which can now be accessed for free online. The great British museum drawing collections are in the process of digitization now and can be accessed on line, with full-size hard copies available by mail for a fee.) The modeler who makes the leap to "scratch," no longer has to worry about buying much of anything from a hobby shop. It's a natural evolution after building a few kits.

Sorry. I just stumbled over this log right now and wish I'd had the opportunity to comment before you'd gone as far down the road as you have. In the off chance that you weren't aware, I'll offer the following. Your Scud model hull may be of much greater interest as an antique than the comments in the thread indicate. (Re: the Antiques Roadshow rule: "If you hadn't refinished it, I'd estimate auction value at $25,000." "So what's it worth since I had it refinished?" "About $1,500.") While the lead ballast keel indicates the hull was carved for a sailing model, and so the keel profile can't be expected to depict the prototype, in a folk-artsy sort of way, the hull appears to be a pond model of Nathaniel G. Herreshoff's 1903 Bar Harbor 31 class cutter, Scud, which, amazingly, is still sailing today and terrorizing the Med classic racing circuit following a total restoration. See: https://www.magzter.com/stories/Boating-Sailing/Classic-Boat/SCUD-MISSILE Designer: Nathanael Greene Herreshoff Type of Boat: Bar Harbor 31 Class Rig: Gaff Cutter Year Built: 1903 Built By: The Herreshoff Manufacturing Cpmpany, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA LOA m / ft: 18.59m/61' LOD m / ft: 14.93m / 48'10" LWL m / ft: 9.37m / 30' 9" Beam m / ft: 3.18m / 10' 5" Draft m / ft: 2.21m / 7' 3" Yard No: 603 Sail Stats sail area: 1425sq.ft Construction: Double-planked yellow pine, inside planking cypress, and diagonally strapped with bronze and oak frames. HMCo hull: 603 NGH's records on the Bar Harbor 31's and any records on Scud, will be found in the Hart Maritime Collection at MIT, which, happily, has been digitized and is accessible online: https://mitmuseum.mit.edu/hart-nautical-collections-list and https://collections.mitmuseum.org/collection/haffenreffer-herreshoff-collection/ Scud in foreground: https://classicyachtinfo.com/yachts/scud/ More photos and full construction plan: https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1903/herreshoff-bar-harbor-31-3079607/ Also extensively covered by WoodenBoat Magazine: http://www.herreshoff.info/Docs/AuxDocs/1982_03_WoodenBoat_045_p68-74_Bray_BH31_Portrait.pdf http://www.herreshoff.info/Docs/AuxDocs/2000_09_WoodenBoat_156_p144_Scud_Save_a_Classic.pdf

I knew I was right! And it didn't take long, either.

Without pulling my copy off the shelf, I believe zu Montfeld refers to the diameter of the mainstay as a percentage of the diameter of the mainmast at the deck and then everything else as a percentage of the diameter of the mainstay, for cordage standing rigging, at least. In real life, I think it was left to the bosun's judgment and the cordage available. "Big enough to carry the load" was essential, of course. At some point, I believe the Admiralty standardized block sizes for purposes of procurement and store-keeping and the running rigging would be sized to match the blocks, but I doubt there was a lot of science to rigging sizes that could be reduced to absolute mathematical formulae back in those times. "Different ships, different long splices" was the order of the day. There are many far more informed on the subject than I am, I'm sure. Perhaps one can add more than what i have or correct any errors in what I've stated.

In using this construction technique, at what point does tumblehome become a problem in removing the planked hull from the plug? I recall the loss of tumblehome when yacht hulls began to be made of fiberglass, which didn't permit removing a hull with tumblehome from a mold unless the mold was constructed of two parts split down the centerline which could be disassembled and removed from each side. Is there enough "flex" in the planked up structure to "spread" the sides and "pop" the hull off the plug?

Fly tying vises are great. Anything that holds the workpiece will generally improve efficiency and accuracy by orders of magnitude over fingers. (Don't ask me how long it took me to learn this bit of wisdom! ) Many modelers are familiar with the following "holders." I'm posting them for newcomers who may not have encountered them as yet. The jeweler's hand vise: These come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and styles. My favorite is one which adjusts by twisting the handle, which screws the handle up a threaded shaft with a cone at its base which forces the jaws together. It has grooved teeth to hold various sizes of wire for drawing through a draw plate and a hole through the shaft and handle which permits holding the end of a wire or thin dowel close at the jaws while letting the long end project from the end of the handle. The handle can be held in a larger soft or protected jaw bench vise to free both hands to work on the workpiece. They're relatively inexpensive. https://www.amazon.com/Woodstock-D4119-Handy-Hand-Held/dp/B005W179JC/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2/131-3456601-3915348?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B005W179JC&pd_rd_r=9e8a1884-e3be-4bd1-9a39-ca497790734c&pd_rd_w=URu5u&pd_rd_wg=naP5e&pf_rd_p=fd3ebcd0-c1a2-44cf-aba2-bbf4810b3732&pf_rd_r=88G5XCC3HZV8SXC4JG6E&psc=1&refRID=88G5XCC3HZV8SXC4JG6E Universal work holder: These vises hold irregular-shaped small objects. They have small metal pins that are inserted wherever one desires on the face of the vise to hold the workpiece, either by moving the jaws together to clamp down on the piece, or, as with rings, placing the pins inside the ring and moving the jaws apart to hold the ring from the center. The entire vise "head" can be screwed off the handle and placed in a bench vise with the jaws tightened on the squared edges of the bottom of the vise head. Another inexpensive and very handy tool. https://www.riogrande.com/product/universal-work-holder-with-handle/113089 "Third hand" gizmos: Everybody must have seen, if not owned, the ubiquitous "Third Hand," the black base with ball-joint articulated arms with alligator clips or other usually useless things, like small magnifying glasses, on their ends. The ball joints are loosened and tightened with wing nuts. They are very inexpensive and often sold as catalog "loss leaders" for a few bucks. I have a couple. The first was next to useless because the wing nuts didn't really hold the ball joints tightly. The second, a higher priced one, was no better for the same reason. Not recommended, but your mileage may vary. https://www.amazon.com/Neiko-01902-Adjustable-Magnifying-Alligator/dp/B000P42O3C/ref=asc_df_B000P42O3C/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312096335436&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5246044958869315323&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9032113&hvtargid=pla-448870101576&psc=1 There's a new wrinkle on the "Third Hand" coming out of the electronics production assembly industry (for holding small printed circuit boards for soldering) which is not particularly inexpensive (starting at around $25 and running up to around $75 for the super-size deluxe model,) but looks very promising. It's called the "QuadHands Magnetic WorkBench" system and comes in a variety of configurations and sizes. It consists of a flat heavy steel plate and bendable "gooseneck" arms with replaceable alligator clips with removable silicone jaw pads at one end (which can be rotated and locked in place) and rare earth "super-magnets" at their bases. The arms can be placed anywhere on the steel base place and bent as desired. I'll probably spring for one when I next have a bunch of small part soldering to do. I haven't seen one in the flesh as yet. If anybody has worked with one, a review would be welcomed. These have been widely copied by our Asian friends. The "real" QuadHands products are Made in the USA. (Additional "arms" of varying lengths may be purchased separately.) https://www.quadhands.com/?rfsn=2886761.5f09cb&utm_source=refersion&utm_medium=influencers&utm_campaign=2886761.5f09cb

That works. Another trick, particularly if you have an adapter for each blade that needs one, is to place the blade flat on top of a flat surface with a piece of "non-stick" material, like a piece of tinfoil or plastic wrap. Place the adapter inside the blade center hole. Apply a sparing drop of glue to a couple or three evenly spaced points on the seam between the spacer and the blade. Pretty much any glue will do, with CA being the least preferable, but still acceptable. Let the glue dry. This attaches the spacer in the blade hole so that the blade can be easily placed on the arbor in the usual fashion. If the spacer needs to be removed, the lightly glued spacer can simply be broken free from the blade, if need be by tap with a small hammer. Such semi-permanent attachment also helps avoid losing the spacer and having to replace it (only to be found later!)

Use a new, sharp drill bit in a pin vise and don't force it. No powered drilling. Let the bit cut the wood. Expect to lose a few in any event due to weak grain in the wrong place.

Tagua nuts. https://www.amazon.com/10-Eco-friendly-easy-carve-tagua-nuts/dp/B0002IXM3C "Solid surface" material, originally patented by DuPont as "Corian" and used for countertops and other work surfaces, and now manufactured by others as well, comes in a huge selection of colors including ivory and is easily machined and glued with epoxy adhesive. It was originally only sold wholesale to installers and was only available to licensed fabricators and installers, but now may be more obtainable by the general public. It's quite expensive in large sheets, but one may be able to secure relatively small offcuts from fabricators. I got an offcut sheet large enough to serve as the top of an extension table for my cabinet saw for $100 "under the table and out the back door" of a fabricator. They had no use for it because it was left over from a job and was a nauseating puke green color. The stuff is cut and machined with woodworking tools. I've never tried to carve it with carving knives and chisels, but it can be carved with burs and sands easily.