Bob Cleek

Hi Olga!
Glad to meet you on this forum!
  In 2016, in Zaporozhye, together with Yaroslav, we went to the museum of the island of Khortytsya.   
 
Привет, Ольга! 
Рад встретить тебя на этом форуме!  
 В 2016г  в Запорожье вместе с Ярославом ездили в музей острова Хортица.

Beautiful execution and excellent workmanship !
 
However ... the Muntz-metal sheathing would not have had raised nail-heads I think. Not sure how the plates were fixed to the isolating wood layer, but assume they would have been nailed like in the older days. It was important to achieve a galvanic separation between the Muntz-metal and the iron/steel plating underneath. When the plates are nailed down on the wood (with a layer of felt in between), the pattern looks a bit like on a deep-buttoned Chesterfield sofa. One can see this on the copper sheathing of HMS GANNET (1878) in Chatham:

As the bowsprit goes, you are certainly on the right track.  Your multiple research sources are generally more credible that a kit designer's choices, even if it is Chris Watton, and even if artists' painting also can contain errors.  Common sense also applies.  If you can't use the spritsail, something is definitely not right.

I am unaware of and have no interest in the particulars of the above-referenced transgressions, but I do wish to address a related matter concerning the "twenty-five post sales rule" which you explain has occasioned this post. 
 
It is not uncommon for the heirs of both MSW members and "outlaw modelers" (to use a biker term) to join MSW for the purpose of posting an inquiry regarding how they should best dispose of the ship modeling effects of their recently deceased ship modeling relative. By the same token, it is likely that most of the MSW membership, particularly those "of a certain age," with varying levels of intensity are concerned about the disposition of our ship models, research library, and shop tools and materials once we "shuffle off this mortal coil." It is one thing to have subjected most of our "dearly beloveds" to the outrages imposed by cohabiting with a ship modeler's equipage during our lifetimes, but to leave it for them to dispose of prudently after we are gone seems particularly unkind.
 
The models built by a late ship modeler may be of some sentimental value to his heirs, though never to the degree the modeler imagined as the models were being built.  Other parts of a late ship modeler's detritus, however, may be of considerable value monetarily, although of limited marketability only to a relatively small niche group of ship modeling hobbyists. It is difficult to know what happens to a deceased modeler's shop tools and materials when the modeler's estate is distributed. Maybe some "big stuff" is sold at an estate or "garage" sale, or the heirs simply distribute it in kind, but it's not generally encountered thereafter in any form identifiable as belonging to a modeler. On the other hand, we do see large numbers of unbuilt kits and research library books which apparently seem to find their way to "pickers" and "flippers" in the resale market. The used book wholesalers buy up for below market value that which they know they can sell for a high premium on eBay and similar sites. Regrettably, from a modeler's perspective, financial advantage is taken both of the modelers' heirs who receive much less than the full value of what was left to them at one end of the transaction and advantage taken of the ship modelers who must purchase these used research volumes at often-inflated online auction prices at the other end.   It is in this fashion large ship modeling research libraries that have taken the previous owner decades to acquire, often at very substantial expense, are bought cheaply, broken up, and the books sold piecemeal because the trade considers this the most profitable way to move merchandise. (And no disrespect is directed to used book dealers who are some of my favorite tradespeople, but if "middleman markups" can be avoided, so be it.) For the reasons previously mentioned, we'll never know the cost to the hobby of breaking up deceased ship modelers' workshops, but surely, the economics of the used tool market is no different than the used book market: "buy cheap and sell dear."  Neither will we ever know how many cords of prized modeling wood stock have been used for firewood by those who knew not what they did! 
 
Although it is true that some ship modelers' modeling effects are distributed through the auspices of their local ship modeling club, in the "information age" the reality is that local clubs are fewer and farther between than they once were and the likelihood that a club is sufficiently large to provide a viable "customer base" for the marketing of a modeler's estate is not as great as it may have once been. For these reasons, it's not at all uncommon that a deceased ship modeler's heirs or estate administrator has no idea what to do with "his ship modeling stuff."
 
Often, when ship modeler's estate liquidation inquiries come MSW's way, they are in the form of a first post by a new member. This is to be expected because anyone who doesn't know what to do with a ship modeler's models, books, and tools and materials isn't likely to be a ship modeler themselves at all and so not a previous MSW member. And, of course, this is where they run into the "twenty-five post sales rule" that often terminates any further exchanges with them beyond a polite suggestion to try to donate the models to a local library or yacht club or sell it all on eBay.  While the "twenty-five post sales rule" serves the sound purpose of preventing unwanted (and possibly untrustworthy) commercial vendors from advertising on MSW without paying sponsorship advertising charges and limiting the use of the "Buying and Selling" forum section to genuine forum participants, in the case of ship modelers' estate sales, it operates to the disadvantage of the MSW membership and the heirs of serious ship modelers because it causes the estate to pay more to sell the property and ship modelers more to buy it. 
 
I propose that the Administrators consider making an exception to the "twenty-five post sales rule" in the case of deceased ship modelers' estate sales. This exception would, on a case-by-case basis, waive the rule in the case of a deceased modeler's heir, heirs, or estate agent, who wishes to offer for disposition to the MSW membership ship modeling related items from a deceased modeler's estate.  Additionally, I propose that MSW could establish a policy that MSW members could dependably advise their future heirs that their models, books, tools, and materials could be disposed of through such an MSW "Buy and Sell" "Estate Sale Provision" if they wished, thereby providing the membership with a valuable benefit to assist their survivors in disposing of their modeling detritus fairly and at a reasonable return when they "join the Choir Invisible" and providing their heirs with the benefit of disposing of their modeling gear without having to pay the sales commissions charged by sites such as eBay.  It might even be arranged that a local MSW member might make themselves available to personally inventory the deceased modeler's modeling things and advise a deceased modeler's heir or estate representative regarding their sale. Surely, making such forum resources available to our heirs and estate administrators would provide peace of mind to many of us who hope that their modeling hobby will not continue to be as cursed by our "significant others" after we are gone as it may be now while we're still here!  It would also provide MSW with the additional competitive edge in the "internet membership sweepstakes" as a tangible membership benefit that cannot be underestimated.
 
Some may express concern that to the extent MSW enables the sale of used modeling items, it negatively impacts the interests of its ship modeling retailer sponsors. While it may be true in theory that if someone buys an unbuilt ship model kit second hand from a ship modeler's widow, that's one ship model kit that isn't going to be sold by a ship model kit retailer. However, some retailer already sold it once, so it is not in any way unfair to the retailers if their previously purchased products are resold on the second-hand market. In fact, in the instance of hobby products, it's to the retailers' benefit that their unbuilt models are resold because they can then expect to sell other products to that same modeler, who often may be just coming into the hobby, and who will be a customer for years to come.   
 
Anyway, that's just my two cents' worth and I suppose advice is worth what you pay for it. I'd just hate to see some other ship modeling forum think of the same thing and beat MSW to it.
 
 
 
 

Mast hoops are the loosely fitting bent wood rings to which the luffs of sails are fastened and which permit the sails to be hoisted up and down the masts.
 
An iron ring around the heel of the mast is properly called "an iron ring around the heel of the mast." However, when speaking to landlubbers, sailors call it a "gronicle." Sailors call anything without a name a "gronicle." Lubbers don't know the difference.  

Sailing ships alongside a wharf sometimes 'cockbilled' their lower yards (as in the image below of Port Adelaide in the 1860's) to avoid damage to the yards, but otherwise, as has been noted above, they would have been square. It was generally considered 'bad form' not to have your yards properly squared in port.
 
John
 

If you are asking what a ship with a copper-sheathed hull looks like, the answer has to be, "It depends." In the water? Out of the water? Fouled or clean? These pictures and explanations below should help. When building a model, one has to consider what is known as the "scale viewing distance." There are details one knows are present but including them may run the risk of adding over-scale details. Coppered bottoms frequently occasion this flaw and, regrettably, it seems to be exacerbated by some model kit manufacturers who feel compelled to advertise that their kits contain "real detailed copper plates" that they expect the builder to tediously apply one at a time. The "scale viewing distance" is simply "what you would see if you were viewing the real ship from the same real distance as you are looking at the model in scale distance. For example, if you are looking at a 1:48 scale (1/4"=1") model from three feet away, you should only see the details you would be able to see on the real ship if you were standing 144 feet away from it. If you are not so completely familiar with what ships look like from a distance, photographs are an excellent way to judge what a scale viewing distance actually looks like. The same phenomenon applies to the colors one sees and these are affected as well by the ambient lighting. At a distance, colors will be flat and somewhat darker. A model with intense glossy paint and over-scale detail will appear like a toy, and defeat the "compelling impression of reality in miniature" that a good model is about. (Unless, of course, it's a toy boat one intends to produce.) From most scale viewing distances, a model should have no glossy finishes and no shiny metal parts. (Unless, of course, one is building a particular style of "builder's model" that at one time was fashionable. These would often be unpainted, relying on the different appearances of contrasting wood species and bright brass metal fittings.) Certainly, at 1:96 scale (1/8"=1'), the scale of many kit sailing models these days, from a normal three-foot model viewing distance, a "scale viewing distance of 288 feet, almost the length of a football field, copper-plating details such as tacks, and even plate overlaps, are not going to be visible. Only subtle variations in color will be perceptible. When seeking to realistically portray a copper-sheathed hull, trust the camera's eye rather than your mind's eye and avoid "overstating the obvious." Our "mind's eye" provides the details in such instances, causing a viewer to "see" things that aren't there, or merely very subtly suggested. As counterintuitive as it may be, in this fashion, it's what's not there that makes a model look "real." 
 
 

 

 
Above are photos of the usual appearance of a copper sheathed hull. If anything, the oxidized copper above the waterline in the top picture is a bit too "reddish" and would be a bit "browner." I can't say whether this is simply an artifact of the computer screen I'm looking at, or a digital camera color intensity setting, or perhaps the variables of the exact copper used. The more common color in this respect is the color of a used copper coin, such as a US penny. The turquoise green color at the waterline in the photos is often referred to as "verdigris."  Best described, these two colors are called "verdigris" and "copper penny." They can be somewhat mottled and vary in shade or intensity a bit in real life.
 

 
The verdigris green color, which is copper sulfate, occurs when copper oxidizes in the presence of a sufficient amount sulfur in the surrounding environment. Copper oxidizes rather quickly upon exposure to the air. Where there is a high level of sulfur in the air, such as in the days when sulphureous coal was burned, copper exposed to the air will quickly produce verdigris colored copper sulfate on its surface, such as is seen on bronze statues, copper roofing materials, and, famously, the Statue of Liberty. Absent a sufficient level of sulfur, the copper will form a "copper penny brown" colored oxide coating that serves as a shield that prevents further oxidation and the creation of verdigris green copper sulfate. There are sufficient sulfates in seawater to support the formation of verdigris green copper sulfate where sufficient oxygen is also present. When the friction of water movement wears away the brown copper oxide, notably at the "splash zone" above the waterline where there is also sufficient oxygen, copper bottom sheathing will develop green copper sulfate on its surface but will not tend to do so where the seawater is not as regularly in contact with the copper sheathing well above the waterline. (This is my own causation theory. It's at least accurate as to what happens, but perhaps not exactly correct as to why it happens. If one of the resident metallurgists on this forum has a better explanation, I welcome their correction! ) In any event, the color of a copper sheathed hull bottom is "copper penny brown" with a "verdigris" band around the waterline as pictured in the first two photos above (or more accurately, perhaps, between the top of the copper sheathing and the waterline.)
 
That said, if a coppered bottom is hauled out for cleaning, and particularly if it is well scrubbed upon hauling, a verdigris-colored patina will very quickly develop. Below is a coppered hull that has been apparently dry-docked and her copper has quickly produced a copper sulfate verdigris colored patina, in this case, for whatever reason, a somewhat less intense and more pale shade. This is a very clean bottom which has been brushed, power washed, or the like, removing some of the usual "penny brown" copper oxidation along with the usual fouling growth, and washed down with salt seawater. it is customary to scrub a bottom down immediately upon it's leaving the water (or the water leaving the dock, as the case may be) while the marine growth on the bottom is more easily removed. Once a fouled bottom dries, scraping clean it becomes a much more difficult job. For this reason, if a model of a ship having a coppered bottom is depicted out of the water, coloring it as is seen in the picture below would be correct. 
 

 
 
Below the waterline, before a hull is scrubbed clean of fouling growth, it will appear in a variety of ways, depending upon the length of time the hull has been submerged, the growing environment of the area where the hull was located, and the types of flora and fauna that are prevalent in the area. Basically, the color of marine fouling is a mottled, dirty dark green and/or dark brown.
 
When a hull is first hauled or dry-docked after having been in the water for any significant length of time, it can appear as the hull pictured below "in the slings" and just hauling out.  Obviously, this is something of an extreme example, but not unheard of in areas where the environment favors the growth of particular flora and fauna, particularly in the warm tropics.  A hull that has been regularly sailing will generally accumulate less fouling material than one that sits still for periods of time. 
 
 

 
Below is the appearance of a fouled hull which appears somewhat dry.
 

 
 
Below is a barge hull with significant barnacle fouling.
 

 
Photo below of modern sailboat hull with average fouling. 
 

 
In my experience, portraying a coppered bottom on a model is an opportunity for restrained creative "weathering" and airbrush work.
 
 
 

There's really no substitute for careful research, and I must admit with chagrin that there's no substitute for carefully double-checking somebody else's research before posting an answer to any question posed, especially when I'm not readily familiar with the vessel in question!  
 
The repeated reference to these two French naval vessels, Turenne and Bayard, as "ironclads" kept niggling at me because it appeared to me that they were built later than the so called "ironclad" period and were of a style similarly advanced beyond the "ironclad" period. So I finally spent a moment to see if I could find anything on line about either of them and, sure enough, there were Wikipedia pages for both vessels and their named "Bayard class." (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard- class_ironclad ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Turenne ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Bayard )
 
****************************************************************************************************************************************
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard- class_ironclad
 
Unlike several of their French predecessors, the Bayard-class ships disposed with iron hulls and reverted to wooden hulls, which were sheathed in copper to reduce fouling on extended voyages overseas, where shipyard facilities were less available. This may have been the result of British reports of hull corrosion with their iron-hulled vessels.
…
The ships were protected with wrought iron armor; their belt was 250 mm (9.8 in) thick amidships, where it protected the ships' propulsion machinery spaces and ammunition magazines. The belt extended for the entire length of the hull, but toward the bow it reduced in thickness to 180 mm (7.1 in), and at the stern, it was reduced to 150 mm (5.9 in). The belt extended from 0.91 m (3 ft) above the waterline to 1.99 m (6 ft 6 in) below.
 
***************************************************************************************************************************************
Note for openers that these wooden-hulled ships "...were sheathed with copper to reduce fouling on extended voyages overseas, where shipyard facilities were less available." We should recognize from the outset then that the converse is also true: they weren't sheathed with copper when not on an extended voyage overseas where shipyard facilities were available. The fact that these French wooden ironclads weren't always copper-sheathed is confirmed by what we know of Atalante, discussed hereafter. Apparently, sometimes they were and sometimes they weren't. If one is modeling a particular such vessel at a particular time in its service life, at least a serious attempt to ascertain whether or not she was copper-sheathed at that time is required. Is there a log, diary, or maintenance report or receipt in a dusty file somewhere? If not, what's the "best estimate" one can make? If depicted when the vessel was on station in French Indochina, there's at least evidence to support your assuming she was not being coppered at that place in time in the absence of contrary evidence. (Just sayin'.  )
 
****************************************************************************************************************************************
These vessels carried a ten inch thick wrought iron armor belt which extended 3 feet above the waterline and 6.5 feet below the waterline. Considering the mechanical and galvanic issues attendant to sheathing wrought iron with copper plate, we can conclude that these vessels were only metal-sheathed to protect the wooden hull exposed below the waterline, i.e., from six and a half feet below the waterline on down. There isn't ever going to be any verdigris color at the waterline of any of these wooden vessels with nine and a half foot wide belts of wrought iron around their waterlines.
 
****************************************************************************************************************************************
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntz_metal:
 
(Muntz metal's) original application was as a replacement for copper sheathing on the bottom of boats, as it maintained the anti-fouling abilities of the pure copper at around two thirds of the price. It became the material of choice for this application and Muntz made his fortune. It was found that copper would gradually leach from the alloy in sea water, poisoning any organism that attempted to attach itself to a hull sheathed in the metal.
***************************************************************************************************************************************
 
Muntz metal, was patented in 1832 in England, and England and France were allies at the time of the Bayard class' service. Pending certain confirmation which should be easily accomplished by further research, it is reasonable to presume that the "copper sheathing" on these vessels was actually Muntz metal, rather than pure copper. This would result in a "yellow metal" that would be somewhat "yellower" than pure copper.
 
Below: Newly ("virgin") Muntz metal sheathed hull of Cutty Sark following her recent restoration and isolation from the elements in her new partially covered dry dock display building: 
 

By Cmglee - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19898346
 
While metal sheathing provides an effective mechanical barrier to marine borers, it is not as effective at preventing the growth of vegetative fouling which attaches itself to submerged surfaces. Additionally, with the advent of iron-hulled ships which could not be sheathed with copper-based metals due to difficulties with attaching such sheathing and, more significantly, the galvanic dissimilarities between iron and copper which caused severe electrolytic corrosion, a large number of anti-fouling paints and other coatings were developed in the late 19th century and were widely in use by the time of the Bayard class' service. The most successful, and therefore most widely used, of these anti-fouling paints had the now-familiar "bottom paint red" color owing to the copper they contained. Again pending certain confirmation which should be easily accomplished by further research, it is reasonable to presume that at least the nine and a half foot wide wrought iron armor plate armor belt at the waterline of the two Bayard class vessels was painted with anti-fouling paint of a color common at the time. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fouling_paint and https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1952/july/history-prevention-fouling )
 
A review of related contemporary black and white photographs, colored paintings, colored contemporary postcards, and color photographs of contemporary museum models available online appears to confirm that French iron and wooden warships of the Bayard-class' time, at least to the bottoms of their iron armor belts, were apparently painted with anti-fouling paint and that if they were wooden, were, in some cases when at sea for long periods and away from dry-docking facilities, sheathed in Muntz metal (or possibly zinc plate) which may, or may not have been also painted with anti-fouling coating of a "bottom paint red" (or possibly a light grey color. A copper sulfate anti-fouling coating called "Italian Moravian" was also highly regarded at the time of the Bayard-class. It was reputed to be expensive and difficult to apply. I do not know its color. Here again, more research is required.  Some brief experimentation was also conducted with sheet zinc plating instead of copper or Muntz metal over iron, owing to zinc's greater compatibility with iron on the galvanic scale. Zinc sheet metal would appear as a flat silver-grey ("galvanized") color. Some colored contemporary postcards do clearly show a bottoms of such color. See: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1952/july/history-prevention-fouling  
 
For visual data, search Google images: "French Bayard Class ironclads." Some excerpts below. Englarge the photographs to see greater detail:
 
Two photos below: Contemporary hand colored photographs of French ironclads:
 

 

 
Below: Watercolor painting of contemporary iron French naval vessels:

 
Below: From a presumably well-researched modern Eastern European modeling source:
 

 
Below:  Model of Alma-class Jeanne d'Arc on display at the Musee de la Marine in Paris. She was a contemporary of the Bayard-class ships and of identical French ironclad wooden construction as Turenne with a wrought iron armor belt at the waterline. Note armor belt above and below white painted waterline which from other contemporary pictorial documentation appears to be a common feature of French naval livery at that time. Note "Muntz metal" brass-colored metal sheathing below the armor plate and similar "bronze" colored ram edge at the bow. (These bronze rams were not merely a metal covering, but actually an integral structural member of the hull.) Bright sheathing color results from model's "new as built" depiction style. (Alternately identified by other sources as sistership Alma-class ironclad Armide.) (Blue color of possibly dark grey topsides is apparently a photographic lighting artifact.)
 
 
 
Below: Black and white contemporary photograph of similar French ironclad naval vessel showing slightly visible top line of armor belt.
 

 
Below: It appears the white waterline accent line  (AKA: "boot stripe") appears again suggesting it was a regulation livery detail.
 

 
Below: Additional French ironclads of the Bayard-class era from a modern Eastern European modeling source indicating standard French navy livery:
 

 
 
Below: 1860's Alma-class wooden ironclad Atalante, sister to Jeanne d'Arc, a contemporary "as built" model of which is pictured above.  This class' service period overlapped the wooden Bayard-class', particularly given that the latter was an intentional nearly identical "throwback" to the Alma-class' wooden ironclad construction details.
 
Atalante is here photographed in the Fitzroy Dock, Sidney Harbor in 1873. She spent a large portion of her service life on the French Indo-China Station. She bombarded Vietnamese forts during the Battle of Thuan in 1884 and participated in the Sino-French Indo-China War of 1884–1885. She was reduced to reserve in Saigon, French Indochina, in 1885 and sank there two years later after having been condemned. 
 
Note top of her armor belt at the level of the heads of the workmen standing on the staging platform with approximately the two top feet of the armor belt painted black as are the topsides (i.e., down to the workers' waists) with anti-fouling bottom paint being applied below that line, resulting in bottom paint beginning approximately a foot or two above the waterline and continuing down to cover the the lower part of the armor belt and the rest of the underwater hull below the staging platform. (Enlarge photo for greater detail.) 
 

 
Below: Contemporary colored drawing of Alma-class wooden ironclad Atalante from the glass plate negative above, but depicting the appearance of the hull after the bottom painting was done and she was ready for launching! (Quite a lot to discover from these two views on account of that difference!) Note the "bottom paint red" anti-fouling paint being applied from approximately a couple of feet below the top of the armor belt on downwards to cover the submerged part of the armor belt and on down to include the wooden bottom. Note also the white "bootstripe" accent line at the top of the armor belt and the (subtle) lining above and below the armor belt depicting the wooden planking of the topsides and unsheathed bottom of the wooden hull, contrasted with the smooth wrought plates of the armor belt. As this picture confirms, it appears that the not-inconsiderable expense of metal sheathing of her wooden bottom was deemed unnecessary as she had adequate dry-docking facilities available in her station area. 
 

 
 
 
I didn't reach the same conclusion as you when examining the photos you posted. You'll find a clearer version of your photo of Turenne at her Wikipedia entry: See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard-class_ironclad#/media/File:French_ironclad_Turenne_NH_66099.jpg  This photo will enlarge a lot without losing definition. ("Left mouse click once." Love these old glass plate negatives!) For some reason, the French Navy of the period seems to have frequently photographed their ships while they were getting painted. I have no idea why, but it's uncanny when you look at so many of them that have painting details at work. If you enlarge this photo from the Wiki page, and examine the stern quarter, you'll see painters on staging painting the topsides white. If you then examine  the bow area, you'll see that they've just painted the bow area, (including the anchors and chain rodes!) and what you apparently took to be "...what looks like verdigris on copper plating on bows..." and "...a clear patina there on a ship that's made a voyage from Toulon to somewhere in China station." Look again. What you're seeing there is the aftermath of a rather sloppy recent paint job. If you had spent time around shipyards, you'd probably have recognized it for what it was as soon as you saw it. Sailors are notoriously sloppy painters. They're painting to protect the metal first and foremost. They really don't care a whole lot what the job looks like from 100 yards, which is as much as most people will ever see. 
 
As for the second picture, we know that's not "shiny copper" because that's where the wrought iron armor belt is and there's no way they're going to copper-sheath wrought iron armor plate. It certainly was tried unsuccessfully at the time iron ships first came into use, trying to separate the dissimilar metals with felt or wooden furring strips, but that was long before the time of the vessel pictured. I believe what we see in that photo is simply an over-exposure "flash" that could sometimes occur with reflected light off the water and onto the white surfaces given the limitations of the photographic technology of those times. 
 
 

By Unknown, Farenholt collection - history.navy.mil, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=142143958
 
I don't think today's younger modelers who began building ship models in the "Internet Age" can begin to appreciate the value of digital research to the hobby. Before the internet, I doubt there was anything more than possibly a book or three, long out of print and near impossible to obtain, written in French, that would have any information whatsoever about these ships. Obtaining the information posted here would have likely required a trip to France and days of searching museum archives, if they'd allow you to do so and, in the days before digital photography, copying a photograph would be a major undertaking and copying a construction drawing would require days of tedious tracing at a drafting table by a skilled draftsman, again if they'd allow you to touch the original. Now, modeling research is often only "a few clicks away!" On the other hand, such a resource has made it all the more important to conduct meticulous research because errors nobody would ever notice before are so much more easily noticed with the so much more accurate information available today. 
 

I found a great way to weather copper plates on my Flying Fish clipper. Mix one part Miracle Grow plant food to three parts water. Mix until the crystals are dissolved and either brush it on or use Q-tips and wipe it on the sections you want weathered. It only takes a few minutes to start the color change. The longer you leave the solution on the greener it will get. I weathered the top two courses really Statue of Liberty green and kept it lighter down the sides. It looks great. 

I'm with Jaager on this one. Given the scarcity of fine quality linen thread these days, the professional museum curators seem to have accepted Guttermann "Mara" polyester thread as sufficiently archival for laying up scale rope for museum models. There is no problem coloring polyester thread with black India ink. India ink is basically lamp black and shellac thinned with water. The shellac will ensure the lamp black sticks and doesn't smear and will also stiffen the line. Clear shellac will do the same for purposes of stiffening the line without changing the color. Quality thread like Gutterman's Mara doesn't have any noticeable "fuzz," the reduction of which was the primary purpose of waxing line in the past. (Fuzz can also be removed by "flaming," running the line quickly through a flame to burn the fuzz off. 
 
It would seem waxing line is a practice that can be dispensed with entirely if polyester filament thread is used to lay up the line. 

A good ol' fashioned scale rule works for me most of the time!

This is a build log for the last operating wood passenger steamer in the US, the Virginia V.
 
There has not been a truly accurate model of this ship built that I am aware of.  I know of two scratchbuilt models, and oddly one commercially produced (in China) one.  Of the two scratchbuilt models, one is significantly better than the other, but still contains anachronisms and inaccuracies.
 
I do have a few advantages over most scratch builders in that I have full run of both the ship as well as the Virginia V Foundation's archives.  I am also an oiler on the ship, and if you go into the engine room now and point at a valve I can tell you what it does and when the last time I personally repacked it was.
 
I also took many photos of the framing of the ship while we were hauled out 2021-2022 having much of the hull replanked.
 
The ship's maiden voyage in 1922; this is the appearance I aim to replicate:

 
And, for comparison, the ship today:

Be sure to paint the 3D printed blocks. Some (all?) printing resins deteriorate with time and exposure to ambient UV light (especially sunlight).

what kind of wax did you use? are you sure its the wax?
 
ive never seen anything like that, aside an old dusty ship ive ignored for 30 years.
 
dont flame it. i can picture you blow torching it to ashes.
 
maybe put it in a warm place or in the sun the run a brush over the lines. another thought, perhaps using a solvent on a soft brush run over each line that can remelt the wax?
 
 

While the flame treatment might work, a ship model with all of the flammable stuff on board, wood glue paint, etc is a fire just waiting to happen.  You could be left with a pile of ashes or worse.
 
Re rig it!
 
Roger

Hi Dindsy,
Sorry to say, you may want to redo the rigging.  You won't be able to properly treat it with anything while the rope is on the model, and even with treatment, it may appear lumpy.  Bob is right that you may want to invest in rope from Ropes of Scale.  They have excellent rope and it is properly dyed so the colors are smooth and even.  I have handled a lot of their rope and have never had problems with it turning fuzzy or fraying.  They are an MSW sponsor, so you can reach their website by going to the MSW homepage and looking for their banner ad on the right side of the page about halfway down.
 
Mary
 
PS - I didn't mean to exclude Syren in my recommendations.  They are the best in the US for blocks and rope, but Chuck is so busy that you might get the rope faster from Ropes of Scale.

40 years ago I started with a solid hull model and failed to get past step one.  I've built a lot of plastic models but never went back to try a wood model, shaping a hull and the rigging intimidated me.  A couple of years ago I decided to try my hand at wood models and saw an advertisement for Model Expo & Shipways models.  I started with the Model Shipways 3 ship beginners set and they took me step by step and I learned a lot of skills and knowledge for a fair price.  So much I tried my hand at a solid hull again and it's been successful so far.
   I highly recommend the Model Shipways Shipwright 3 Kit Series. By the time you finish the 3rd boat, the Muscongus Bay Lobster Smack, you will have the skills to take on anything.  They might be small and appear to be simple, but that's what you want in the beginning and to learn the basic skills, then try the other models.

It's just a short drive from Mystic Seaport in the town of New Bedford a couple of blocks from the waterfront. It's not in a real "touristy" area, or wasn't when I was last there years ago. New Bedford is, or was, still a working waterfront back then. If whaling is your thing and you're in the area, take the ferry from Hyannis to Nantucket and check out the whaling museum there. It's a very good one as well. 

Hard to say the date on the New Bedford Flags poster. I tried to enlarge it, but I couldn't get a legible look at the date, if any. It's from a Pinterest post that credits it to the New Bedford Whaling Museum's collection. (Home - New Bedford Whaling Museum) You could probably call them and ask. You might get lucky and connect with somebody who could check for you. The "poster" does contain the identity of the printer, although I can't read it, and it probably has a copyright date on it somewhere. It looks to have been a printer's advertising "give-away." The New Bedford Whaling Museum isn't a large museum and so staff may be accessible by phone or email, unlike much larger institutions. It's a great museum nonetheless and definitely worth a visit. (Also the home of the largest whaling ship model in the world,  Lagoda at 1:2 scale. Lagoda - Wikipedia )

Another tip for you and anybody else who hasn't discovered it as yet: There is a wealth of fine detail brushes available at a fraction of the cost charged by modeling and artists' supply stores, in fact, at almost "disposable brush" prices, to be found listed for sale to manicurists. It seems there's a lot of fine detail painting now fashionable in the manicure business. Check out the manicurists' "nail art" sites for ultra-fine brushes of all types, particularly lining brushes. See: Amazon.com : nail art brushes and Nail Art Brushes for sale | eBay
 
 For example: Nail Art Brushes Nail Liner Brush Liner for Nails Easy Hold Thin Nail Art Design | eBay, $7.91 w/ free shipping:

 

Originally published 1857.  Higher-res image here: https://www.eldreds.com/auction-lot/print-private-signals-of-the-whaling-vessels-c._EFE4B748D8  My wife's family's flag is on it-- one of the Howlands. 

Pennants used to identify individual vessels, be they naval, merchant, or pleasure craft, were commonly carried prior to the wider use of code signals (flags) to indicate the code (usually "five level" - five letters and or numbers) assigned to the vessel by navies, marine insurance companies, and national documentation agencies.
 
Pennants were rarely opaque with lettering on both sides. Actually, in practice, it was much easier at a distance to identify a signal that wasn't opaque because the sun would shine both on it or behind and through it. If a pennant or signal were opaque, its "shaded side" would appear black at a distance. Additionally, there are advantages to a pennant or signal being made of light cloth which will readily "fly," in light air. In fact, when a square-rigged vessel is running downwind, her signals, ensigns, and pennants on the ship moving at close to the speed of the wind itself, would cause the signals, pennants, and ensigns to "hang limp" and be difficult to see at any distance.
 
Even today, when racing sailboats routinely show "sail numbers" on their sails to identify themselves, the numbers must appear reversed on the "back side" and no attempt is made to overcome this. The international racing rules require that sail number and class logo, if appropriate, must be shown on both sides of the mainsail in that case each side of the sail will have the number shown "in the right direction." There are very specific universal regulations for the placement of sail numbers on racing yachts which specifically dictate how the obverse and reverse lettering must be applied to a vessel's sails. (See: TRRS | Identification on sails (racingrulesofsailing.org) Today, adhesive-backed numbers and letters are applied to synthetic fabric sails. In earlier times, the letters and numbers were cut out and appliqued to the sail. 
 
 
 
In earlier times, several systems, other than identification code signals, were in common use and these are what we commonly see on contemporary paintings. The two primary signals used were a large flag or pennant with the vessel's name on it, or the owner's name, or company name, on it, or a logo of some sort. The latter were usually called "house flags" which designated the identity of the owner of the vessel. When steam power came on the scene, these owner's "house flags" were supplemented by painting the funnels of the steam ships with the colors and logos of the owners' house flags as well.
 
House flag chart from the 1930's or so: 
 

 
The house flags and ship name pennants we see in the contemporary paintings serve to identify the vessel in the painting, but in order to fully appreciate the purpose of "naming pennants" and house flags, it has to be understood that until radio communications came into being (first Marconi transmission at sea by RMS Lucania in 1901 and first continuous radio communication with land during an Atlantic crossing ... RMS Lucania in 1903.) there was no way for a ship owner to know much of anything about their vessel until it returned home which, in the case of whaling vessels could be two or three years. Shipping companies, marine insurers, and maritime shipping companies, among others, had a desperate need for news about their ships, but they could only know the fate of their ships, crew, and cargo (though not necessarily in that order!) when the ship showed up. Ships at sea would hail each other when they ran into one another at sea: "What ship? What port?" and sometimes get word back to owners that their ship was seen, on the Pacific whaling grounds, for instance, months or even years earlier, but there was no way to know what was going on with a ship until she returned to her home port. Businesses ashore were desperate to know the fate of ships and shipments and being the first to learn of a particular ship's arrival in port gave a businessman a particular advantage in making investments, commodities trades, purchases, and sales. This was especially true in the United States before the construction of the transcontinental telegraph system owing to the immense size of the nation "from sea to shining sea." For example, in San Francisco, which was for a time shortly after the discovery of gold, isolated from communications with the East Coast, things as simple as newspapers would arrive only by ship and when they did, the race was on to get in line to read the "news of the world." An organization called the "Merchants' Exchange" was created to operate a semaphore telegraph system from Point Lobos at the farthest west point of the San Francisco Península to what came to be called "Telegraph Hill" to communicate the identity of ships arriving off the Golden Gate often many hours before they actually docked and to make East Coast newspapers and other information sources available to local subscribers. On the East Coast, seaport homes had their famous "widows' walks" where the ship captain's wives would look for their husband's ship in the offing to know whether he'd ever return, and they'd know by the house flag which ship was which. 
 
  
 
 
Yes. That's a good description of the device used to set pennants and house flags "flying." The device is called a "pig stick" as it is a short stick similar to what a pig farmer would use to herd his pigs. A pig stick has a wire or wooden "auxiliary stick" from which the flag or pennant is flown independent of the main stick. This device, pictured below, prevents the signal or pennant from wrapping around the "pig stick" and fouling on the pole or otherwise becoming unreadable. 
 

 

 
The middle two paintings of ships posted above show those two ships simultaneously flying a "name pennant" from the maintop, a "house flag" from the foremast top, and a "five level code" (likely assigned by Lloyds Insurers.) identifying the vessel in a commonly redundant fashion at that time.

I urge you to take Roger's sage advice in the post above to heart.  I completely agree with his observations. If the subject you are modeling doesn't enthuse you to one degree or another through to the end of the build, the end of the build is quite likely not going to happen. As Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations."
 

I urge you to take Roger's sage advice in the post above to heart.  I completely agree with his observations. If the subject you are modeling doesn't enthuse you to one degree or another through to the end of the build, the end of the build is quite likely not going to happen. As Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations."
 

David Macgregor drew a set of plans for Thermopylae I believe.   His plans went to an outfit that really ain't much of an ally.
Something is available: https://ssgreatbritain.printstoreonline.com/ship-plans/
 
here is a link here to chase:  https://modelshipworld.com/topic/24168-merchant-sailing-ships-serie-david-macgregor/
 
and another: https://www.ssgreatbritain.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/david-macgregor-ship-plans-collection-july-2013.pdf
 
This said, collect plans,  collect books.  I think that collecting kits only serves the kit manufacturers.  The old pre-fire Mantua kits look to be really awful to me.  I think three of their most popular subjects are the same hull in different clothes:  Bounty, Endeavor, Beagle.  For their kits in general:  All of it seems to have been just the minimum required. 
 
A clipper is a major project.  A composite hull post 1860 clipper even more of a challenge.  Large hulls at a small scale is requiring miniaturist skills.  Unless it is a widow recently stuck with "toys" that she resented having funds spent on when obtained,  I suspect that "deals" for old kits are gilded bricks.  Someone trying to recover some of the money spent on really poor decisions about illusions, dreams, and mirages. 
 
Here is an idea:  Keep a diary of subjects as they grab your interest.  Have the links and references there.  Buy no kits until your board is clear.  When you get to the 'buy another kit' stage, you will be surprised at the number of diverse trails, strange ideas, and dry holes there are in the diary.