Bob Cleek

Living a couple of blocks away from her last resting place, I watched the tides wash over Galilee's keel for many years. I should have taken a closer look, but it's too late now. (Her transom is (was?) preserved at Ft. Mason, Golden Gate Recreation Area, San Francisco.) I'll offer a few observations, 1. How could those DTM guys know the keel to garboard faying surface was pointed, unless they pulled the garboard, which they wouldn't have done because they had no need to do it if they were only looking to identify the fastenings. Turner's own yard built the ships he designed and he personally supervised the building. I would hazard to guess he did not draw any design details remotely close to what the DTM guys drew. His crew knew how he engineered his vessels and didn't need to be told how to lay out a garboard seam. Ergo: It's a pretty safe bet that aside from the placement of the keel bolts visible to the DTM surveyors, the rest of the drawing depicting what they couldn't see is likely some lubber's fantasy. 2. No self-respecting wooden ship builder would drive keel bolts any closer to the garboard seam than they absolutely had to. That arrangement looks to me like it's sure to leak in short order. It's clear from the DTM drawing that whoever drew it didn't know shipbuilding because all of the drifts were drawn as being driven straight down. Drifts are always driven at opposing angles so as to lock the timbers together. 3. It's very hard to believe any wooden ship builder of that time, and particularly one as practical as Turner, would ever find a justification for building a "pointed" garboard and rabbet. It would be difficult and expensive work for no benefit, for all the reasons you noted. For what it's worth, this old wooden boat guy has seen more garboard seams and rabbets than he'd like to remember, "in the flesh" and on paper, and I've never, ever, see one a "pointed" one. 4. With a nod to Howard I. Chapelle's tremendous contributions to the preservation of the American maritime heritage, the HAMMS lines are notorious for errors. Don't forget HAMMS was a WPA project designed to make work for unemployed architects, surveyors, photographers, and draftsmen and not all of them had specifically maritime trade skills. We can't be too hard on them, but we have to remember they are "secondary sources" and not primary historical records. I'd say you'd be safe in using "common practice at the time" to "fill in the blanks" where there are gaps or "inexplicables" in the available record. Chapelle was quite forthright about doing the same in his work. Sometimes one has to extrapolate.

You can keep adding coats without worrying whether it's dried or not until just before it starts to sag on the vertical surfaces. Sorry, I couldn't resist pulling your leg a bit there. It's generally a true statement, but, of course, how does one know when "just before it starts to sag" is before it's too late? The answer is "practice." Airbrush paint and ink drying time will usually be very fast. (Sometimes even too fast, with the fluid drying in mid-air. You don't want that.) Painting models, one doesn't want to put down any more paint than necessary so the detail isn't obliterated by getting filled with paint. Good, even color coverage is all you need. Take the time to play with your airbrush. First, use it with water alone to get the feel of the controls and spray it on a piece of paper. This will get you familiar with spray characteristics and nozzle settings and why the patterns look like. This will also give you a feel for how fast the material is being sprayed onto the paper. Once you've got that down, do the same using some paint. You can experiment and see how the paint covers and how much you need. One hint is to keep the airbrush moving. Start your "stroke" and then start the fluid spraying. Let up on the spray and follow through with your stroke at the end. Move the airbrush parallel to the surface you want to paint. Don't spray in an arc such that the distance of the nozzle from the surface being sprayed varies. Move in straight lines across, never in an arc. Applying the fluid evenly is important to avoid unnecessary paint build up and possible runs. Practice makes perfect. Always test spray on a piece of scrap card or paper before spraying anything "for keeps." This ensures you know that your paint mix is the right thickness and your nozzle is adjusted correctly. You don't want to start spraying a perfectly prepped hull without testing the airbrush operation first, only to discover that your nozzle is spitting and sputtering little globs of paint all over your surface! Test every time you refill the airbrush cup! Always. YouTube is probably your friend here. I'm sure there are plenty of "how to airbrush" videos on there.

Clear nail polish works well, too, and the brush in the cap is handy. I've used it in the past, but switched to shellac because 1) shellac has less tendency to leave a glossy shine like nail polish, if the polish is applied too thickly. (Although, nail polish can be thinned with acetone, which solves that problem.) and 2) shellac is very easy to "un-do," if necessary, by applying alcohol. To remove nail polish, it takes acetone, which is a bit noxious, and a very aggressive solvent which can destroy painted surfaces, etc., if a drop falls on it.

I've read as well that shellac has a shelf life of around two years after being mixed and dries tacky when it gets old. Like the others commenting on this, I've never experienced any "aging" problems with shellac and I'm sure I've used some that was more than a couple of years old. I use it for lots of applications besides gluing knots, though.. Most of it that I use is used to seal bare wood before finishing. Maybe the "aging" thing has something to do with using it with French polishing, which can be a tricky business. Perhaps I'll try playing with some dry flakes one of these days and see if there's any difference. I would assume that if there were any way to extend the shelf life of mixed shellac, the manufacturers would do it. The MSDS for Zinsser's "Bullseye" brand mixed shellac indicates that it contains 70% alcohol and 5% propanol. Perhaps the propanol serves as some sort of a preservative. I'm no chemist, so I'm just guessing.

Well, that explains a lot! If not for that, I'd be in the same boat you are. Like I wish... !

i have two. One is a large one for small finishing nails which I occasionally use on picture frames to hold the backs on. There's a better tool for this task that's used by the pros, but I don't have occasion to frame enough pictures to justify buying one. The other is a tiny one for "lil pins" and dressmaker's pins. i very rarely use this one at all. While I often use pins and pegs for fastening in modeling, they are almost exclusively placed in pre-drilled holes and used as pegs to secure one part to another, concealing the peg, rather than driving a nail in with the head left exposed. They have their occasional uses, but I always drill a pilot hole first. One brad-nailing trick I learned from a professional picture framer is to cut the head off of a brad of the same size and type as they one you will be using and chuck it into an "egg beater" hand drill or any other drill chuck and use the headless brad as a bit to drill the pilot hole. Amazingly, it does work easily if the brad point is the usual "squared edge point" type. This technique will result in a pilot hole that fits perfectly and without risk that driving the brad will split the wood, which is a big danger when nailing narrow picture frame stock, especially at the corners..

I expect you'll soon be getting a call from that "Hoarders" reality-TV show. He who dies with the most kits wins? Good God, Man! You're worse with kits than my wife is with shoes!

Yep!

Quite true! Good advice from a guy who spent a working lifetime making old models look good again! We can do something about our models' looks, but we can't do anything about their age.

Ab and wefalck's experiences with shellac mirror my own. While the thread may have drifted (though not intentionally been hijacked, ) the relevance of shellac to the discussion of cyanoacrylate adhesive for use on rigging is that while CA is in some instances a preferable adhesive, shellac may be the better option for rigging applications for which some have been using CA. Ab said it best, "Shellac seems to be a product we forgot." And before this drifting thread's anchor sets, I'll mention that pumice and rottenstone, which wefalck and I mentioned in passing are also "seem to be products we forgot."

There are whaleboats and there are whaleboats, some with carvel planking, some with lapstrake ("clinker") planking, and some with a combination of both, so it's hard to say without looking 1) at the plans, and 2) at the plank, to answer your question. The plans should clearly show the run of the sheer and what that plank should look like. If the one you got in the kit doesn't fit, just spile the plank shape and cut another couple of them from planking stock and you should be good to go. You can read the planking tutorials in the "modeling techniques" section of the forum to learn how to develop plank shapes by spiling if you aren't familiar with the process. It's simple once you see how it's done. Don't give up! You can do it!

No, shellac doesn't come in a "matte finish" as far as I know, although there's no reason one couldn't add a bit of rottenstone or pumice to it and make it so. I've heard that's done by some furniture finishers doing French polishing to make it fill grain better. Generally, and we're talking furniture finishing here, the gloss of shellac is "adjusted" by hand-rubbing with pumice and rottenstone, which are very fine abrasive powders. It's a tiring process that takes a lot of "elbow grease," but it produces an amazing beautiful finish with an incredibly smooth, velvety "hand" (i.e. feeling to the touch.) I've done it on lathe-turned handles (where the spinning lathe does most of the work!) and on smaller pieces, such as a trophy I built once. It works with shellac, varnish, or oil-based paints. Another way the gloss is "knocked down" on shellac and other finishes is by rubbing them with fine steel wool (or bronze wool in the marine environment.) For the modeling applications discussed here, the application of three pound (as bought in the can) or thinner (add your own alcohol to cut it) shellac will not leave any gloss at all. In order to be glossy, the shellac coating has to build up some thickness. A single coat or two's application of shellac that's the consistency of water soaks into the wood and does not have any gloss. The same is true if it's applied to rigging line. You have to build up multiple coats before you get anywhere near seeing any gloss from it. Orange shellac has some color to it, but "clear" or "white" shellac is virtually invisible on bare wood or rigging line until you start building up the coats and that's not anything you need to do unless you want to use the shellac to mimic varnished wood itself on the model.

No, it's a very good moisture barrier. There's no question that standing water on it will cloud its appearance. That moisture soaks in to a certain degree, but it seems only on the surface of the shellac. It doesn't penetrate into the wood. If left to its own devices, those cloudy rings will disappear when the moisture evaporates, which may take a few days. This problem occurs when it is used as a table top furniture finish. (Ask my wife how I know this! ) On the other hand, I don't anticipate anybody placing a wet cocktail glass on any of my ship models. I wouldn't soak rigging line in shellac, either. I don't see much point in "soaking" rigging in shellac to "seal" it against moisture, and particularly not on cotton line. (Synthetic polymer line shouldn't absorb any moisture at all, in any event.) I use shellac on rigging line as an adhesive to "set' knots in place or stiffen rigging line in order to form it into desired shapes. A thin application of shellac for that works very well. On the other hand, wood and card stock is sealed very well from moisture when a coating of shellac is applied and soaks into it. This I know not only "from the literature," but also from experience. "Bilayer membranes containing non-plasticized shellac exhibit low water vapor permeability (WVP), from 0.89 to 1.03 × 10−11 g m−1 s−1 Pa−1. A high value of contact angle (≈92°) and a low liquid water adsorption rate (26 × 10−3 μL s−1) indicate that these barrier layers have a quite hydrophobic surface." Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 325, Issue 1, 15 November 2008, pp. 277-283. I have no idea what this really means, but it sure sounds convincing, doesn't it? While, modernly, many full-size boat builders swear by penetrating epoxy (Smith and Co.'s "CPES," or "Clear Penetrating Epoxy Sealer") as a sealer on wood parts, and, indeed it is very useful stuff, laboratory testing demonstrates that epoxy is far more moisture permeable than shellac and shellac is way less expensive than epoxies. This use is as a sealer and nothing more. The wood sealed with shellac is painted or varnished over after the shellac has dried. This application, as with penetrating epoxy, serves to prevent water from soaking into the wood if the surface coating's integrity is breached, typically when it cracks due to seam movement, and the wet wood beneath the finish coating then lifts and peels from the wood, a common problem with traditional varnishes. The advantage of sealing wood in a ship model is that as ambient humidity fluctuates in the model's environment, the wooden parts expand and contract (i.e. "move") to varying degrees (depending upon species and other variables) in different directions (depending on grain orientation, primarily) and this movement, however slight and imperceptible, imposes stresses that can operate to essentially pull the model apart over time. Sealing with shellac won't prevent the phenomenon entirely. Moisture seeking equilibrium is a pretty powerful force of nature, but shellac will serve to slow down the process and protect the model from rapid and extreme environmental fluctuations in ambient humidity and that just makes them last longer before parts start getting loose and things start falling apart. I wish Ab Hoving, retired curator of the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum's ship models, would show up and weigh in on this. I've reached the extreme limits of my knowledge on the subject at this point.

Absolutely! I seal wood parts with shellac painted on before and during assembly. I never spray whole models with it! I also use it sparingly to glue knots so they don't come undone and to mold rigging line into desired fixed positions, such as a fall coiled and hung on a beylaying pin. Nothing offends my eye like pinrails with stiff circular coils that look like cowboys' lariats. Real rope coils hang.naturally by gravity. Scale cordage doesn't do that naturally. You have to help it along. I never apply shellac so thickly, or in so many coats, that it shows any glossy sheen, unless, of course, I am using it to represent varnished bright wood on the model. I that case, of course, I knock down the sheen to avoid a high gloss sheen in order to achieve a "scale gloss" appearance. From my reading and first hand experience, shellac is a very effective moisture barrier. I've never heard of, nor seen it "wick moisture." One of its major uses at one time was as spark-proof electrical insulation. It wouldn't be much of an electrical insulating material if it soaked up moisture. Reports are the "wicking moisture" thing was a marketing scam perpetrated by the "wipe on" finish industry. See: http://www.woodworkstuff.net/shellac2.html

Not "card models," per se, but it would work fine for them, too. sometimes I have need of a flat panel piece, or perhaps a thin combing somewhere. I use "card" (paper) wetted down with shellac. It can be shaped into curves and becomes stiff and impervious to moisture when the shellac dries. It can then be painted. It would be perfect for paper friezes printed on printer paper. I've had success lightly tacking very thin tissue paper to printer paper with "glue stick" and running the sheet through my printer to print small font letters, like a ship's name, then peeling off the tissue and applying it to the model and shellacking it. You need to test it first, though. Some inks (e.g. felt tipped pens) are alcohol-soluble and shellac will make them dissolve and run.

I think wefalck mentioned that he uses orange shellac because that's what's easily available to him. I'd advise using the "clear" shellac, which imparts little or no color. The "orange" appears a bit orange on the first coat and, if coats are built up, darkens to a rich mahogany brown. It's great for finishing wood, if that's the effect you want, but not unless you want that color.

I've become more aware of these facts in recent times. The destructive effects of acids in the stagnant atmosphere of ship model cases are well-documented. I've decided to avoid them as much as possible. Perhaps it's time to return to the use of hide glue for model assembly applications? Justin, what do the professional restorers and conservators consider the best archival adhesives for ship modeling applications?

In the US, three pound cut Zinsser "Bullseye" Brand shellac can be bought in any paint or hardware store. The "clear" (bleached) version is the most common, actually. The "amber" version (which we used to call "orange shellac") is only found in the stores with a wider selection. (Orange shellac, which enhances the color, is used as a wood finish.) "Natural" (amber) and "bleached flakes are also available. I've read that mixed shellac has a shelf life of about two years. I've never had any "go bad" in the can, but I can't say that I've not ever consumed a can over that long a time. I heartily concur with your comments about shellac. I've been using it for over forty years, to. It's my "go-to" sealer for modeling and other woodworking applications. I always apply shellac to every part of my models except, as appropriate, on rigging line. Shellac is one of best moisture barriers known and limits the movement of wood parts due to changes in ambient humidity. As you mentioned, I also soak various weights of card stock in shellac for modeling purposes. A shellac-impregnated piece of paper costs virtually nothing, is easy to work, and is an archival material of great longevity. It's far preferable to styrene sheet material for similar applications. I also use shellac on "fuzzy" wood species, such as basswood. Once the wood surface is well-shellacked, it can be sanded or rubbed with steel wool to a perfectly smooth, "fuzz-less," surface. The shellac hardens the wood into which it soaks, making it possible to achieve the crisp edges desired on fine work without resorting to more expensive and/or hard to source wood species. Shellac is the only finish available that is totally "green." It's made entirely from renewable resources, is non-toxic, and meets all air quality standards.

I love it!

Yeah, lac bettle crap makes jelly beans shiny. The same is true for M&M's and other candies. You'll just have to get over it. What more can I say? The main ingredients in jelly beans are sugar, food starch, and corn syrup, which combine to give them a soft but chewy texture. Although jelly beans are considered vegetarian because they are not made from animal products, they are not classified as vegan because their outer shells are made from an animal byproduct. Shellac is responsible for providing the exterior that makes jelly beans shiny. It is produced from the secretions of female lac beetles. After the substance is dissolved in alcohol, it is applied to jelly beans and other candies to create a glossy shell that protects the softer middle from melting or sticking to packaging. See: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/91129/jelly-bean-day-fact-jelly-beans-are-made-insect-secretions

Interesting discussion. I'm a member of the "avoid CA as much as possible" school of thought. My objections to it are mainly that it's nasty to work with and hard to control in a lot of instances, it invariably gets someplace you don't want it, that often being my fingers, it's quite expensive as far as adhesives go, and it too often kicks off in the bottle, stored in the freezer or not. That said, I do find it convenient for stiffening the ends of rope for threading it through blocks and deadeyes, as well as certain challenging adhesive applications. By the same token, though, I prefer clear acetone-based nail polish for stiffening rigging line points, which is more convenient to use with its brush-in-the-cap feature and low price. I've nothing to add when it comes to CA, but I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned clear shellac for stiffening the ends of rigging line, cementing knots, and for shaping catenaries and coils of cordage. It is easy to apply, it doesn't leave any visible gloss or change color (unless you apply multiple coats of the stuff,) it is alcohol soluble and easily undone if need be, its "archival" and contains no acids, and it's dirt cheap. Heck, it's even edible, if your one who worries about such things. (It's what makes jelly beans shiny.) As the alcohol in a shellac-soaked line begins to evaporate, which can be accelerated by blowing on it, the line becomes progressively less flexible. At that point, it can be shaped in any fashion desired and, once the alcohol is fully evaporated, the line will remain fixed in the position desired. Shellac was once a basic material in ship modeling. It seems to have been forgotten over the decades. it's good stuff.

If turnbuckles were used, the stays and shrouds connected to them would certainly be wire cable. The wire cable would be spliced around a solid wire thimble with a hole in the center through which the turnbuckle pin would be fastened. Alternately, the wire cable would have a "poured socket" terminal attached which would match the connection to the turnbuckle. (tongue to fork, pin through hole, etc." These poured terminals would have the wire cable run through them and the wire cable unlaid (this unlaid end was then called the "broom.") Molten zinc, or modernly, epoxy, was then poured into the terminal and, when hardened, would lock the terminal to the cable. These sockets are rather easily made to modeling scale from short lengths of copper tubing filed to shape at the terminal end and filed to a taper at the "neck." These scale terminals can be fastened to the cable the same way the real ones are. Just run the cable through the center of the terminal, unlay a bit of the end of the cable and then pull that down into the socket, and fill the socket with a bit of silver solder, CA adhesive, or epoxy. Types of patent poured socket terminals:

Lead corrosion is primarily a function of its reaction to acids. Sealed in plastic bags may have provided an anaerobic environment that slowed or prevented entirely the process of the lead turning to lead carbonate. The rest of the process is "above my pay grade," as they say. Just about everything a modeler might want to know about lead corrosion in ship models is in this research paper from the Curator of Navy Ship Models, Naval Sea Systems Command, the office in charge of all the US Navy's hundreds of ship models. It's something anybody building an older kit model should read. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Carderock/Resources/Curator-of-Navy-Ship-Models/Lead-Corrosion-in-Exhibition-Ship-Models/

The anchoring chains run aft to chain pipes in the deck aft of and to port and starboard of the mainmast, running into the chain locker below, as pictured in the bottom picture of a model below. (Chain, due to its weight, was commonly stowed amidships so it wouldn't negatively affect the vessel's trim.) I can't say offhand whether the anchor chains were left shackled to the anchors when at sea. It would seem to me that when "off soundings," they would have been stowed below entirely and not left on the windlass or run across the deck. Whalers were floating factories and it doesn't seem that they'd want a couple of lengths of heavy chain running down the decks right across the working space where the whales were being butchered and the blubber cut up for the try works. They'd serve no purpose and just be underfoot. The Morgan would have had stud-link mooring chain, at least for most of her lifespan, not the plain link chain supplied with the kit. (Date of the first below picture unknown.) You may want to replace the kit-supplied chain, if you can find stud-link chain in the proper scale. Making your own at 5/32" scale would be a bit tedious! I've had the Marine Models Company Morgan kit now for over 45 years and I suppose I will get around to building it one of these days, sooner or later. A good practicum of sorts for the Morgan model can be found at https://www.charleswmorganmodel.com/ if you haven't found it already. That one is for the Model Shipways kit. There is also series of YouTube videos by a fellow chronicling his build of the Marine Models Company version we have. I haven't built the model as yet because 1) years ago, I realized I needed to develop my skills before tackling such a complex build and 2) when I developed my skills I realized along the way that this model was hopelessly dated and it would not be possible to build it to my then-established expectations except as a scratch-build, as is my current intention... one of these days. In the interim, I've continued to collect extensive photographic files and related written data on the Morgan, including visiting her and examining her with an eye to modeling her. The Marine Models kit I have is somewhat rare at this point and there are many more common Morgan kits. It's scale at 5/32" to the foot, which is somewhat of an oddball scale that will occasion some inconvenient math to accommodate. That's not a problem once started, though, as my mind "gets in the groove" and I start thinking in that scale. Your post says it's 1/64" to the foot. I'm not familiar with that Marine Models Company version. Are you sure your model isn't 5/32" to the foot scale? Your pictures certainly appear to be that. I'll share a few bits of information of which you may, or may not, be aware. This is an old kit. The plans were drawn in 1939, a couple of years before she came to Mystic Seaport. They were carefully researched and represent the vessel as launched, not as presently configured. Notably, the plans depict her with her original ship rig, not the bark rig she later came to carry. If I remember correctly, there was also an overhead built over the tryworks at some point later in her life. If you are building her to her original 1841 "as launched" configuration as in the Marine Model Co. plans, you'll find some discrepancies in the published Model Shipways practicum which I see from your photos that you are consulting. Whether the stern windows were present at launch and closed up later will require further research. (I think not.) They weren't there in 1901, at least. As an old kit, the standards of quality and accuracy are far below what we aspire to today. Marine Models Co. put out some of the best kits in their day, but kits have come a long way since then. They went out of business in 1970 or so and this kit was last updated in 1957, as I recall from my plans set. Major problem number one: The metal fittings contain lead and will eventually corrode. There's really no cure for this. Paint won't stick to them worth a darn... or at least will be a crap shoot. At worst, they will turn to dust and crumble away to nothing. They all will have to be discarded to avoid the risk of this occurring. That, alone, brings you to "scratch-build level." Sometimes, if the phase of the moon is just right, these lead-based metal fittings do seem to survive to some extent and nobody really knows why, but it's just not worth bothering with them. Once they begin to turn to dust, replacing them is a nightmare because access becomes very difficult in many places on the model. These will have to be rebuilt from scratch or, perhaps, new pieces molded of epoxy or baked Fimo modeling clay, using the originals, if they are suitable, as patterns. Some of the prefabricated parts are crudely fashioned. This is notably so with the rudder casting, which merely has pins cast in the edge and was intended to just be stuck into the stern post. Today, such a rudder on a model of this scale would be made of wood and copper or brass pintels and gudgeons fashioned for hanging it. The kit-provided whaleboats, of cast lead, are of a weight that probably would challenge the strength of the model. Securing the lead cast davits to hold them would be a challenge. Tedious as it may be, the whaleboats really should be made of wood or card stock with their interior details visible. It's details like this that really make the Morgan a special subject. Some research should be done to ensure the whaleboats are correct for the period of Morgan's service that is being depicted. Importantly, whaleboat designs changed over time and didn't last much more than a single voyage. Morgan was launched in 1841. Whaleboats didn't have centerboards until the mid- to late-1850's when the sperm whale was hunted. (The sperm whales were "spook-ier" and they had to be approached silently against the wind so they wouldn't hear or smell the whalers. The centerboard permitted better upwind sailing performance.) Earlier whaleboats were partially clinker-planked, as well. What seems to be the biggest value of the Marine Models Company kit are the hull blank, which is by now well-seasoned and of good quality basswood, and the plans. The plans were drawn by somebody who really knew what they were doing at a time when there were still people alive who had sailed on the vessel and knew her history, perhaps even as far back as the Civil War period when most of the rest of the American whaling fleet was destroyed by the Confederate commerce raiders. Drawn for modeling purposes, they are highly detailed and presumably accurate. Not only is the Morgan still extant, but she's been extensively photographically documented throughout much of her long life and a lot of these photographs are conveniently available on the internet. Mystic Seaport even has "as built" construction plans for her available for purchase (for a price) if one were to want to build a plank on frame model of her. I'm going to watch your build log with great interest. I expect it will be a very rewarding build and a learning experience for me.

Beautiful collection! I particularly like the wall mounted display platforms. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this forum is for ship models of all kinds (and even models of other things occasionally.) RC models are just another sub-set of models. (And an interesting one, too!) Thanks for sharing your collection! BTW, does "Radio-controlled Barbie" actually really water ski behind that runnabout?