Bob Cleek

Ain't that the truth! Maybe it's a generational thing, and I certainly can embrace many of the benefits of "the digitization of everything" (without which this forum wouldn't exist,) but I do think we do a disservice to the art of ship modeling by an inordinate focus on CAD and CNC machine tool applications at the expense of a sound grounding in how the vessels we seek to model were actually built in real life. I know I'm a Luddite, and old enough now that it doesn't matter, but as far as I know, nobody's yet invented a CAD program that can strike a fair curve as quickly, easily, accurately, and inexpensively, as a flexible batten of wood, nor a CNC machine tool that can cut a curved piece of wood to fit against its mate as quickly, easily, and inexpensively as a sharp edged tool in an experienced hand. I, too, marvel at the "master machinists" who turn out perfect replicas using state-of-the-art digital age machinery (and I have a lot of tools myself,) but I lament the elevating of the technical above the artistic for therein lies the difference between an art and a craft.

Then that's it! I'm not "CAD literate," but as an old time pen and ink draftsman, I'm certain that trusting your "eye" to judge fit and fairness of the build is the surest guarantee of a good outcome. I've never seen a wooden boat builder who didn't follow the maxim, "build to the boat and not to the plans." There are so many curves and variables to the parts of a vessel and opportunities for compounding errors of measurement, it's a very difficult thing to reduce them all to dimensions having the accuracy tolerances that mimic the "interchangeable parts" processes of modern mass production. It makes perfect sense in theory, but never seems to work in practice with a "one off" build.

I should check my copy of Chapelle's Boatbuilding to answer my own question, I suppose, but how was the transom shape presented in the book? If the actual shape of the face of the transom was what you used as a pattern, it should have come out fitting perfectly. If, on the other hand, you used the projected shape of the transom edge from the station drawing, what would be there would have less height by just about the amount your frames were "pushing the keel up" because in the body plan it's shown as it would look at its angle of rake. This may explain the difficulties your encountered. Looking at a transom face that is perpendicular, the transom will appear taller than looking straight on at the same transom when it is raked slightly as it is when fastened to the sternpost. The actual surface shape of a transom has to be "developed" or "expanded" in the lofting. As I recall, there is a description of how to develop the various styles of transoms in Chapelle's Yacht Designing and Planning, but it's quite confusing. Alan Vaitses' Lofting explains developing transom shapes much more clearly. Here's another brief treatment of it online: https://www.duckworksmagazine.com/13/columns/austin/7/index.htm#.X_7Ws3ZKgdU Anyway, it was just a thought. You've cured the problem, but you may want to take a close look at your sheer at the transom now because if what I've described, a "short transom," was the issue, you'll encounter a similar measurement issue when it comes time to hang plank.

Interesting discussion! The term "kit bashing" seems to have evolved over time to convey the meanings others have noted. I'm not sure when it first came into common usage, but the first time I heard it used was in the second half of the seventies. I was living in Marin County at the time and had for many years. We had something of an "influx" of folks moving into my neighborhood who had been recruited by George Lucas, who was setting up his operations there, primarily, at first, Industrial Light and Magic ("ILM") and later Lucasfilm. I remember meeting one guy who moved in a couple of houses down from us telling me when I asked what he did for a living, "I'm a model maker." Of course, my immediate response was, "You mean people can make a living at it?" After that, we were "off to the races." He was the first guy who told me about what they called "kit bashing." My understanding was that the term was commonly used by movie industry model makers to mean using off-the-shelf plastic model kit parts to build entirely different models from what the kits' original subjects represented. The technique was originated by model makers working on the movie 2001 - A Space Odyssey. They built a lot of models from scratch, but when they needed bits and pieces, they'd take them from plastic kits which had nothing to do with the model they were making. They'd often buy large numbers of the same kit just to obtain a sufficient number of a particular part they wanted that was in each kit. These kit parts which the modelers used frequently and in large numbers they called "greeblies," which I think was just a made-up word. It was all quite fascinating and at the time something of a "trade secret." (Lucas even kept the name and address of ILM secret for a long time. It was just a nondescript warehouse in an industrial district on Kerner Street in San Rafael, CA with a sign on the front that simply said "The Kerner Company.") I found this photo online showing ILM's "kit bashing" shop in action building the original Millenium Falcon, Han Solo's space ship in the Star Wars movies. Note the boxes of kits on the shelves in the background. Note the three rectangular parts with the black holes in their centers in the foreground laying on top of the front of the model. These appear to be tank body decks, the holes being where the turrets would be placed on the tank model. The second picture shows them in the finished model where they became exhaust ports or something like that. Below is a yet-to-be weathered section of an ILM spaceship. Some may be able to recognize parts from specific model kits. I'm guessing there are some aircraft carrier parts in there somewhere! Below is the original "droid strip," the top of the "X-wing fighter" right behind the pilot's seat, flown by Luke Skywalker in the first Star Wars movie with the original model kits from which the parts identified were sourced: Close inspection of later Star Wars kits marketed to the public show some differences in the details. I wonder if some details weren't changed in the later model kits to avoid violating the original kit manufacturer's copyrights. I'd certainly hate to think Lucasfilm was authorizing the production of "pirated" kits! Just kidding. I knew the lady who worked for Lucas writing "cease and desist" letters to anybody who so much as thought of violating a Lucasfilm copyright. They were very scrupulous about that. So, I'd say that to be really accurate in the use of the term "kit bashing," it should only apply to building something entirely different from what the kit the parts came from was. Using tank kit parts to depict something different from what they were on the tank kit to portray a part on a ship model is "kit bashing." Using an anchor winch casting from one ship model kit to portray an anchor winch on another ship model isn't "kit bashing." That's just "parts swapping." But, it's really not all that important in the grand scheme of things, is it?

To make a living selling milled dimensioned modeling wood, yes, but that's only because the consumers are hung up on three or four now-exotic (over-harvested) species that were once plentiful and commonly used. To become a self-sufficient modeler, all you really need is a good (i.e. a Byrnes) micro-table saw and perhaps a (Byrnes) thickness sander. Heavier machinery which saves much labor in reducing larger stock to modeling-sized billets can usually be begged or borrowed when that task occasionally arises. There are many great species for modeling that routinely end up in the chipper because they don't exist in size or quantity sufficient to make milling it on a commercial scale worthwhile. That certainly doesn't mean that commonly available woods like apple, persimmon, satin walnut, chestnut, holly and such aren't probably readily available for the scrounging at the municipal brush dump or by plying a friendly arborist with a bottle of Jack so he'll save you some of the good stuff when he comes across it.

When you do get around to handling it, expect it to get a lot of use. It's one of those "there and nowhere else" sort of reference works.

After reading your post and the tasks you anticipate doing, I would say that a table saw is the tool you will use the most in those applications. This is especially true if you anticipate fabricating deck gratings, window frames, and such. However, it must be a highly accurate and sufficiently powerful mini-table saw. (It's got to be able to zip through rock-hard wood, not just balsa and basswood!) Accuracy is really critical. You'll also want a saw with a good precision cross-sawing sled. "If you take milling/planking your own timber out of the equation would a Byrnes table saw or a mini mill be of more use for the tasks I listed." The table saw is still the more useful by a long shot, in my opinion. Of greater concern, however, is the fact that you are not likely able to "take milling/planking your own timber out of the equation." At an ever-increasing rate, pre-milled dimensioned modeling wood is becoming unavailable. There just isn't enough demand for it that anybody can make a living making and selling it. There's some poor and medium grade modeling woods still commercially available in dimensioned sizes, but practically none in quality species anymore, but you'll quickly run into problems finding the size you need. Moreover, when you mill your own on your own table saw, you have a far wider selection of woods to chose from, many which can be sourced for nothing or close to it. Just look at all the posts in here from people asking "Where do I buy wood?" You can use the MSW search engine and read what is probably the most extensive collection of hands-on reviews and information on the Byrnes table saw anywhere on the internet. You aren't likely to see one in the flesh before you buy it unless you find your way to somebody near you who has one, or visit Jim Byrnes in Florida where he builds them. See: https://byrnesmodelmachines.com/ I do not expect anyone will argue with the assertion that there is no mini-saw available anywhere that comes anywhere close to the Byrnes table saw. It's as simple as that. Spending money on anything else means getting a lot less "bang for your buck." The Byrnes saw, while not inexpensive, it wicked accurate and an extremely high quality piece of machinery. There's no way anybody beats their personalized customer service. That's what one should expect from what is essentially a bespoke high-tolerance machine tool. That said, I regret to inform you that if the reports from your countrymen are accurate, shipping, import duties, and taxes raise the cost of any machine from Byrnes Model Machines, or much of anything else from this side of the Pond, beyond what many feel they can justify spending. As I'm sure this situation affects everyone in in the UK similarly, you may be able to find a "work around" that makes it less painful for you than others have found those drawbacks to be.

It looks great! Yes, indeed, nice job on the case. It really adds the finishing touch!

A cylindrical sized trunnel isn't always necessary. Cutting a "pie-shaped-sectioned" cross-grained length of soft wood of suitable size and cutting off little wedge shaped pieces parallel with the grain is often another option. Many of these little "chips" can be made very quickly. When a properly-sized little wedge is driven into a hole drilled in harder wood, the softer wedge will compress to fill the hole without deforming it. When finished flush to the surface, these are undistinguishable from a sized cylindrical trunnel.

The treenail maker is mounted on the end of the Dremel motor. It's sort of a pencil sharpener kind of gizmo. I don't believe Vanda-Lay Industries offers the treenail maker anymore. It's not listed on their website anymore. You might give them a call and ask. https://vanda-layindustries.com/index.html

Very nice job on the sails!

That should be the initial assumption, but working forward from there, the question arises, "Okay, what possible reason or reasons might they have had?"

The terms and phrases "tall ships," "tall ships are coming," "tall ships 20##," and "tall ships challenge" are registered trademarks of The American Sail Training Association (ASTRA.) The term "tall ship" has been registered by ASTRA with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since 1976. ASTRA reportedly charges 15 to 20 percent of the entire budget of an event to license the use of their "tall ships" trademark. Perhaps a savvy ship modeling club will trademark the term, "small ships" for use with its next model show!

The sourcing challenges of Polybak seem much like those encountered trying to find small quantities of Corian(tm)!

Jaager's explanation is as accurate and succinct a treatment of the issue as I've ever read. I agree wholeheartedly! What he's described is an excellent example some of the problems which are often encountered with model kits designed in that era. (Modernly designed high quality kits are better by orders of magnitude.) Jack's perspective has its adherents. It simply depends upon how you feel about how you spend your modeling time. He is enjoying building his model and is happy investing his time and efforts in producing that which promises to be a very nice model that will please the eyes of its beholders and display his efforts and skill in its building, regardless of its lack historical accuracy. If "a nice looking (fictional maybe) model of an old warship under sail" works for you, Jack's your man. My own instinct was to suggest relying on the somewhat extensive available research to accurately bash the AL kit to model the 1855 corvette. That would result in a model which tells an historically accurate and very interesting story which will remain relevant into the future, which demonstrates your own modeling skill, and will be a thing of intrinsic beauty in itself. However, Jaager's relating Mark Taylor's experience doing just that leads me to reach somewhat the same conclusion as Jaager: I'd sell the kit on eBay for whatever you can get for it and apply the proceeds to buying a high quality historically accurate modern kit. With an equally enjoyable investment of effort and time you'll end up with something which will be capable of communicating much more than a stock build of the AL Constellation kit can. I don't know how old your are or how much modeling you've done, but most of us who do it long enough and get old enough come to realize at some point that we've only got time left to build a limited number of models. That leads us to focus on spending what time we have left building the best models we can, not only in terms of technical building skill, but also in terms of historical accuracy. It really boils down to whether one wishes to leave behind a large collection of built kits that are destined for the landfill in a generation or two at most or what we hope will be a very few very well done works of historical research and modeling artistry that might... just might... survive to serve some useful purpose for longer than that.

This is fascinating. I'm learning something here. I think. Okay. I'm with you now. Sort of. To be fair, Underhill is describing a type of brigantine rig, called a polancca brigantine. I may be misunderstanding your comment, "hence the name," but I'll point out that the word "polacca" is Italian and means "Polish." It refers to "a Pole," i.e. being Polish, rather than to a "pole" as in a mast on a ship or a pole from which a flag flies. The adjective "polacca" referring to sail rigs originally referred to the sail rigs favored by the notorious Dutch-born Barbary pirate leader, Jan Janszoon van Haarlem, AKA Reis Mourad the Younger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Janszoon) whose ships carried combinations of lateen-rigged and a gaff-rigged sail on their masts. Holland was then part of the Habsburg Empire and Janzoon obtained a Letter of Marque from his native government. Thus, he flew Habsburg colors when attacking Habsburg enemies, but ran up Barbary States colors and preyed equally on Habsburg allies when the opportunity presented itself. As a Dutchman by birth, he was captured by Ottomans, converted to Islam, and returned to his pirate trade as a Muslim. The Habsburg Monarchy and the Poles were allied against the Ottoman Empire in the long-running Ottoman-Habsburg Wars, which may explain why Janzoon, known by a variety of aliases, including "John Barber," might have been given the nickname, "The Pole," although I can't say for sure that he was, but in any event, the distinctive lateen and gaff-rigged sail plans that struck terror in the hearts of European mariners came to be called "The Pole's sails," "Polish sails," or, in Italian, simply "Polacca" and Janzoon was well-known for his extensive use of what mariners came to call the pollaca sail plan. This was the origin of the adjective "polacca," referring to a sail plan employing both a lateen and a gaff sail on the same ship, as in "polacca brigantine" or "polancca" followed by whatever other type of rig it might be. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polacca) Underhill's discussion of the type correctly notes there were innumerable "polacca" or "Polish" rigs combinations throughout the Mediterranean. What he seems to focus on, writing immediately following the Second World War as the type was waning, was the characteristic that the type carries yards which may "be raised and lowered like Venetian blinds," i.e. in which none of the yards are permanently attached to the mast. In such an arrangement, a fidded mast would certainly not be helpful. So, yes, the polancca is characterized by an unfidded mast, but the term isn't referring to a "pole" (lower case "p.") Obviously, a lateen sail's yard (or "antenna" in the original Latin and Italian) also requires a single "pole" mast because it is lowered "like a Venetian blind" and that's where the term originated. Essentially, a "polacca" rigged square sail is one attached to a yard which is hung on a mast in the same fashion as a lateen sail's yard is hung on its mast and may be lowered "like a Venetian blind." And there you have it. From my reading of pages 70-72 of Underhill's Deepwater Sail, I must say he does provide a much better explanation of the mechanical meaning of "polacca" than I've seen elsewhere, but it needs be noted that he uses the term "polacca" in distinguishing it as a method of rigging yards, be they square yards or antennae and uses it as an adjective, just as the same word in English, "Polish," is an adjective, to describe, what in the instance he cites, is, was, and always will be a brigantine, as in the phrase he uses: "polacca brigantine." Note also that the NMM's description of the "polacca" pictured above repeatedly refers to that model in the British usage as a "brig" and reverts to referring to it in "shorthand' as a "polacca" instead of "polacca brig." The model is not, in American English nomenclature, at least, a "brig," because in American usage a brig is defined by having square sails on both its fore and main masts. A brigantine carries only square-sails on its foremast (no boomed fore and after sails on the foremast,) and a gaff-rigged mainsail on it's mainmast. (Square sails may also be carried on a brigantine's mainmast, most commonly when encountered it's a single topsail, but that is not are not definitive of the brigantine rig in American English.) With a nod to your citation to Underhill, I'll amend my answer to say #2 appears to be a polacca brigantine in American English nomenclature and, apparently, a polacca brig in British English usage. "Sail plan for a Polacca, first built by the Barbary pirates around the 16th century, many scholars believe the Polacca was extensively used by Jan Janszoon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Janszoon#/media/File:Sail_plan_xebec.svg

I've never known the presence of a fidded mast to distinguish a type of rig. "To fid or not to fid" depends simply upon the length of the mast and the length of the available tree the mast is made of, so to speak. Polacre, or polacca, roughly translated means "Pollock" or "from Poland." (I have no idea if that was a term suggesting that they were indeed from Poland or a 17th century ethnic slur. Goodness knows, I don't want to offend any Poles or persons of Polish descent or be accused of posting "Polish jokes.") They were generally three-masted vessels carrying lateen sails on their foremast and mizzenmast, similar to a xebec, and square sails on their mainmasts, though not always. Some carried two masts and some carried no lateen sails at all. Suffice it to say, it would be really stretching it to call a vessel as pictured in photo #2 a polacre or polacca. https://www.cherini.eu/etnografia/NBM/slides/orig_Polacca.html Truth be told, the closest I've been able to come to any identification of the vessel depicted in #2 is actually an 18th to 19th century Royal Navy bomb ketch, except that the bomb ketch is generally a larger vessel than #2 appears to be, a bomb ketch's mainmast would be stepped farther aft, halfway between the stem and stern, and the general derelict appearance (note the sails) of #2 sure doesn't suggest she's in active naval service. She could have been "sold out," but it's hard to see that there'd be much civilian use to be gotten out of bomb ketch. https://www.cherini.eu/etnografia/NBP/slides/orig_Bombarda.html I'll recommend Aldo Cherini's website of Mediterranean vessel ethnography from which the above drawings came... if you want to risk getting detoured for several hours in an incredible "dump" of Italian nautical trivia! https://www.cherini.eu/ and https://www.cherini.eu/etnografia/NBM/ and https://www.cherini.eu/etnografia/BEU/index.html

Indeed the rigged galiot, sometimes-spelled "galiote," model does at first glance appear to carry the same rig as photo #2, but, critically, I believe, photo #2 does not carry a boomed fore and aft sail on the forward mast. It's "Mediterranean-appearing" hull is no contraindication because, according to one sometimes accurate source, the term "galiot" was used to describe a variety of hull and use-distinguised types of vessel in the 16th through 19th centuries, most notably a "half-galley" with two masts, often lateen-rigged and also propelled with oars in the Mediterranean area in the 16th through 17th centuries, as well as a type of Dutch and German vessel similar to a ketch with rounded ends like a fluyt (as appears to the be case in the picture posted above) in the North Sea in the 17th through 19th centuries, a type of French naval vessel in the 17th through 19th centuries which was distinguished by carrying lateen-rigged sails and a bank of oars as did the earlier "half-galley" galiot, although in some instances with but one mast, a type of horse-drawn canal barge called a "galiote" in France from the mid-17th century through the 19th century, or a localized French flat-bottomed river barge with some sort of simple sail rig used to transport wine in the Anjou region during the same period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galiot In other words, it does not appear that the term "galiot" was ever used to specifically describe a rig, but rather was used to describe a variety of vessel, rather than rig, types. The term "galiot" or "galiote" seems to have been more descriptive of the purpose of the vessel than its rig. Indeed, it seems to have been used to designate lateen-rigged oared galleys as much as anything else. The rigs of the various vessels called "galiots" or "galiotes" seem to be of wide variety, as do both the shapes of their hulls and the uses to which they were put. Dutch galiot of 1740: https://www.modelships.de/Dutch_Galiot/Dutch_Galiot.htm Contemporary painting: "A Spanish xebec (center) attacked by two Algerian galiotes" (1738) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galiot#/media/File:DonAntonioBarcelóConSuJabequeCorreoRindeADosGaleotasArgelinas.jpg "A Dutch galiot from Willaumez's Dictionnaire de la Marine in the 17th century." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galiot#/media/File:Galiote.jpg "A galiote, or scute, transporting wine on a French river during the 18th century." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galiot#/media/File:Scute_transportant_du_vin_sur_la_Loire_XVIIIe_s.jpg The "A Dutch galiot from Willaumez's Dictionnaire de la Marine in the 17th century." and the German-flagged model vessel pictured in the preceeding post carry the same rig, but perhaps on hulls of varying degrees of refinement, although that's hard to ascertain certainly from the pictures. That said, the vessel #2 in the originally post, distinctively unlike these two, does not carry a boomed fore and aft sail on its forward mast. For this reason, and especially as well as because the term "Galiot" does not appear to have been in use for similar vessels (i.e. other than canal barges) beyond the mid-1700's, while rig #2 is a photograph of a vessel necessarily taken almost certainly over a hundred years later, at least, I'm sticking with the label, "brigantine." In any event, the term "jackass rig" is certainly often appropriate where rig deviations from generally common arrangements occur. For many years, I owned a J. Laurent Giles Vertue sailboat which somewhat uniquely was rigged with a masthead stay from which could be flown a masthead jib as well as a two-thirds staysail, both tacked at the stemhead. While the designer called it a "sloop," others called it a "cutter," and still others called the unusual rig a "slutter." Go figure!

There are probably a whole lot more ship model builders with significant seamanship experience and skill than you'd imagine, and among those who have moved beyond kit building to "The Dark Side," the percentage is almost certainly greater still. It would appear this forum is devoted to the hobby of building ship models. If one aspires to succeed in that endeavor, it would seem they'd be at a disadvantage if they didn't intimately know what it was they were modeling, but I suppose that's a story for another night, children. Be he a seaman or a landsman, a man without a sense of humor is a lamentable thing to behold. Pray tell, for those who may feel some sensitivity to the feelings of the thin-skinned, what's the "poltically correct" term for a "lubbers' hole?"

What Allanyed said. Like most, I expect, my practices have evolved over the years. Now, I always glue planks at every faying surface. I will also mechanically fasten a plank by with a wood peg or countersunk pin or piece of copper wire set in shellac or thin adhesive and puttied over, wherever I wish to ensure the greatest strength possible, such as in hood ends and every few frames along the less sharply curved length of the hull. A cleanly countersunk fastening hole puttied and sanded with a suitably colored putty (sometimes PVA thickened with wood flour) can easily be made invisible or appearing no differently than a wood trunnel. A brightly finished hull with visible fasteners requires the fasteners to be properly placed as in the prototype, but I need far fewer fasteners when the trunnels need not be seen, as is usually the case at most scale viewing distances. I prefer not to rely solely on adhesives for fastening if at all possible. I never place fasteners which will be visible on a model except where they would be visible on the prototype. Where they are visible on the prototype, I take care to ensure they are properly scaled and not visually overemphasized. What I almost never do is use CA for anything. What I never do is glue plank seams one to the other.

Fortunately, you don't have to worry about a model ship sinking if you didn't do a proper job of building it. Most all of us build models for fun. Some are interested in building to the highest archival standards possible, as an exercise in discipline and technique in pursuit of a "personal best," if nothing else. Others not so much. For some, learning about "best archival practices" is more of an academic exercise than anything else. All I can say for myself is that if I were a kit builder and was spending into the four figures on a kit that I expected to take three years to complete, I wouldn't be spending that much money and time on something that I considered to be just "good enough." Your mileage may vary, I suppose. It bears noting, however, that the hobby in Eastern Europe where ship models are entered in judged competitions, is considered more a competitive sport than a hobby and consequently what they consider "good enough" is from all appearances a whole lot better than what we consider "good enough." If they'd been as good at building rocket ships as they are at ship modeling, the Russians would have landed a man on the moon long before we did! At the end of the day, isn't the exercise of ship modeling all about the pursuit of perfection rather than just one's own opinion of what's "good enough? "

I'll admit in hindsight that this was perhaps not the best example because I do know it was not due to any shortcoming of the model designer, but because the kit was based exactly upon a contemporary model. I was unaware of the existence of a contemporary draught showing the same and would love to study a copy of that. However, the draught doesn't lend any strength to an argument that the arrangement is correct. There's really no way a boat could be sailed the way it's rigged. In fact, there are ways to rig a double-ended mainsheet with blocks at the quarters that serve the same purpose of leaving the tiller clear to helm without resort to a sheet horse at all, but the only purpose of a sheet horse is to allow the lower sheet block to clear the tiller without fouling it and the prototype can have no other purpose for that sheet horse. All I can say is that there is no way the boat can be sailed the way that tiller is set up. The boom will cross amidships taking the lower sheet block with it sliding along the sheet horse every time the boat is tacked or jibed and every time that happens, the helmsman will be unable to control the tiller to complete the evolution because the sheet will foul the tiller. I know of no boat anywhere, save these two NMM models which have been cited, that has ever had such an arrangement. Chuck and I have discussed this and I don't dispute his position that the Model Shipways kit is a "model of a contemporary model." That's indeed one way to look at it. I don't know that he has any other explanation for it except that that's the way it is on the contemporary models. He certainly didn't make a mistake when designing the kit on that basis. I'm not a "naysayer." I'm a "give me one good reason why" sayer! I'd be interested in knowing what the curators at the NMM would have to say about it, or perhaps Ab Hoving, who knows as much about such things in that period as anybody.

Ah-ha! I knowed it! Only a landsman would ever say, "Good day to you, Sir!" Any sailor knows there's no place to stomp off to in a huff aboard a ship!

Did Royal Navy boats carry oars of varying lengths to suit each rowing station as did whaleboats which carried oars between 16 to 18 feet long, together with a 22 foot long steering oar?

Harold Underhill was British, so we have to keep that in mind. He uses European nomenclature. There's no such thing as a "topsail ketch." It is, or once was, common to see a cruising ketch flying a square sail or two downwind in the trades, often from a yard sent aloft for the occasion rather than permanently rigged to the mast. This arrangement frequently would include a single boom with a rafee (triangular) topsail and a square course. Vessels employing that rig were still ketches. What is distinctive is indeed the absence of a gaff-rigged sail on the foremast. If there isn't a boomed sail on the foremast, it's a brigantine or "hermaphrodite brig." Not a ketch. A ketch must have two fore and aft boomed sails. The staysails instead of the boomed sail are what make it a brigantine (or an hermaphrodite brig in European nomenclature." "Fully-square rigged" is really a meaningless lubbers' term, like "tall ship." (Which is actually a marketing term invented by the advertising agency for the Sail Training Association.) There's no such thing as a "partial square rig." If a vessel carries square sails, those sails are "square-rigged." Simple as that. It isn't the presence of a certain number of square sails, but rather the absence of boomed fore an aft sails that determines the difference between a brigantine and a square topsail schooner. Having a "fairly short fore (lower) mast" doesn't enter into it. Look at the pictures I posted of USS Boxer. She was classified by the United States Navy as a brigantine and I'm betting they knew what the proper names for the rigs on their ships were, no? At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!