Bob Cleek

I am presently building a model of the Benjamin Noble, a steel hulled Great Lakes Freighter launched in 1909.  You can find a currently active build log on the Scratch Builds 1901 and Later section of the forum.  The hull for this model was carved from “solid” pine to make two half models as Bob describes.  The hull block was drilled for Brass locator pins before shaping to assure accurate alignment of the finished hull.  The hull was then plated to simulate the riveted hull of the actual ship and the hull halves were joined.
 
Look it up!
 
Roger

Look up Dana Weger in the back issue CD's of the NRJ.  I believe that hollowing out the layers is actually a requirement for acquisition by a USN museum.
I view it as rather than "can"  the situation during the planning stage is more "I need to have a really good reason not to hollow every layer but the bottom one."
@Bob Cleek Champions at version of bread and butter that I had missed: Do the left and right sides as two pieces that meet at the midline. 
If I did not have an incurable case of POF disease, I think that I would have to do it this way. 
The pattern would be for one side.   Bond the port side layer to (on top of) the stb side using something easily reversible - shellac,  rubber cement,  Duco, ....
This is a two for one scroll cut process.
Bandsaw the outer lines - outside and inside - then debond - add the mirror pattern to the port side  piece and do the rough bevel.
At the core plan to pattern stage I would add alignment sites for pins or Bamboo skewer dowels - so that port side pattern has something other than the outside shape to site it.
These dowels can also be used to match layer 1 to layer 2,  layer 2 to layer3, etc.  in an idiot proof way. 
It is also probably good to have lines at and perpendicular to the midline at glue site.  Using a jig for hole depth,  dowels can be used to position port to stb and enforce the glue bond.
 
2nd question.  Where would I get plans and/or cast parts for a WW1 warship?
For reasons of sanity,  I have limited myself to 1660-1860 wood and sail (obviously this is still too broad) so I can only speculate.
Besides what I think is a lively steel group that hangs somewhere else -  for USN I would look to the NA.  For the RN,  the NMM probably has more than you could ever want,
For other European navies and Japan - you probably can find locals who would know.
The AAMM has
LE CHARLEMAGNE - first class battleship (1894-1920)
Scale of drawing : 1/200th
Le Hoche
Battleship (1886 -1913)
 
Taubman plans list at Loylhanna Dockyard looks like a possible source.
 
A WWI warship's topsides are a lot busier and more interesting than the WWII generation,  but the pre- Dreadnought  / Great White Fleet steel vessels can be really interesting.
 

Welcome! It sounds like you're going about things properly and you'll end up with a fine model.
 
Just a few random "tricks of the trade" I wish I'd learned earlier than I did: You may already be aware, but I'll mention that you should sand or scrape off the char from the laser cutting on any parts that will show, even if painted, and especially remove it from all faying surfaces. Paint and glue don't hold as well on the charred surfaces. Also, PVA can be softened and removed by applying isopropyl alcohol. (Wrap the joint in a bit of paper toweling which will keep the alcohol in contact with the PVA.) The primary advantage of PVA over CA is its reversibility. There will be mistakes! It goes with the territory. (I'm told there are "reversers" available to remove CA, but I'd file that under "Good luck with that!)
 
In a build like this one, clean, sharp pieces are important. If you seal all your wood with clear ("white") shellac, the basswood parts will not "fuzz" when you sand them and you can then use water-based acrylic paints, if you wish, without the water raising the grain of the wood. Like with plastic model painting, your surface preparation and painting should be as perfect as possible. In a model like the Whitehall, you must keep your painting schedule in mind as you build. It's best to glue "bare wood to bare wood" with PVA, but sometimes this is not possible because you will want to paint some parts before assembly. This is particularly true of the interior details. (Painting beneath and around stringers, thwarts, and stern sheets, for example.) 
 
Use the forum search engine to read the discussions regarding the use of water-based acrylic coatings versus oil based coatings. There are two schools of thought. It's best to decide whether you are an "oil guy" or a "water guy" before you go too far down the road buying paints and brushes and so on. Oil and water don't mix all that well and sometimes different brands of paints don't work together all that well, either. Working with the same "system" will allow you to become familiar with it. Mixing and matching will probably cause you to "paint yourself in a corner," creating problems in painting and finishing wooden models. Always, always, always test a coating on a piece of scrap material first to confirm how it will perform before applying to the model itself. Fortunately, you seem like the kind of person who reads the instructions before diving into a process, so I don't expect you'll go too far astray if you follow the manufacturer's instructions. (Hint: oil-based coatings are more forgiving, being "organic" and "chemically simple" than water-based synthetics which can contain very critical chemical mixtures which can cause problems if instructions aren't strictly followed. E.g. some acrylics are thinned with alcohol, some with water, and some with proprietary thinners and conditioners that are specific to each brand.)
 
If you are like most ship modelers, you'll use CA sparingly. It's nasty stuff. Store it in a zip loc plastic sandwich bag in your freezer. It will last a long time before hardening in the bottle and it ain't cheap. 
 
Be sure to read the "Articles Database" articles and the "More" sections in the drop-down banner heading of the forum homepage. Of particular value is the article on "Tools." It's sage advice will save you a lot of money!
 
Good luck with your build!

In my experience, at least, the irony is that shaping a solid hull (or stacking up a hollow "bread and butter" hull) takes a whole lot less time and work than building a POB or POF hull. Having cut my teeth on the old Model Shipways "yellow boxes," and Blue Jacket, and Marine Models solid hull kits, I couldn't agree more that they would almost be seen as 'scratch-builds" today! As the story goes, the manufacturers picked up some of the government surplus gunstock duplicating carving machines after the War and used those to shape their kit model hulls on a mass production basis. Those machines did a pretty accurate job. There wasn't a lot of need for checking shapes with a template if you had an eye for a fair shape. All many needed was just a surface sanding without the need for carved shaping, other than the stem, keel, and bulwarks which were left thick (to prevent damage in shipping, I suppose.)
 
I surely agree that there was little difference between the old pre-carved "kits" and scratch-building. All they provided that was not "scratch" were the cast metal fittings and the machine carved hull. Everything else, e.g. rigging thread, dowels, strip wood, that came in the old kits were just materials scratch-builders today buy piecemeal. What you were really paying for in the old kits were the plans and instructions and the perhaps exaggerated implied promise that anybody could build a model as good as the prototype in the photograph pasted on the end of the box.  Back in the day, it was assumed (although not disclosed in the advertising) that someone building a ship model knew a fair amount about their subject matter and in order to build a good model that knowledge was a prerequisite. The level of detail in the old plans and instructions presumed the modeler's knowledge of basic seamanship and nomenclature. Other than Underhill and Davis, available from specialty mail order houses, modeling tutorials were hard to source and the internet was decades in the future.
 
I think those of us who straddle the ship modeling kit generation gap will agree that the biggest difference modernly is that the level of general competence in the ordinary manual arts has dropped to the bottom of the barrel. Wood and metal "shop" and "mechanical drawing" aren't taught in high schools like they used to be. Relatively few younger people have woodworking skills beyond those required to assemble something out of an IKEA box. (Speaking of which, I expect today's kit manufacturers also appreciate the "knock-down" characteristics of POF and POB technology of POF which minimize shipping and warehousing costs.) Moreover, the power tool industry has convinced us all that their expensive machines are essential to produce high quality work all at the expense of the acquisition of skill in the use of hand tools which can usually do the same job at a much lower cost when employed by a skilled user. 
 
The spectacular open-framed "as built" and "Navy Board style" models certainly have their place, but for the modelers who have yet to attain the highly refined level of skill necessary to build them, solid hull models, or "laid up" "bread and butter" hulls should not be overlooked as an option in building a fine model. Kits have their place, if for no other reason than to serve as the "gateway drug" for the modeling hobby, but it's a quantuum leap from LEGO to building a fine traditional ship model, and it should be. Not everything should be "dumbed down" for consumption by the masses.

Welcome! It sounds like you're going about things properly and you'll end up with a fine model.
 
Just a few random "tricks of the trade" I wish I'd learned earlier than I did: You may already be aware, but I'll mention that you should sand or scrape off the char from the laser cutting on any parts that will show, even if painted, and especially remove it from all faying surfaces. Paint and glue don't hold as well on the charred surfaces. Also, PVA can be softened and removed by applying isopropyl alcohol. (Wrap the joint in a bit of paper toweling which will keep the alcohol in contact with the PVA.) The primary advantage of PVA over CA is its reversibility. There will be mistakes! It goes with the territory. (I'm told there are "reversers" available to remove CA, but I'd file that under "Good luck with that!)
 
In a build like this one, clean, sharp pieces are important. If you seal all your wood with clear ("white") shellac, the basswood parts will not "fuzz" when you sand them and you can then use water-based acrylic paints, if you wish, without the water raising the grain of the wood. Like with plastic model painting, your surface preparation and painting should be as perfect as possible. In a model like the Whitehall, you must keep your painting schedule in mind as you build. It's best to glue "bare wood to bare wood" with PVA, but sometimes this is not possible because you will want to paint some parts before assembly. This is particularly true of the interior details. (Painting beneath and around stringers, thwarts, and stern sheets, for example.) 
 
Use the forum search engine to read the discussions regarding the use of water-based acrylic coatings versus oil based coatings. There are two schools of thought. It's best to decide whether you are an "oil guy" or a "water guy" before you go too far down the road buying paints and brushes and so on. Oil and water don't mix all that well and sometimes different brands of paints don't work together all that well, either. Working with the same "system" will allow you to become familiar with it. Mixing and matching will probably cause you to "paint yourself in a corner," creating problems in painting and finishing wooden models. Always, always, always test a coating on a piece of scrap material first to confirm how it will perform before applying to the model itself. Fortunately, you seem like the kind of person who reads the instructions before diving into a process, so I don't expect you'll go too far astray if you follow the manufacturer's instructions. (Hint: oil-based coatings are more forgiving, being "organic" and "chemically simple" than water-based synthetics which can contain very critical chemical mixtures which can cause problems if instructions aren't strictly followed. E.g. some acrylics are thinned with alcohol, some with water, and some with proprietary thinners and conditioners that are specific to each brand.)
 
If you are like most ship modelers, you'll use CA sparingly. It's nasty stuff. Store it in a zip loc plastic sandwich bag in your freezer. It will last a long time before hardening in the bottle and it ain't cheap. 
 
Be sure to read the "Articles Database" articles and the "More" sections in the drop-down banner heading of the forum homepage. Of particular value is the article on "Tools." It's sage advice will save you a lot of money!
 
Good luck with your build!

In my experience, at least, the irony is that shaping a solid hull (or stacking up a hollow "bread and butter" hull) takes a whole lot less time and work than building a POB or POF hull. Having cut my teeth on the old Model Shipways "yellow boxes," and Blue Jacket, and Marine Models solid hull kits, I couldn't agree more that they would almost be seen as 'scratch-builds" today! As the story goes, the manufacturers picked up some of the government surplus gunstock duplicating carving machines after the War and used those to shape their kit model hulls on a mass production basis. Those machines did a pretty accurate job. There wasn't a lot of need for checking shapes with a template if you had an eye for a fair shape. All many needed was just a surface sanding without the need for carved shaping, other than the stem, keel, and bulwarks which were left thick (to prevent damage in shipping, I suppose.)
 
I surely agree that there was little difference between the old pre-carved "kits" and scratch-building. All they provided that was not "scratch" were the cast metal fittings and the machine carved hull. Everything else, e.g. rigging thread, dowels, strip wood, that came in the old kits were just materials scratch-builders today buy piecemeal. What you were really paying for in the old kits were the plans and instructions and the perhaps exaggerated implied promise that anybody could build a model as good as the prototype in the photograph pasted on the end of the box.  Back in the day, it was assumed (although not disclosed in the advertising) that someone building a ship model knew a fair amount about their subject matter and in order to build a good model that knowledge was a prerequisite. The level of detail in the old plans and instructions presumed the modeler's knowledge of basic seamanship and nomenclature. Other than Underhill and Davis, available from specialty mail order houses, modeling tutorials were hard to source and the internet was decades in the future.
 
I think those of us who straddle the ship modeling kit generation gap will agree that the biggest difference modernly is that the level of general competence in the ordinary manual arts has dropped to the bottom of the barrel. Wood and metal "shop" and "mechanical drawing" aren't taught in high schools like they used to be. Relatively few younger people have woodworking skills beyond those required to assemble something out of an IKEA box. (Speaking of which, I expect today's kit manufacturers also appreciate the "knock-down" characteristics of POF and POB technology of POF which minimize shipping and warehousing costs.) Moreover, the power tool industry has convinced us all that their expensive machines are essential to produce high quality work all at the expense of the acquisition of skill in the use of hand tools which can usually do the same job at a much lower cost when employed by a skilled user. 
 
The spectacular open-framed "as built" and "Navy Board style" models certainly have their place, but for the modelers who have yet to attain the highly refined level of skill necessary to build them, solid hull models, or "laid up" "bread and butter" hulls should not be overlooked as an option in building a fine model. Kits have their place, if for no other reason than to serve as the "gateway drug" for the modeling hobby, but it's a quantuum leap from LEGO to building a fine traditional ship model, and it should be. Not everything should be "dumbed down" for consumption by the masses.

In my experience, at least, the irony is that shaping a solid hull (or stacking up a hollow "bread and butter" hull) takes a whole lot less time and work than building a POB or POF hull. Having cut my teeth on the old Model Shipways "yellow boxes," and Blue Jacket, and Marine Models solid hull kits, I couldn't agree more that they would almost be seen as 'scratch-builds" today! As the story goes, the manufacturers picked up some of the government surplus gunstock duplicating carving machines after the War and used those to shape their kit model hulls on a mass production basis. Those machines did a pretty accurate job. There wasn't a lot of need for checking shapes with a template if you had an eye for a fair shape. All many needed was just a surface sanding without the need for carved shaping, other than the stem, keel, and bulwarks which were left thick (to prevent damage in shipping, I suppose.)
 
I surely agree that there was little difference between the old pre-carved "kits" and scratch-building. All they provided that was not "scratch" were the cast metal fittings and the machine carved hull. Everything else, e.g. rigging thread, dowels, strip wood, that came in the old kits were just materials scratch-builders today buy piecemeal. What you were really paying for in the old kits were the plans and instructions and the perhaps exaggerated implied promise that anybody could build a model as good as the prototype in the photograph pasted on the end of the box.  Back in the day, it was assumed (although not disclosed in the advertising) that someone building a ship model knew a fair amount about their subject matter and in order to build a good model that knowledge was a prerequisite. The level of detail in the old plans and instructions presumed the modeler's knowledge of basic seamanship and nomenclature. Other than Underhill and Davis, available from specialty mail order houses, modeling tutorials were hard to source and the internet was decades in the future.
 
I think those of us who straddle the ship modeling kit generation gap will agree that the biggest difference modernly is that the level of general competence in the ordinary manual arts has dropped to the bottom of the barrel. Wood and metal "shop" and "mechanical drawing" aren't taught in high schools like they used to be. Relatively few younger people have woodworking skills beyond those required to assemble something out of an IKEA box. (Speaking of which, I expect today's kit manufacturers also appreciate the "knock-down" characteristics of POF and POB technology of POF which minimize shipping and warehousing costs.) Moreover, the power tool industry has convinced us all that their expensive machines are essential to produce high quality work all at the expense of the acquisition of skill in the use of hand tools which can usually do the same job at a much lower cost when employed by a skilled user. 
 
The spectacular open-framed "as built" and "Navy Board style" models certainly have their place, but for the modelers who have yet to attain the highly refined level of skill necessary to build them, solid hull models, or "laid up" "bread and butter" hulls should not be overlooked as an option in building a fine model. Kits have their place, if for no other reason than to serve as the "gateway drug" for the modeling hobby, but it's a quantuum leap from LEGO to building a fine traditional ship model, and it should be. Not everything should be "dumbed down" for consumption by the masses.

While the open frame admiralty construction POF model might be considered by some to be the ultimate example of the shipmodeler’s art it really only makes sense for those limiting themselves to the era before about 1850. This ignores a rich variety of subjects built from iron or steel where solid hull construction will produce an excellent model.  I am amused to see builders building  planked POB models of Titanic or Bismarck, where more correct construction would require POB to mean “Plating on Bulkhead.”
 
I used to have several A.J. Fisher catalogs from my Father’s ship modeling days in the 1930’s.  I seem to remember that back you could buy a full kit,  a fittings only kit, or just the plans.  If you bought the full hull kit, they furnished sawed out lifts to be laminated into the hull block.
 
Roger

I'm sure someone has, but why would they want to? That would require drilling the holes, applying the putty, and then sanding the area and cleaning up. If one were so inclined, I'd suggest they use refinisher's crayons for the purpose. They "wipe on and wipe off," leaving the hole filled with a colored wax. No sanding necessary. See: https://www.amazon.com/Furniture-Repair-Crayon-Restore-Scratch/dp/B08FLZXKBZ/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=furniture+crayons&qid=1680053733&sr=8-7
 
If one wishes to indicate where the fasteners were placed in a deck or elsewhere, a technical pen can be used to draw dots of the desired diameter with indelible ink. ( India ink was used to good effect on many builders' models produced around the turn of the last century for indicating doors and windows and other details of deck furniture. Seal the raw wood with thin shellac before doing so to prevent the ink from soaking into the wood and spreading.)
 
If one is interested in an accurate portrayal rather than a "modeling convention," at scale viewing distances, trunnels are invisible and in most instances are basically the same color as the planking, not a dark contrasting color. (However, locust was commonly used for trunnels on the US Eastern Seaboard and it can be slightly darker that many planking species, but not so much that one would notice it, particularly on a weathered deck.) I really don't know why so many want to depict them, but they do. If it's done, though, the fasteners must be placed accurately where they would have been placed on the prototype. The biggest eyesore in this respect are highly visible deck and planking fasteners which are not accurately placed, especially where only one fastener is showing in a plank end.
 
 
 
 
 
 

In my experience, at least, the irony is that shaping a solid hull (or stacking up a hollow "bread and butter" hull) takes a whole lot less time and work than building a POB or POF hull. Having cut my teeth on the old Model Shipways "yellow boxes," and Blue Jacket, and Marine Models solid hull kits, I couldn't agree more that they would almost be seen as 'scratch-builds" today! As the story goes, the manufacturers picked up some of the government surplus gunstock duplicating carving machines after the War and used those to shape their kit model hulls on a mass production basis. Those machines did a pretty accurate job. There wasn't a lot of need for checking shapes with a template if you had an eye for a fair shape. All many needed was just a surface sanding without the need for carved shaping, other than the stem, keel, and bulwarks which were left thick (to prevent damage in shipping, I suppose.)
 
I surely agree that there was little difference between the old pre-carved "kits" and scratch-building. All they provided that was not "scratch" were the cast metal fittings and the machine carved hull. Everything else, e.g. rigging thread, dowels, strip wood, that came in the old kits were just materials scratch-builders today buy piecemeal. What you were really paying for in the old kits were the plans and instructions and the perhaps exaggerated implied promise that anybody could build a model as good as the prototype in the photograph pasted on the end of the box.  Back in the day, it was assumed (although not disclosed in the advertising) that someone building a ship model knew a fair amount about their subject matter and in order to build a good model that knowledge was a prerequisite. The level of detail in the old plans and instructions presumed the modeler's knowledge of basic seamanship and nomenclature. Other than Underhill and Davis, available from specialty mail order houses, modeling tutorials were hard to source and the internet was decades in the future.
 
I think those of us who straddle the ship modeling kit generation gap will agree that the biggest difference modernly is that the level of general competence in the ordinary manual arts has dropped to the bottom of the barrel. Wood and metal "shop" and "mechanical drawing" aren't taught in high schools like they used to be. Relatively few younger people have woodworking skills beyond those required to assemble something out of an IKEA box. (Speaking of which, I expect today's kit manufacturers also appreciate the "knock-down" characteristics of POF and POB technology of POF which minimize shipping and warehousing costs.) Moreover, the power tool industry has convinced us all that their expensive machines are essential to produce high quality work all at the expense of the acquisition of skill in the use of hand tools which can usually do the same job at a much lower cost when employed by a skilled user. 
 
The spectacular open-framed "as built" and "Navy Board style" models certainly have their place, but for the modelers who have yet to attain the highly refined level of skill necessary to build them, solid hull models, or "laid up" "bread and butter" hulls should not be overlooked as an option in building a fine model. Kits have their place, if for no other reason than to serve as the "gateway drug" for the modeling hobby, but it's a quantuum leap from LEGO to building a fine traditional ship model, and it should be. Not everything should be "dumbed down" for consumption by the masses.

Solid hull projects are fantastic.   There are reasons why you dont see any new kits being developed this way.  First it is very expensive.   The machinery alone and tooling required for each new kit is problematic.   There are few people with that lost knowledge and expertise as well. In addition...the restriction on the size you can make a hull.   This is why those old kits were so tiny.   They were all so much smaller than folks like to build these days and the subjects were smaller vessels.   Any frigates and such were restricted to 1/8" scale.   You would need a huge machine and a whole lot of wood to make them larger.
 
In addition,  new builders just hate taking the time to properly shape the solid hulls.   Using templates and chisels etc.   They dont have the patience for it.   So they are not very popular.   In this world of instant gratification,  they want a kit to be as close to a lego set as possible.  Just assemble and do a mediocre job of fairing and got on with it.   Unfortunately this is the case.   Its a shame because there is a lot to be learned when you are presented with more "hand-work"  on a kit.   Like those old MS yellow box kits.   There was so much "scratch building"  required that by todays standards those kits would hardly be called kits.   They just dont sell.
 
It is much more cost effective to use plywood or MDF for a POB project.  Yes the typical MFG should at least double the amount of bulkheads.  But either way...as you said,  it is very easy to fill the spaces between the bulkheads.   That is if you are willing to take the time to fair the hull properly.   It will take a lot of effort and elbow grease.
 
Chuck

I personally enjoy building “solid” models by which I mean those carved from a block of wood vs planked on bulkheads.   The term block encompasses various laminations; by waterlines, buttocks, etc. with the inside removed to leave a thick shell.  For me, shaping the hull with chisels, spokeshaves, and rasps is an enjoyable part of the model building process.
 
Accurately shaping the old machine carved solid model kit hulls was complicated by the lack of a flat datum.  I, therefore, build my carved hulls as two half models.  This allows me to maintain a flat surface that the hull can be layed on when checking the carving process with templates.  
 
Roger

Yes indeed.  It is not so much a disagreement as me using the wrong phrase.   I think 'not invisible' is more appropriate than 'stands out'.
There are many species of Bamboo, and some have darker end grain.  Some cooperate with a draw plate peeling and some fight you all the way.
The vision in my mind is of the photos of a contemporary model at NMM that has obvious and over scale hull planking trunnels.  I have outwitted myself in where I filed my copies, so I can't name it, because I can't find them.  I think it was the model of HMS Centurion that Siggi is using as a reference for his HMS Tiger.   I have a feeling that something other than Bamboo was used in the 17th and 18th centuries in English ship model shops.  Chinese food, woks, and fondue was probably not that big a thing back then.
 
Your Inflexible is about as ideal as it gets.   For the diameter to match scale, I am guessing 1:48?  
I picked 1:60 across the board, thinking that one half the size of museum scale would be something that I can live with.  Going 1:120 would have been more practical, but I am not wired to build at miniature scale.
 

Yes, 1:48.    The bamboo I use is always large skewers.  The color has, fortunately, not varied much if at all .   It splits and draws very nicely.  For size I think most agree with you that undersized is preferable to over sized.
 Allan

An especially obnoxious convention is two dark trunnels at each plank end and only the ends and the ends being placed at the same beam for every other strake.
 
Using trunnels at all only makes sense if they are used as real mechanical fasteners.  Then, the Bamboo end grain stands out even when that is unwanted.
I think pulling enough Bamboo slivers for a deck or worse hull planking  thru a #70 - #72 final size kills brain cells or at least gives them lactic acid poisoning.

Very nice work on the splicing! Working a splice in scale line is really difficult.
 
These are admittedly "picky" comments, but I share them with the thought that some who may be contemplating showing their models in competition or hoping to sell them for a good price may find them of value.  The type of "tear-drop" shaped thimble, bent open-ended as shown or closed-ended when cast in bronze, is of relatively modern design and intended for use with wire rope (cable,) not with fiber cordage. It's shape is designed to avoid the sharp bend in the wire rope that would be required at the throat seizing on a closed, round thimble which would cause a fatigue point that would weaken the wire rope and could result in catastrophic failure under load. These tear-drop shaped thimbles appeared concurrently with wire rope and cable coming into use. 
 
Modernly, the tear-drop thimbles are frequently seen used with fiber cordage simply because the round thimbles have become somewhat difficult to source. Their disadvantage in that application is that, as the eye "works" to and fro, the open edges of the tear-drop thimble tend to chafe and cut into the line, leading to catastrophic failure under load.
 
Round metal thimbles are themselves a relatively modern thing, although I'm not sure when they were first available. They are generally made of yellow metal, or sometimes of hot-dipped galvanized steel modernly, as rusting of ferrous metal promotes rotting of the cordage in contact with it.  On period rigging, they were of turned wood, generally lignum vitae, if available, or locust and similar tough species if not. The cordage forming the eye should be served before the thimble is inserted because the outer edges of the cordage around a thimble is particularly susceptible to damage from chafing, especially if shackles are placed through the eye.
 
This isn't a criticism of the workmanship, to be sure, but these "museum quality" details are the sort of thing that may be worth a few points with an eagle-eyed model judge or museum curator. They may not be particularly noticeable at smaller scales, but would surely be noted by judges on the full-sized classic yacht concours circuit these days.
 

I'm sure someone has, but why would they want to? That would require drilling the holes, applying the putty, and then sanding the area and cleaning up. If one were so inclined, I'd suggest they use refinisher's crayons for the purpose. They "wipe on and wipe off," leaving the hole filled with a colored wax. No sanding necessary. See: https://www.amazon.com/Furniture-Repair-Crayon-Restore-Scratch/dp/B08FLZXKBZ/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=furniture+crayons&qid=1680053733&sr=8-7
 
If one wishes to indicate where the fasteners were placed in a deck or elsewhere, a technical pen can be used to draw dots of the desired diameter with indelible ink. ( India ink was used to good effect on many builders' models produced around the turn of the last century for indicating doors and windows and other details of deck furniture. Seal the raw wood with thin shellac before doing so to prevent the ink from soaking into the wood and spreading.)
 
If one is interested in an accurate portrayal rather than a "modeling convention," at scale viewing distances, trunnels are invisible and in most instances are basically the same color as the planking, not a dark contrasting color. (However, locust was commonly used for trunnels on the US Eastern Seaboard and it can be slightly darker that many planking species, but not so much that one would notice it, particularly on a weathered deck.) I really don't know why so many want to depict them, but they do. If it's done, though, the fasteners must be placed accurately where they would have been placed on the prototype. The biggest eyesore in this respect are highly visible deck and planking fasteners which are not accurately placed, especially where only one fastener is showing in a plank end.
 
 
 
 
 
 

I'm sure someone has, but why would they want to? That would require drilling the holes, applying the putty, and then sanding the area and cleaning up. If one were so inclined, I'd suggest they use refinisher's crayons for the purpose. They "wipe on and wipe off," leaving the hole filled with a colored wax. No sanding necessary. See: https://www.amazon.com/Furniture-Repair-Crayon-Restore-Scratch/dp/B08FLZXKBZ/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=furniture+crayons&qid=1680053733&sr=8-7
 
If one wishes to indicate where the fasteners were placed in a deck or elsewhere, a technical pen can be used to draw dots of the desired diameter with indelible ink. ( India ink was used to good effect on many builders' models produced around the turn of the last century for indicating doors and windows and other details of deck furniture. Seal the raw wood with thin shellac before doing so to prevent the ink from soaking into the wood and spreading.)
 
If one is interested in an accurate portrayal rather than a "modeling convention," at scale viewing distances, trunnels are invisible and in most instances are basically the same color as the planking, not a dark contrasting color. (However, locust was commonly used for trunnels on the US Eastern Seaboard and it can be slightly darker that many planking species, but not so much that one would notice it, particularly on a weathered deck.) I really don't know why so many want to depict them, but they do. If it's done, though, the fasteners must be placed accurately where they would have been placed on the prototype. The biggest eyesore in this respect are highly visible deck and planking fasteners which are not accurately placed, especially where only one fastener is showing in a plank end.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Nick,
From the perspective of someone looking at the impressive attrition rate for kits in the build logs just here,  prudence would suggest a different ambition.
From the way that you ask this question, I think this is another yacht situation.  To be glib, if you have to ask, you are probably not ready to lose 5 or more years to HMS Victory 1765.
 
You do not state that the ships that you have been building over 25 years are models built of wood.  If they are plastic,  except for any rigging,  your experience may prove to be more of a hindrance than a help.  The instructions are unlikely to measure up to the micro management style of plastic kit instructions.  This lack of hand holding will offer you an excuse to bail when it gets frustrating.
 
If you have prior experience with wood based kits,  HMS Cruiser  or HMS Snake look to be a way to immerse yourself in ships of the Nelson era without all of the endless repetition that a 1st rate involves. 
Building yet another model of HMS Victory 1765 will be the polar opposite of doing something even vaguely unique.

From an outsider and theoretical perspective:
What is the need to fill the gaps between planking with anything for the first layer of a two layer POB hull?  The entirety is covered by the second layer.
If the problem is hollows between the molds - PVA glue a scab layer of wood veneer at the hollow.
Pine or Basswood should be soft enough not to resist paring more than the actual first layer.
For really shallow dips, a curl of Pine made using a plane should be a proper thickness.

Here in the Northern California Wine Country, there are lots of micro-breweries and if you go into a big chain drug store and ask for IPA, they're likely to send you to the liquor department where the various boutique brands of IPA, India pale ale, are stocked!  As far as my "gentleman's C" in chemistry gets me. I understand that ethyl alcohol, which is distilled from plant starches, and isopropyl alcohol, which is a product derived from petroleum, are entirely different things. I have always used ethyl alcohol in my shop as a solvent for shellac and, where indicated, for thinning acrylic and latex paints, as well as for a marine stove fuel and I buy it by the gallon tin. I've never used it for dissolving PVA adhesive, but I've heard many recommend isopropyl alcohol for that purpose, but never ethyl alcohol. Do any of the chemists in attendance, or even anybody who plays a chemist on the internet, know whether, when we talk about using alcohol for dissolving PVA adhesive or conditioning acrylic paint, it makes any difference whether we use ethyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol for such purposes, or are the two completely interchangeable?
 

Watered down PVA brushed on the shrouds and ratlines works a treat - I would never use CA for these.

The darkening of light coloured threads is the same physical phenomenon as for wood: the pores filled with glue act as a sort of optical fibre, leading the light deeper into the material, with less light reflected from the surface and the inside of the pores. This is more or less unavoidable for deeply penetrating glues or varnishes.
 
Low-viscosity varnishes applied sparingly do not fill the pores and, hence, lead to less darkening.
 
I am using cellulose-nitrate based lacquer (Zaponlack in German), which is traditionally used to protect shiny brass and silver from oxidation. It is colourless and can be redissolved or made to penetrate more with a drop of acetone.

I never use CA or PVA on rigging above all for one simple reason: things cannot be undone, if needed. I always use a fast-drying solvent-based varnish. A drop of solvent allows you to loosen knots and adjust the lines, if needed - and often it is needed.

YT-  
  I agree totally with your statement "never use Cyanoacrylate adhesive in scaled ship building for anything . Period. "   CUDOS!!!!
Allan