Bob Cleek

I agree.
 
Would you consider reading the article on spiling by David Antscherl in the Articles database here at MSW?  It very clearly explains lining off the hull and spiling the planks. 
 
Allan
 
 

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not sure what you mean by "as I bend them around the bow I MUST keep their width in the bend the same as the width of any planks I have not cut out ie the straight planks that came with the kit." Pictures would help.
 
The "straight planks that came with the kit" only are useful for slab-sided areas where you'd may as well be laying hardwood floor or clapboard siding. On the other hand, if you are spiling your planks from a flat sheet, you should get a plank that fits perfectly, bend or not, since you've spiled the exact shape required. Are you sure you are spiling correctly? Have you evenly divided every frame shape by the number of planks that should be required to plank the hull? If so, your plank shapes should be fine. If you are spiling from an elevation plan, the plank seams may all look parallell to the baseline of the drawing. There is no way you can accurately derive a plank shape from that because the elevation will only show the height between the plank seams as viewed orthographically. In the bows, the planks tend to be hung at a greater angle from plumb, farther away at the bottom and closer to the viewer at the top. The greater width in three dimensions rather than apparent height in two dimensions has to be taken into account. 
 
When spiling plank, the entire hull has to be "lined off." This can be done with thread or tape. The limitation as to width is only the scale width of available plank. When lining off, you have to judge the fairness of the plank seams by eye. There isn't any rule that every seam is going to be the same width, except perhaps amidships on a large vessel. When you have "lined off" all your plank seams, you can then measure the width of the plank at each seam intersection on a frame or bulkhead. This is how you account for the actual shape of a plank on a curved surface that has been drawn flat in two dimensions on the plans.
 
Hope this helps. If not... never mind. I had to guess at what the problem was. 

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

Keith, thanks for taking the time to share this remarkable build with all of us. There was so much great information, particularly the metalworking, that taught us all a lot. A wonderful accomplishment!
 
On to Cangarda! I'd expect she'll be an easier build, given the simpler rigging and less deck hardware, unless you decide to do a cut-away and depict below decks and the engine room. In that case, probably twice the work, at least!  
 
Or... how about a working steam-powered pond model?
 

 
ages of sail - Contact Us
 
 

Just order a couple more from one of the parts suppliers. They'll be the same, if not better, than what came in the kit.
 
See: Amati Model Ship Fittings (agesofsail.com)

That you are having a problem -  it suggests that you are doing edge bending.  If you are doing the spilling correctly, there should be no edge bending.  The stock that is being spilled probably needs to be twice as wide as the plank that is derived from it, for some of them.
Wood resists edge bending.  It will twist rather than do it.
 
The garboard is key.  The top edge is straight.  Along the touch of the keel, the bottom edge is straight.  When the rabbet arcs up with the stem and cants up with the sternpost - all of the shaping comes off of the bottom edge.  
Also, I am thinking that it might be a good idea to leave the width of the garboard out of any width reduction.  Use the planking fan on the planks between the bottom of the wale and the top of the garboard?

What sort of ship arr wtalking about, Bob. in most ships, the bow and stern are just the areas where we see the most alteration in plank width on the hull.
 
John

Since you are experiencing difficulty, yes, there is an easier way to tie in "reef points" on a sail. Real reef points have a "figure-eight knot" tied into the line on either side of the sail. The figure-eight knot will not jam and is easily untied, no matter how much tension has been placed on the knot.
 
Figure-eight knot, also called by some a "stopper knot:"
 

 
At all common modeling scales, a simple overhand knot is sufficient to portray a reef secured to a sail.
 
Simple overhand knot:

 
The easier way to tie overhand knots in scale rigging cordage is to employ the surgical suturing technique known as an "instrument tie." This requires the use of a surgical instrument called a "needle holder" or the equivalent, which could be some sort of tweezers or the like. A long needle holder works best for modeling, since its length permits access inboard of the stays and other hard to reach places. Another handy instrument to have is a long tweezers or a second needle holder. These instruments take the place of fingers, which are much too large (and perhaps short) for the delicate tasks at hand, be it sewing up a wound or tying scale rigging knots,
 
A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is better than that, so I've attached three videos of various flavors produced for the purpose of instructing medical students in performing a basic instrument tie.  Get yourself a needle holder or three. They are handy for all sorts of modeling tasks. (eBay is full of dirt cheap ones or ask a friend who works in a hospital to obtain one for you.) Watch the videos and practice until you get the hang of it (which should take one or two tries... it's very simple.) Once you have the basics down, you can then apply the instrument tie technique to a wider range of applications than just simple overhand and surgeons' knots.
 
As for tying in reef points, the simple overhand knot is tied first, then the reefing line is sewn through the sail with a needle, making sure that you've left yourself enough length to accomplish the following exercise. Approaching the single end of the reefing line from the knotless side, the bitter end of the reefing line is held in the non-dominant hand while a turn (or two if you prefer to use a "surgeon's knot" for the purpose... which is explained in the videos) is thrown around the needle holder. (This is sometimes more easily accomplished by grasping the line with the needle holder and twisting the needle holder to wrap the line around it, which is why you need to leave yourself some surplus line at the beginning.) Then, instead of grasping the other end of the reefing line as in the case of suturing knots shown in the videos, you grasp the standing part of the reefing line with the point of your needle holder (the same way as if making an overhand instrument tie) with the needle holder clamped on the reefing point as close as possible to the point on the standing part where it comes out of the sail.  Then, with the needle holder clamped to the standing part of the reefing line as close as possible to the sail, using your fingers, a tweezer, or another needle holder, carefully slide the line wrapped around the needle holder down the jaws of the closed needle holder and over the standing part of the reefing line to form the overhand knot and then carefully coax the bitter end through and pull it tight. Easier done than written, but you should be able to figure it out once you have the principle of the instrument tie down. (This is similar to the method described by VitusBering above, but the point of the needle holder replaces the needle he uses in his method. The "needle method" works fine, so long as you have the room to get your fingers where they need to be.)
 
Needless to say, all knots should be secured after they've been tied with a dab of shellac, thinned PVA, or CA. Myself, I prefer shellac because if the knot needs to be untied for further adjustment, the shellac can be softened, and the knot untied by simply applying alcohol to the dried shellac. I don't like thinned PVA because it takes a while to dry, can get messy, and is hard to reverse if need be. I avoid CA adhesive wherever possible because it's just nasty stuff, expensive, and hard to clean up if it goes where you don't want it. Another thing I like about shellac is its adhesive properties. When modeling reefing points, they will inevitably stand straight out or up or everywhere other than in a plumb fashion hangling down against the sail like the prototype. I use shellac, which is very viscous, to saturate the reefing line. As the alcohol in which the shellac is dissolved evaporates, the line will become increasingly stiff and sticky, but still pliable. (This is a very quick process, since the alcohol evaporates very quickly.) When it becomes pliable and sticky, the reefing line can be pushed against the sail and it will stick where you want it, making it very easy to achieve realistic looking reef points with all your reef lines hanging straight down and parallel to one another.
 
There are many YouTube videos on surgical instrument knot tying and much to learn by watching them. Learning use surgical instruments to tie knots will significantly speed up your rigging tasks and reduce the level of frustration that rigging often otherwise occasions.
 
Learn how to Tie a Surgical Knot with an Instrument - Bing video
 
Instrument Surgeon's Knot Tying - Bing video
 
How to make a square knot and a surgeons knot - instrument tie - Bing video

I haven't done that particular operation but when I need to snug a knot up close to something I start with a simple overhand and put a pin in the resulting loop. As I take up the slack I guide the pin close to where the knot will live and it usually works out well. If I don't get it close enough on the first try,  I wiggle the pin to loosen the overhand knot and try again. Once I'm happy with it I usually dab it with a touch of CA to seal the deal.

Keith, thanks for taking the time to share this remarkable build with all of us. There was so much great information, particularly the metalworking, that taught us all a lot. A wonderful accomplishment!
 
On to Cangarda! I'd expect she'll be an easier build, given the simpler rigging and less deck hardware, unless you decide to do a cut-away and depict below decks and the engine room. In that case, probably twice the work, at least!  
 
Or... how about a working steam-powered pond model?
 

 
ages of sail - Contact Us
 
 

Keith, thanks for taking the time to share this remarkable build with all of us. There was so much great information, particularly the metalworking, that taught us all a lot. A wonderful accomplishment!
 
On to Cangarda! I'd expect she'll be an easier build, given the simpler rigging and less deck hardware, unless you decide to do a cut-away and depict below decks and the engine room. In that case, probably twice the work, at least!  
 
Or... how about a working steam-powered pond model?
 

 
ages of sail - Contact Us
 
 

Keith, thanks for taking the time to share this remarkable build with all of us. There was so much great information, particularly the metalworking, that taught us all a lot. A wonderful accomplishment!
 
On to Cangarda! I'd expect she'll be an easier build, given the simpler rigging and less deck hardware, unless you decide to do a cut-away and depict below decks and the engine room. In that case, probably twice the work, at least!  
 
Or... how about a working steam-powered pond model?
 

 
ages of sail - Contact Us
 
 

Half-cut away model showing a (non-working) scale steam-engine and boilers?
 
These old steam-yachts are a lovely, steam-punky sort of crowd ... some years ago, we happend to be in Nice, when a childhood friend of my wife called her to wish her 'Happy Birthday'. When she asked, where he was, he said "in Nice" (he works on 'super-yachts' as an IT engineer). When we asked, where to find him, he replied "that's easy, just look out for the biggest boat in the old harbour, where normally cruise-ships berth". However, in spite of the 'glitz', helicopter and all, I found the old 1920s steam-yacht on the other side of harbour much more classy and desirable ...

Hey, welcome to the forum! Before anybody else does, let me suggest you go to the "new members" section and "introduce yourself," if you haven't already. 
 
I had some time on my hands and figured I'd respond to your question by sharing some thoughts on making the transition from model kit assembly to model building from scratch. Each approach has it's advantages and amazing work is done by many in both instances. it seems to be a natural progression, however, that folks begin with kits, then start supplementing their kit builds with aftermarket parts, then begin "kit bashing," and finally make the quantum leap to scratch building or what is known in the trade as "The Dark Side." The biggest difference between kit building and scratch building, as you've now discovered, whether you realize it or not, is that when scratch-building, the modeler must 'front load" his work with all the plans required, including translating plans for full-sized construction to plans for scale model construction, compiling materials lists, as you've encountered here, and so on. I'd guess the scratch builder puts as much time into historical research, drafting, tool acquisition, and shop management, as goes into the actual building process itself. If one doesn't have a taste for these tasks, they will probably enjoy greater satisfaction staying with with kit building.
 
Since you mention planking with boxwood, I presume you are contemplating finishing the hull bright and showing all the plank seams. First off, you may want to reconsider using boxwood for planking after you price the stuff. There is a lot of waste involved in planking, although the offcuts will be useful for other purposes of the build. Boxwood can be stiff and difficult to bend, as well. Clear, fine grained Alaskan Yellow Cedar comes close in appearance and is easier to work with and considerably less expensive. (See: https://thenrg.org/resources/Documents/articles/AnOverviewOfWoodProperties.pdf)
 
The method of planking is the first consideration. Do you plan to edge-set a lot of your planks as in the method described by master-modeler Chuck Passaro of this forum (and owner of Syren Shipmodel Company) or more traditional spiled plank? See: https://modelshipworld.com/forum/98-planking-downloads-and-tutorials-and-videos/) Chuck's method is much more economical in terms of wood requirements, but may not be suitable for all planks in a wineglass-sectioned hull like a J Boat.  A hull with a lot of "tuck" may also require planking stock of varying thicknesses to accommodate "backing out" and "rounding off" to achieve the sharp frame curves aft. (This process involves carving a convex or concave face on the plank so it will lay fair against the faying surface of a sharply curved frame and fairly follow the outboard curve.) I suggest you read up on planking technique to learn to visualize plank shapes and understand how to spile plank to develop the proper plank shapes necessary. (See:https://thenrg.org/resources/Documents/articles/LiningOffYourHullPlankingTutorialAndFan.pdf) Some planks must be cut from substantially wide stock to accommodate the plank's curved shape. The scale of the model will dictate the plank lengths and widths. If you plan to show the plank seams as is the case with bright-finished hulls, you will need more plank to replicate full-size planking at scale. if you are simply "planking" to attain the shape of the hull and then paint it, you'll have more latitude in "skinning" the hull. For these reasons, the answer to the question of how much planking stock you may need is, "It depends." Not a real helpful answer, I know. 
 
You're talking about a good-sized model of 48". I'm guessing the scale is somewhere around 1:36 (1 inch equals about 3 feet.) If you put a rig on the model, it will stand about seven feet tall. Are you talking about a sailing model or a display model? At a scale that large, your build will probably require planking in the same manner as full-size practice. You will have to "line off" your planking and spile the planks to shape no matter how you cut it. You might as well get out your drawing board and do your spiling on paper to determine your maximum planking widths and scale lengths. This will provide you with a pretty good idea of the amount and size of planking stock you'll require to plank the hull. I'd add 25 to 50% additional to the planked area of the hull for off-cut waste and "goofs." With this sort of build, you will be better off milling your stock on an "as needed" basis than trying to source expensive pre-milled stock from the various vendors. 
 
As a practical matter, particularly for a build the size you contemplate, I'd think you'd be well-advised to invest in the Byrnes Model Tools "trifecta, their  table saw, thickness planer, and disk sander, (http://www.byrnesmodelmachines.com/index5.html), a decent scroll saw at the least, if not additionally a "14 bandsaw or a 10" table saw, and think in terms of buying your wood in fair sized billets and milling it yourself. (See: https://thenrg.org/resources/Documents/articles/MillingScaleLumber.pdf) These tools aren't inexpensive but they hold their value pretty well and can always be sold if you lose interest in the hobby and the savings you will realize milling your own stock will substantially defray their purchase cost. There are those, and more power to them, who will say that the great Navy Board Models in museums were built with hand tools (which isn't entirely true) and all you need is a coping saw and an x-acto knife and you're good to go. It is true some remarkable models have been built with remarkably primitive tools, but the reality is that the level of accuracy modelers aspire to today, and the time it takes to scratch-build a model, benefit greatly from a limited number of specialized power tools which can eliminate a lot of the tedium and drudgery which otherwise can go with the territory. (See: https://thenrg.org/articles/power-tools)
 
Building an "as built" large scale model from scratch can be a daunting task, but, like any project, easy enough if it's broken into discrete steps and care is taken to do the best work possible on each step. It should be said, though, that unlike running shoes, advising a beginning modeler to "Just do it!" is more often a recipe for disappointment. A large scale J Boat can be a beautiful thing. They have remarkably graceful hulls. (Their tall rigs will often chase everybody out of the room when they're finished, though. )  I'd encourage you to begin and build upon what you've learned from your first model, but do it right and avoid the pitfalls that can take all the fun out of the enterprise in short order if you don't plan each process carefully in advance and...
 

Hey, welcome to the forum! Before anybody else does, let me suggest you go to the "new members" section and "introduce yourself," if you haven't already. 
 
I had some time on my hands and figured I'd respond to your question by sharing some thoughts on making the transition from model kit assembly to model building from scratch. Each approach has it's advantages and amazing work is done by many in both instances. it seems to be a natural progression, however, that folks begin with kits, then start supplementing their kit builds with aftermarket parts, then begin "kit bashing," and finally make the quantum leap to scratch building or what is known in the trade as "The Dark Side." The biggest difference between kit building and scratch building, as you've now discovered, whether you realize it or not, is that when scratch-building, the modeler must 'front load" his work with all the plans required, including translating plans for full-sized construction to plans for scale model construction, compiling materials lists, as you've encountered here, and so on. I'd guess the scratch builder puts as much time into historical research, drafting, tool acquisition, and shop management, as goes into the actual building process itself. If one doesn't have a taste for these tasks, they will probably enjoy greater satisfaction staying with with kit building.
 
Since you mention planking with boxwood, I presume you are contemplating finishing the hull bright and showing all the plank seams. First off, you may want to reconsider using boxwood for planking after you price the stuff. There is a lot of waste involved in planking, although the offcuts will be useful for other purposes of the build. Boxwood can be stiff and difficult to bend, as well. Clear, fine grained Alaskan Yellow Cedar comes close in appearance and is easier to work with and considerably less expensive. (See: https://thenrg.org/resources/Documents/articles/AnOverviewOfWoodProperties.pdf)
 
The method of planking is the first consideration. Do you plan to edge-set a lot of your planks as in the method described by master-modeler Chuck Passaro of this forum (and owner of Syren Shipmodel Company) or more traditional spiled plank? See: https://modelshipworld.com/forum/98-planking-downloads-and-tutorials-and-videos/) Chuck's method is much more economical in terms of wood requirements, but may not be suitable for all planks in a wineglass-sectioned hull like a J Boat.  A hull with a lot of "tuck" may also require planking stock of varying thicknesses to accommodate "backing out" and "rounding off" to achieve the sharp frame curves aft. (This process involves carving a convex or concave face on the plank so it will lay fair against the faying surface of a sharply curved frame and fairly follow the outboard curve.) I suggest you read up on planking technique to learn to visualize plank shapes and understand how to spile plank to develop the proper plank shapes necessary. (See:https://thenrg.org/resources/Documents/articles/LiningOffYourHullPlankingTutorialAndFan.pdf) Some planks must be cut from substantially wide stock to accommodate the plank's curved shape. The scale of the model will dictate the plank lengths and widths. If you plan to show the plank seams as is the case with bright-finished hulls, you will need more plank to replicate full-size planking at scale. if you are simply "planking" to attain the shape of the hull and then paint it, you'll have more latitude in "skinning" the hull. For these reasons, the answer to the question of how much planking stock you may need is, "It depends." Not a real helpful answer, I know. 
 
You're talking about a good-sized model of 48". I'm guessing the scale is somewhere around 1:36 (1 inch equals about 3 feet.) If you put a rig on the model, it will stand about seven feet tall. Are you talking about a sailing model or a display model? At a scale that large, your build will probably require planking in the same manner as full-size practice. You will have to "line off" your planking and spile the planks to shape no matter how you cut it. You might as well get out your drawing board and do your spiling on paper to determine your maximum planking widths and scale lengths. This will provide you with a pretty good idea of the amount and size of planking stock you'll require to plank the hull. I'd add 25 to 50% additional to the planked area of the hull for off-cut waste and "goofs." With this sort of build, you will be better off milling your stock on an "as needed" basis than trying to source expensive pre-milled stock from the various vendors. 
 
As a practical matter, particularly for a build the size you contemplate, I'd think you'd be well-advised to invest in the Byrnes Model Tools "trifecta, their  table saw, thickness planer, and disk sander, (http://www.byrnesmodelmachines.com/index5.html), a decent scroll saw at the least, if not additionally a "14 bandsaw or a 10" table saw, and think in terms of buying your wood in fair sized billets and milling it yourself. (See: https://thenrg.org/resources/Documents/articles/MillingScaleLumber.pdf) These tools aren't inexpensive but they hold their value pretty well and can always be sold if you lose interest in the hobby and the savings you will realize milling your own stock will substantially defray their purchase cost. There are those, and more power to them, who will say that the great Navy Board Models in museums were built with hand tools (which isn't entirely true) and all you need is a coping saw and an x-acto knife and you're good to go. It is true some remarkable models have been built with remarkably primitive tools, but the reality is that the level of accuracy modelers aspire to today, and the time it takes to scratch-build a model, benefit greatly from a limited number of specialized power tools which can eliminate a lot of the tedium and drudgery which otherwise can go with the territory. (See: https://thenrg.org/articles/power-tools)
 
Building an "as built" large scale model from scratch can be a daunting task, but, like any project, easy enough if it's broken into discrete steps and care is taken to do the best work possible on each step. It should be said, though, that unlike running shoes, advising a beginning modeler to "Just do it!" is more often a recipe for disappointment. A large scale J Boat can be a beautiful thing. They have remarkably graceful hulls. (Their tall rigs will often chase everybody out of the room when they're finished, though. )  I'd encourage you to begin and build upon what you've learned from your first model, but do it right and avoid the pitfalls that can take all the fun out of the enterprise in short order if you don't plan each process carefully in advance and...
 

If you are looking for a recommendation for a finish, I guess the first question is, "What do you want to accomplish by spraying flat varnish on your model?" Any finish recommendation will depend in the first instance upon what kind of wood it is and how you want it to look. Since you are going to be portraying bare wood decks and spars, leaving the wood without any coating of varnish would make the most sense. 
 
"Satin" varnishes, which is to say simply gloss varnish with fine powder mixed in to kill the gloss, add thickness to the finish coating without any corresponding benefit. The flattening compound not only dulls the gloss, but it dulls the "depth" of the finish below it. "Satin" finishes are simply a product which poorly mimics a traditional hand-rubbed finish. 
 
If you want to change the color of the bare wood, a stain is in order. 
 
If you want to accent the figuring of the wood (which most would not, since the figuring is likely hugely over-scale) two-pound cut white (clear) shellac will do that neatly and without any gloss whatsoever.
 
From my personal perspective, I don't understand why folks want to spray "satin finishes" on their models, but I know that they do. Rubbing on something as simple as a 50/50 mixture of boiled linseed oil and turpentine with result in a very nice satin finish with no discernable build-up of the coating. When it comes to painting and varnishing a scale model, "less is more."
 
Any finish that is too glossy can be rubbed down with rottenstone and/or pumice or even with a Scotch-Brite pad.) This results in a level of gloss (or "matte," depending which direction you are coming from,) which the modeler can control themselves, depending upon how much rubbing they do, There is no finer finish than a hand-rubbed one. The smoothness of a rubbed finish has to be experienced to be believed. The flatness or "satin" appearance is a function of the polishing of the primary reflective surface of the piece, not from finely ground dirt mixed in with all the coats of varnish applied. 
 
I know some swear by water-based coatings, but it's my opinion that although some are quite good, Limiting the materials list to the fewest basic natural materials possible yields a model of the highest archival quality possible.

If you are looking for a recommendation for a finish, I guess the first question is, "What do you want to accomplish by spraying flat varnish on your model?" Any finish recommendation will depend in the first instance upon what kind of wood it is and how you want it to look. Since you are going to be portraying bare wood decks and spars, leaving the wood without any coating of varnish would make the most sense. 
 
"Satin" varnishes, which is to say simply gloss varnish with fine powder mixed in to kill the gloss, add thickness to the finish coating without any corresponding benefit. The flattening compound not only dulls the gloss, but it dulls the "depth" of the finish below it. "Satin" finishes are simply a product which poorly mimics a traditional hand-rubbed finish. 
 
If you want to change the color of the bare wood, a stain is in order. 
 
If you want to accent the figuring of the wood (which most would not, since the figuring is likely hugely over-scale) two-pound cut white (clear) shellac will do that neatly and without any gloss whatsoever.
 
From my personal perspective, I don't understand why folks want to spray "satin finishes" on their models, but I know that they do. Rubbing on something as simple as a 50/50 mixture of boiled linseed oil and turpentine with result in a very nice satin finish with no discernable build-up of the coating. When it comes to painting and varnishing a scale model, "less is more."
 
Any finish that is too glossy can be rubbed down with rottenstone and/or pumice or even with a Scotch-Brite pad.) This results in a level of gloss (or "matte," depending which direction you are coming from,) which the modeler can control themselves, depending upon how much rubbing they do, There is no finer finish than a hand-rubbed one. The smoothness of a rubbed finish has to be experienced to be believed. The flatness or "satin" appearance is a function of the polishing of the primary reflective surface of the piece, not from finely ground dirt mixed in with all the coats of varnish applied. 
 
I know some swear by water-based coatings, but it's my opinion that although some are quite good, Limiting the materials list to the fewest basic natural materials possible yields a model of the highest archival quality possible.

If you are looking for a recommendation for a finish, I guess the first question is, "What do you want to accomplish by spraying flat varnish on your model?" Any finish recommendation will depend in the first instance upon what kind of wood it is and how you want it to look. Since you are going to be portraying bare wood decks and spars, leaving the wood without any coating of varnish would make the most sense. 
 
"Satin" varnishes, which is to say simply gloss varnish with fine powder mixed in to kill the gloss, add thickness to the finish coating without any corresponding benefit. The flattening compound not only dulls the gloss, but it dulls the "depth" of the finish below it. "Satin" finishes are simply a product which poorly mimics a traditional hand-rubbed finish. 
 
If you want to change the color of the bare wood, a stain is in order. 
 
If you want to accent the figuring of the wood (which most would not, since the figuring is likely hugely over-scale) two-pound cut white (clear) shellac will do that neatly and without any gloss whatsoever.
 
From my personal perspective, I don't understand why folks want to spray "satin finishes" on their models, but I know that they do. Rubbing on something as simple as a 50/50 mixture of boiled linseed oil and turpentine with result in a very nice satin finish with no discernable build-up of the coating. When it comes to painting and varnishing a scale model, "less is more."
 
Any finish that is too glossy can be rubbed down with rottenstone and/or pumice or even with a Scotch-Brite pad.) This results in a level of gloss (or "matte," depending which direction you are coming from,) which the modeler can control themselves, depending upon how much rubbing they do, There is no finer finish than a hand-rubbed one. The smoothness of a rubbed finish has to be experienced to be believed. The flatness or "satin" appearance is a function of the polishing of the primary reflective surface of the piece, not from finely ground dirt mixed in with all the coats of varnish applied. 
 
I know some swear by water-based coatings, but it's my opinion that although some are quite good, Limiting the materials list to the fewest basic natural materials possible yields a model of the highest archival quality possible.

If you are looking for a recommendation for a finish, I guess the first question is, "What do you want to accomplish by spraying flat varnish on your model?" Any finish recommendation will depend in the first instance upon what kind of wood it is and how you want it to look. Since you are going to be portraying bare wood decks and spars, leaving the wood without any coating of varnish would make the most sense. 
 
"Satin" varnishes, which is to say simply gloss varnish with fine powder mixed in to kill the gloss, add thickness to the finish coating without any corresponding benefit. The flattening compound not only dulls the gloss, but it dulls the "depth" of the finish below it. "Satin" finishes are simply a product which poorly mimics a traditional hand-rubbed finish. 
 
If you want to change the color of the bare wood, a stain is in order. 
 
If you want to accent the figuring of the wood (which most would not, since the figuring is likely hugely over-scale) two-pound cut white (clear) shellac will do that neatly and without any gloss whatsoever.
 
From my personal perspective, I don't understand why folks want to spray "satin finishes" on their models, but I know that they do. Rubbing on something as simple as a 50/50 mixture of boiled linseed oil and turpentine with result in a very nice satin finish with no discernable build-up of the coating. When it comes to painting and varnishing a scale model, "less is more."
 
Any finish that is too glossy can be rubbed down with rottenstone and/or pumice or even with a Scotch-Brite pad.) This results in a level of gloss (or "matte," depending which direction you are coming from,) which the modeler can control themselves, depending upon how much rubbing they do, There is no finer finish than a hand-rubbed one. The smoothness of a rubbed finish has to be experienced to be believed. The flatness or "satin" appearance is a function of the polishing of the primary reflective surface of the piece, not from finely ground dirt mixed in with all the coats of varnish applied. 
 
I know some swear by water-based coatings, but it's my opinion that although some are quite good, Limiting the materials list to the fewest basic natural materials possible yields a model of the highest archival quality possible.

If you are looking for a recommendation for a finish, I guess the first question is, "What do you want to accomplish by spraying flat varnish on your model?" Any finish recommendation will depend in the first instance upon what kind of wood it is and how you want it to look. Since you are going to be portraying bare wood decks and spars, leaving the wood without any coating of varnish would make the most sense. 
 
"Satin" varnishes, which is to say simply gloss varnish with fine powder mixed in to kill the gloss, add thickness to the finish coating without any corresponding benefit. The flattening compound not only dulls the gloss, but it dulls the "depth" of the finish below it. "Satin" finishes are simply a product which poorly mimics a traditional hand-rubbed finish. 
 
If you want to change the color of the bare wood, a stain is in order. 
 
If you want to accent the figuring of the wood (which most would not, since the figuring is likely hugely over-scale) two-pound cut white (clear) shellac will do that neatly and without any gloss whatsoever.
 
From my personal perspective, I don't understand why folks want to spray "satin finishes" on their models, but I know that they do. Rubbing on something as simple as a 50/50 mixture of boiled linseed oil and turpentine with result in a very nice satin finish with no discernable build-up of the coating. When it comes to painting and varnishing a scale model, "less is more."
 
Any finish that is too glossy can be rubbed down with rottenstone and/or pumice or even with a Scotch-Brite pad.) This results in a level of gloss (or "matte," depending which direction you are coming from,) which the modeler can control themselves, depending upon how much rubbing they do, There is no finer finish than a hand-rubbed one. The smoothness of a rubbed finish has to be experienced to be believed. The flatness or "satin" appearance is a function of the polishing of the primary reflective surface of the piece, not from finely ground dirt mixed in with all the coats of varnish applied. 
 
I know some swear by water-based coatings, but it's my opinion that although some are quite good, Limiting the materials list to the fewest basic natural materials possible yields a model of the highest archival quality possible.

If you are looking for a recommendation for a finish, I guess the first question is, "What do you want to accomplish by spraying flat varnish on your model?" Any finish recommendation will depend in the first instance upon what kind of wood it is and how you want it to look. Since you are going to be portraying bare wood decks and spars, leaving the wood without any coating of varnish would make the most sense. 
 
"Satin" varnishes, which is to say simply gloss varnish with fine powder mixed in to kill the gloss, add thickness to the finish coating without any corresponding benefit. The flattening compound not only dulls the gloss, but it dulls the "depth" of the finish below it. "Satin" finishes are simply a product which poorly mimics a traditional hand-rubbed finish. 
 
If you want to change the color of the bare wood, a stain is in order. 
 
If you want to accent the figuring of the wood (which most would not, since the figuring is likely hugely over-scale) two-pound cut white (clear) shellac will do that neatly and without any gloss whatsoever.
 
From my personal perspective, I don't understand why folks want to spray "satin finishes" on their models, but I know that they do. Rubbing on something as simple as a 50/50 mixture of boiled linseed oil and turpentine with result in a very nice satin finish with no discernable build-up of the coating. When it comes to painting and varnishing a scale model, "less is more."
 
Any finish that is too glossy can be rubbed down with rottenstone and/or pumice or even with a Scotch-Brite pad.) This results in a level of gloss (or "matte," depending which direction you are coming from,) which the modeler can control themselves, depending upon how much rubbing they do, There is no finer finish than a hand-rubbed one. The smoothness of a rubbed finish has to be experienced to be believed. The flatness or "satin" appearance is a function of the polishing of the primary reflective surface of the piece, not from finely ground dirt mixed in with all the coats of varnish applied. 
 
I know some swear by water-based coatings, but it's my opinion that although some are quite good, Limiting the materials list to the fewest basic natural materials possible yields a model of the highest archival quality possible.

Just some opinionated general observations to add to the good advice above, offered for what it's worth. Others' mileage may vary:
 
Since the internet and especially the Covid pandemic, we've begun living in the age of mail order. That has opened up much wider and more easily accessible sourcing options than we ever had before. However, the catch, particularly for those living outside of major metropolitan centers where a few "brick and mortal" shops struggle to survive, is that the costs of shipping and handling are added to online purchases and these added costs have risen exponentially in recent times. That fact has to be factored into the equation. "Amazon Prime" and "free shipping and handling" are significant considerations in making online purchases these days. 
 
You can rely on any of this forum's sponsors for the best of whatever they sell. They've all been thoroughly vetted and their customer service is top notch. You won't go wrong looking to them for specialized ship modeling products and their prices are very reasonable. If I needed an airbrush, I wouldn't consider looking any further than USA Airbrush Supply or for after-market blocks any further than Syren Ship Models. This is a no-brainer for me.
 
If the online outfit advertises itself as a "hobby" anything, you are often better off going directly to an online supplier of professional supplies of the same type and see if you can do better. A "hobby shop" can get away selling lower quality tools and supplies at a higher price to a broader spectrum of customers, while a professional supply house will soon die on the vine if the professional customers aren't satisfied with product quality and service. Approach hobby outfits like Model Expo and Micro-Mark with caution. These two online retailers have an excellent selection of products for the modeler, but in many instances they are priced significantly higher than other sources catering to professional clients in allied fields. (It's a good idea to get on their mailing lists, though, because they often offer great discounts on clearance items.) This is particularly true with respect to tools. For example, Micro-Mark sells a pair of crudely scaled six-inch proportional dividers made by Tacro for $140.00, but you can find models of the finest rack-and-pinion adjustable, Verniier decimally-scaled ten-inch proportional dividers ever made, used and in good shape, for half that price or a higher-quality set of seven-inch dividers than the Tacro six-inchers for as little as $25 on eBay. The same goes for surgical and dental instruments. The "hobby shops" sell poor-quality tweezers, forceps, scissors, hemostats, scalpels and blades, and so on at higher prices than the mid-range quality stuff the medical and dental supply houses are offering on eBay or Amazon.
 
There is a wealth of model-building tools and materials that can be found in higher quality and lower prices from professional jewelers' supply houses. This is where to look for pliers, cutting tools, files, tweezers, rotary tools and burrs, soldering supplies, and such. A couple of the most popular are Rio Grande (https://www.riogrande.com/) and Otto Frei. (https://www.ottofrei.com/ ) Cheaper files can be had from hobby supply houses, but, for example, cheap files are a waste of money. The same goes for pliers and cutters. When buying tools, the cheapest quickly becomes the most expensive when you have to buy another to replace it.  
 
Medical and dental supply houses are also a great source for ship modeling tools, although many of these companies sell "to the trade only" or in large lots to institutional purchasers. eBay is a good place to find used medical instruments useful in ship modeling, but caution has to be exercised because there are a lot of Asian manufacturers unloading poor-quality instruments on eBay. The upside of this is that they are often so inexpensive that taking a chance is worth the gamble. Carnegie Surgical Co. sells a range of professional quality ear polypuses, a type of forceps for working in very confined spaces that I consider to be an invaluable rigging instrument) ranging in price from around $100 to $250. Micro-Mark sells a 12" ear polypus for fifty bucks. eBay, on the other hand, has tons of different versions ranging from ten to twenty-five bucks (and up) that are quite acceptable for modeling use because we aren't going to be using them deep inside a patient's ear canal. The same applies to tweezers. If you're looking for an 8" or 12" pair of tweezers to reach inside the shrouds on your square-rigger, eBay is the place to buy them.
 
As a footnote, there was once a time when you could get lots of used medical and dental instruments from friendly medical professionals. Forty years ago, I worked in a large state institution that had a big dental clinic and I was friends with the chief dentist there who was an avid HO train modeler. He kept me supplied with all sorts of worn-out instruments: probes, dental chisels, drill burrs, forceps, pliers, and the like. (I still have an oddly shaped pair of pliers designed to extract molars which comes in handy now and again.) Sadly, a combination of the trend to disposable instruments which are more cost effective because autoclave sterilizing and sterile repackaging labor is no longer needed and heightened "biohazard" prevention protocols now mandate the controlled disposal of used instruments. Few doctors and dentists consider it appropriate to deviate from the biohazard disposal protocols and save a "goody box" of used instruments for their modeling friends. If you are lucky enough to find one who will still provide you with some, go for it!  
 
Finally a word about paint.  Ship modeling very rarely requires exact color matches. What we do need is quality paint with good archival qualities and a high content of good pigment ground finely that will produce good opacity. Most all the pre-mixed modeling paints marketed as such will meet these requirements... at a very high price. Bottled modeling paints are very convenient if one needs to get an exact color match and for this reason they are the favorites of armor, aircraft, and railroad modelers who need the exact shade of field gray used by the Wehrmacht in early 1943 or the exact shade of boxcar blue Conrail paints its boxcars. Ship modelers don't have the problem of that level of color accuracy and I don't think we have to pay five bucks an ounce and another five bucks in shipping and handling for a bottle of generic black, white, or bottom paint brown (which is the same as "boxcar red.") So I'd urge anybody who doesn't want to go broke collecting a couple of hundred one ounce bottles of modeling paint to display on their shop shelf while the paint dries hard in the bottles to learn to mix, condition and use quality tubed artists' oils or acrylics. Tubed colors have a shelf-life measured in decades, come in as many pre-mixed colors as anybody could possibly want, and, if one learns to mix their own colors, can provide any color in the rainbow out of five or seven tubes. (Black, white, red, blue, yellow, and for convenience maybe a brown, and a green.) There are many YouTube videos on how to use artists' tubed colors in both oil and acrylic for brush and airbrush application in miniature work which are well worth a ship modeler's time to watch. (Many are by the guys who paint fantasy gaming figures and miniature soldiers.) There is also an excellent instructional chapter on mixing your own colors for painting ship models in volume two of Ship Modeler's Shop Notes which can be purchased from the NRG. Tubed colors, as well as varnishes, thinners, and flattening (matte) additives and coatings are available on line from artists' supply houses, or locally from arts and crafts stores much easier than modeling paint is locally available at local hobby shops if you can even find one anymore. Painting and finishing ship models seems to be an aspect of the craft which is often given short shrift yet it is one of the most important factors in the final appearance of a model. There's a lot more to it than just applying paint straight out of the bottle. Once the relatively simple skill of mixing your own paint is mastered, you're free from all the limitations and inconveniences of sourcing pre-mixed modeling paint and can enjoy the benefit of saving lots of money over the course of a modeling career. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Two pins, actually. Drive them at opposing angles so they hold better. Your rigging lines will belay to these cleats and you don't want the tension on the lines pulling them off. Simply gluing them in place won't provide sufficient shear strength to prevent pulling them off. 
 
As for finish, it may well depend upon the period in which your prototype was built. Generally speaking, wooden cleats are left bare because this provides the better friction to hold the belaying hitches in place. They may also be oiled, in which case they'd be very dark brown or black at a scale viewing distance. Sometimes, too, though, they may be painted the same as the surrounding area or white for visibility at night. There aren't a lot of hard and fast rules on cleat colors. This is an area where the modeler gets to exercise some artistic license in the absence of any reliable historical record for a given vessel.

Thanks! I'm saving your post to show to my wife!
 

Just a bit of semantic sparring in good fun. Given the politics of the moment, it would seem neither the US nor England can justify riding a high horse!