Bob Cleek

Copper (and other metal) powder is readily available online and in fine arts stores. Copper Powder, 30 g | Home Science Tools This is real copper that is ground to a very fine dust. It can be applied with a dry brush over a partially-dried (tacky) shellac or varnish coat and, upon final drying of the sizing, can be lightly burnished with a cotton ball and will appear as solid copper. (Brass powder can be used for depicting gold leafed details and polished brass on ship models.) That said, coppered ship bottoms don't ever look shiny, except for a very brief time when the copper is first applied and, on a large ship, the time it would take to copper her bottom would probably have the first sheets oxidized before the last shiny ones were hung. I really don't know where the idea of shiny copper bottoms on ship models came from or why. (There are many pictures online of Cutty Sark's recently restored sheathed bottom and it is "shiny," but she is not "coppered," but rather sheathed in Muntz metal, which is a type of brass invented in 1832 and not found on earlier vessels.)
 
As a practical matter, at 1:64 scale, your hull shouldn't require showing individually lapped sheathing at all. Always consider the "scale viewing distance." Better to omit a detail entirely than to add a detail that is over scale. (Don't ask me how I learned this. ) You'd probably be better off finishing the bottom smooth and painting it with a base coat of "used penny brown" and then using an airbrush to add a bit of verdigris "green" at the waterline and a few patches of "dark green grunge" here and there. Do the math and you'll see how small scale plates are at 1:64, then figure out how many you're going to have to apply to cover the bottom! Look at the pictures of coppered bottoms above. There's no place for shiny copper on a ship's bottom. Even if the plates are shiny from the mill, in the time it would take to hang them, they'd be well on their way to acquiring an oxidized surface. 
 
If you aren't familiar with "scale viewing distance," consider the U.S. Navy's"mil spec" contract standard for Navy ship models: "Generally, all items on the prototype twelve inches or larger for 1:96 scale (six inches or larger for 1:48 scale) will be reproduced." [Nautical Research Guild - Article - Specifications for Construction of Exhibition Models of U.S. Naval Vessels (thenrg.org)] Your 1:64 scale is roughly in the middle between 1:96 and 1:48, so, on your model, a good rule of thumb would be that any detail nine inches or larger should be reproduced and any detail smaller than nine inches may be omitted. Obviously, at 1:64 scale, the edge of a 1/16" thick copper plate isn't going to be possible to reproduce, or to see if you could reproduce it.
 
Myself, I wouldn't go crazy trying to lay a "checkerboard" patchwork of differently colored copper plates on a bottom. I suppose there are times when a vessel is hauled and a few random sheets were replaced during repairs and they'd "stand out" color-wise, but I've seen my share of coppered bottoms freshly hauled out in the boatyards and, truth be told, they all have a uniform color appearance after they've been in the water a while. It takes a bit of time for them to develop that "copper green" look after the air gets to the copper.
 
As Jaager noted, shellac is reversible with alcohol, but that doesn't mean it's not a messy job to be avoided. As with all finishing on a model, it is essential to do experimental examples of any coating before going forward on the model itself unless you are absolutely familiar with the technique, compatibility of materials, and environmental conditions. This is the best way to avoid ever having to refinish a hull! Take pieces of scrap planking stock (glue them up side by side even) and try various approaches until you get one that satisfies you. Your finished hull isn't the place to experiment.
 
An airbrush is one tool investment that will kick your modeling abilities up a bunch of notches. It is an investment and there is a learning curve, but if you search for airbrush information on this forum, Kurt can give you all the information you'd ever need about purchasing an airbrushing set up and it doesn't have to put you in the poor house. Learning to use one really boils down to reading the manual and watching YouTube videos. You can use water sprayed on a piece of paper or cardboard to practice getting the hang of controlling the spray, then, when you feel confident, you can graduate to some watercolor and eventually to paint. The airbrush is a very versatile instrument, but for modeling purposes, we generally only avail ourselves of the basics. Think of it as a refillable spray can that will pay for itself in what you'd spend on "rattle cans" with clogged nozzles and wasted paint. The other advantage of an airbrush is that it is a lot easier to obtain a perfect finish than using a brush because learning to use a brush well is apparently more difficult for most. A fine brushed finish will require multiple thin coats, each applied to perfection and very lightly sanded between coats as needed. You have to wait for each coat to dry. An air brush will let you build up fast-drying thin coats in far less time.
 
 

Copper (and other metal) powder is readily available online and in fine arts stores. Copper Powder, 30 g | Home Science Tools This is real copper that is ground to a very fine dust. It can be applied with a dry brush over a partially-dried (tacky) shellac or varnish coat and, upon final drying of the sizing, can be lightly burnished with a cotton ball and will appear as solid copper. (Brass powder can be used for depicting gold leafed details and polished brass on ship models.) That said, coppered ship bottoms don't ever look shiny, except for a very brief time when the copper is first applied and, on a large ship, the time it would take to copper her bottom would probably have the first sheets oxidized before the last shiny ones were hung. I really don't know where the idea of shiny copper bottoms on ship models came from or why. (There are many pictures online of Cutty Sark's recently restored sheathed bottom and it is "shiny," but she is not "coppered," but rather sheathed in Muntz metal, which is a type of brass invented in 1832 and not found on earlier vessels.)
 
As a practical matter, at 1:64 scale, your hull shouldn't require showing individually lapped sheathing at all. Always consider the "scale viewing distance." Better to omit a detail entirely than to add a detail that is over scale. (Don't ask me how I learned this. ) You'd probably be better off finishing the bottom smooth and painting it with a base coat of "used penny brown" and then using an airbrush to add a bit of verdigris "green" at the waterline and a few patches of "dark green grunge" here and there. Do the math and you'll see how small scale plates are at 1:64, then figure out how many you're going to have to apply to cover the bottom! Look at the pictures of coppered bottoms above. There's no place for shiny copper on a ship's bottom. Even if the plates are shiny from the mill, in the time it would take to hang them, they'd be well on their way to acquiring an oxidized surface. 
 
If you aren't familiar with "scale viewing distance," consider the U.S. Navy's"mil spec" contract standard for Navy ship models: "Generally, all items on the prototype twelve inches or larger for 1:96 scale (six inches or larger for 1:48 scale) will be reproduced." [Nautical Research Guild - Article - Specifications for Construction of Exhibition Models of U.S. Naval Vessels (thenrg.org)] Your 1:64 scale is roughly in the middle between 1:96 and 1:48, so, on your model, a good rule of thumb would be that any detail nine inches or larger should be reproduced and any detail smaller than nine inches may be omitted. Obviously, at 1:64 scale, the edge of a 1/16" thick copper plate isn't going to be possible to reproduce, or to see if you could reproduce it.
 
Myself, I wouldn't go crazy trying to lay a "checkerboard" patchwork of differently colored copper plates on a bottom. I suppose there are times when a vessel is hauled and a few random sheets were replaced during repairs and they'd "stand out" color-wise, but I've seen my share of coppered bottoms freshly hauled out in the boatyards and, truth be told, they all have a uniform color appearance after they've been in the water a while. It takes a bit of time for them to develop that "copper green" look after the air gets to the copper.
 
As Jaager noted, shellac is reversible with alcohol, but that doesn't mean it's not a messy job to be avoided. As with all finishing on a model, it is essential to do experimental examples of any coating before going forward on the model itself unless you are absolutely familiar with the technique, compatibility of materials, and environmental conditions. This is the best way to avoid ever having to refinish a hull! Take pieces of scrap planking stock (glue them up side by side even) and try various approaches until you get one that satisfies you. Your finished hull isn't the place to experiment.
 
An airbrush is one tool investment that will kick your modeling abilities up a bunch of notches. It is an investment and there is a learning curve, but if you search for airbrush information on this forum, Kurt can give you all the information you'd ever need about purchasing an airbrushing set up and it doesn't have to put you in the poor house. Learning to use one really boils down to reading the manual and watching YouTube videos. You can use water sprayed on a piece of paper or cardboard to practice getting the hang of controlling the spray, then, when you feel confident, you can graduate to some watercolor and eventually to paint. The airbrush is a very versatile instrument, but for modeling purposes, we generally only avail ourselves of the basics. Think of it as a refillable spray can that will pay for itself in what you'd spend on "rattle cans" with clogged nozzles and wasted paint. The other advantage of an airbrush is that it is a lot easier to obtain a perfect finish than using a brush because learning to use a brush well is apparently more difficult for most. A fine brushed finish will require multiple thin coats, each applied to perfection and very lightly sanded between coats as needed. You have to wait for each coat to dry. An air brush will let you build up fast-drying thin coats in far less time.
 
 

That's a very interesting discussion, I never coppered a hull, but plan to do so, when grown up, wooden ship model wise. As I have a sweet spot for weathered subjects, that might turn out with a lot of patina applied.
Some years ago, I built a plastic model of the Submarine Nautilus, mainly because I wanted to install lighting for te first time and also because I wanted to achieve a hopefully realistic weathering/ patina job on my airbrushed non ferrous surfaces, namely bronze for the hull and copper for the rudder.
The areas were post shaded for a bit more volume effect with different shades of the base color and the patina was applied with pigments mostly from the MIG-range. I used different blue and green hues, dabbed them in with a flat brush, let them settle around rivets and other details and then streaking everything in the direction of the waterflow. I used a more bluish finish for the copper, where the bronze was finished green.

After I finished the model, I bought some AK weathering pencils and I think, they are very good to apply patina too. you can use them dry, like normal pencils, but you also can moisten the tip, apply the color and use a brush or cotton swab afterwards to achieve the desired effect of blending more easily.
 
Here are some pics from Nautilus (Please mind, it's 1/144 scale):
 

 

 

 

 
Cheers Rob
 
 
 
 

For a future project, I have been thinking simulating copper sheathing with painted, very thin paper.   I believe that this offers several advantages, namely:
 
It would avoid the need to use either pressure sensitive tape or contact cement.  I am concerned that pressure sensitive tape will “let go” later in the model’s life and contact cement can be incompatible with modeling material. The old fashioned contact stuff that actually works gives off explosive fumes.
 
Paper can be glued on with ordinary PVA glue.
 
Applying paper does not leave a trail of fingerprints and surplus glue that are difficult to remove.  Surplus PVA can be easily cleaned up with alcohol.
 
Very sophisticated color patterns, shading, etc. not possible with real copper can be applied with paint.
 
Roger
 
 
 
 

It all depends on the scale. At eighth inch scale, copper plate thickness isn't going to be visible. At a quarter inch to the foot scale, perhaps plate thickness would be barely visible. The modeler should calculate the scale viewing distance and model accordingly. 
 
If a realistic scale effect requires actual lapped plates, cutting plates from paper of suitably scaled thickness and gluing these to the hull (shellac is a good adhesive for this purpose) will provide the desired effect. If individual lapped plates are not required, then the modeler can proceed directly to painting the hull. Realistic coppered bottom weathering effects are best achieved with an airbrush using standard artistic techniques. Refer to online photographs to observe the actual appearance to be replicated.
 
Ship model kit manufacturers frequently include "real copper hull plating" for what can only be a sales gimmick suggesting their kit is "high quality." Unsophisticated purchasers expect this, apparently in the mistaken belief that a high quality model should be constructed of the same materials as the prototype vessel. Individual copper sheet or foil plates would only be useful in very large scale models and the use of real metal sheet or foil is not preferable due to the limitations of adhesives. Most all of the kit-supplied coppering material is over-scale as to thickness, if not as well as to surface dimension. Fasteners will not be visible at model scale viewing distances. (In fact, the mark of a proper coppering job was that the nails were as flush with the surface as possible (accomplished by a proper "coppering hammer" with its dimpled head.) A smooth bottom is a fast bottom. A bottom studded with nail heads the scale size of a man's fist is not.
 
 
 

 

 

 
Photos before and after re-coppering. Note that copper in saltwater environment will quickly turn verdigris green when exposed to air as seen here with USS Constitution in dock as it's pumped out. The second picture shows her newly coppered bottom right before launch. Here the new copper, exposed to the elements, but not saltwater while in the dock, shows the classic "used penny brown" color of naturally oxidized copper. The modeler will have to decide in which condition they wish to depict the vessel's bottom: freshly coppered (which isn't to say "new penny copper" colored,) as a just-hauled fouled bottom, or as a hauled and cleaned bottom exposed to the air (verdigris green, which many prefer.)
 
Note that Constitution has about a five-foot wide band of reddish bottom paint applied over her coppered bottom just above her light load waterline. Modernly, most coppered bottoms have antifouling paint applied over the copper in this fashion. While the copper provides a mechanical barrier to marine boring organisms, it does not prevent fouling with seaweed. The bottom paint prevents this growth in the "sunlight zone" below the surface of the water. Further antifouling applied below where there is sufficient sunlight to sustain seaweed growth is omitted as redundant. Note that this is a period issue. Bottom paint came into common usage around 1850 and copper plating correspondingly decreased thereafter.
 
 

It all depends on the scale. At eighth inch scale, copper plate thickness isn't going to be visible. At a quarter inch to the foot scale, perhaps plate thickness would be barely visible. The modeler should calculate the scale viewing distance and model accordingly. 
 
If a realistic scale effect requires actual lapped plates, cutting plates from paper of suitably scaled thickness and gluing these to the hull (shellac is a good adhesive for this purpose) will provide the desired effect. If individual lapped plates are not required, then the modeler can proceed directly to painting the hull. Realistic coppered bottom weathering effects are best achieved with an airbrush using standard artistic techniques. Refer to online photographs to observe the actual appearance to be replicated.
 
Ship model kit manufacturers frequently include "real copper hull plating" for what can only be a sales gimmick suggesting their kit is "high quality." Unsophisticated purchasers expect this, apparently in the mistaken belief that a high quality model should be constructed of the same materials as the prototype vessel. Individual copper sheet or foil plates would only be useful in very large scale models and the use of real metal sheet or foil is not preferable due to the limitations of adhesives. Most all of the kit-supplied coppering material is over-scale as to thickness, if not as well as to surface dimension. Fasteners will not be visible at model scale viewing distances. (In fact, the mark of a proper coppering job was that the nails were as flush with the surface as possible (accomplished by a proper "coppering hammer" with its dimpled head.) A smooth bottom is a fast bottom. A bottom studded with nail heads the scale size of a man's fist is not.
 
 
 

 

 

 
Photos before and after re-coppering. Note that copper in saltwater environment will quickly turn verdigris green when exposed to air as seen here with USS Constitution in dock as it's pumped out. The second picture shows her newly coppered bottom right before launch. Here the new copper, exposed to the elements, but not saltwater while in the dock, shows the classic "used penny brown" color of naturally oxidized copper. The modeler will have to decide in which condition they wish to depict the vessel's bottom: freshly coppered (which isn't to say "new penny copper" colored,) as a just-hauled fouled bottom, or as a hauled and cleaned bottom exposed to the air (verdigris green, which many prefer.)
 
Note that Constitution has about a five-foot wide band of reddish bottom paint applied over her coppered bottom just above her light load waterline. Modernly, most coppered bottoms have antifouling paint applied over the copper in this fashion. While the copper provides a mechanical barrier to marine boring organisms, it does not prevent fouling with seaweed. The bottom paint prevents this growth in the "sunlight zone" below the surface of the water. Further antifouling applied below where there is sufficient sunlight to sustain seaweed growth is omitted as redundant. Note that this is a period issue. Bottom paint came into common usage around 1850 and copper plating correspondingly decreased thereafter.
 
 

It all depends on the scale. At eighth inch scale, copper plate thickness isn't going to be visible. At a quarter inch to the foot scale, perhaps plate thickness would be barely visible. The modeler should calculate the scale viewing distance and model accordingly. 
 
If a realistic scale effect requires actual lapped plates, cutting plates from paper of suitably scaled thickness and gluing these to the hull (shellac is a good adhesive for this purpose) will provide the desired effect. If individual lapped plates are not required, then the modeler can proceed directly to painting the hull. Realistic coppered bottom weathering effects are best achieved with an airbrush using standard artistic techniques. Refer to online photographs to observe the actual appearance to be replicated.
 
Ship model kit manufacturers frequently include "real copper hull plating" for what can only be a sales gimmick suggesting their kit is "high quality." Unsophisticated purchasers expect this, apparently in the mistaken belief that a high quality model should be constructed of the same materials as the prototype vessel. Individual copper sheet or foil plates would only be useful in very large scale models and the use of real metal sheet or foil is not preferable due to the limitations of adhesives. Most all of the kit-supplied coppering material is over-scale as to thickness, if not as well as to surface dimension. Fasteners will not be visible at model scale viewing distances. (In fact, the mark of a proper coppering job was that the nails were as flush with the surface as possible (accomplished by a proper "coppering hammer" with its dimpled head.) A smooth bottom is a fast bottom. A bottom studded with nail heads the scale size of a man's fist is not.
 
 
 

 

 

 
Photos before and after re-coppering. Note that copper in saltwater environment will quickly turn verdigris green when exposed to air as seen here with USS Constitution in dock as it's pumped out. The second picture shows her newly coppered bottom right before launch. Here the new copper, exposed to the elements, but not saltwater while in the dock, shows the classic "used penny brown" color of naturally oxidized copper. The modeler will have to decide in which condition they wish to depict the vessel's bottom: freshly coppered (which isn't to say "new penny copper" colored,) as a just-hauled fouled bottom, or as a hauled and cleaned bottom exposed to the air (verdigris green, which many prefer.)
 
Note that Constitution has about a five-foot wide band of reddish bottom paint applied over her coppered bottom just above her light load waterline. Modernly, most coppered bottoms have antifouling paint applied over the copper in this fashion. While the copper provides a mechanical barrier to marine boring organisms, it does not prevent fouling with seaweed. The bottom paint prevents this growth in the "sunlight zone" below the surface of the water. Further antifouling applied below where there is sufficient sunlight to sustain seaweed growth is omitted as redundant. Note that this is a period issue. Bottom paint came into common usage around 1850 and copper plating correspondingly decreased thereafter.
 
 

It all depends on the scale. At eighth inch scale, copper plate thickness isn't going to be visible. At a quarter inch to the foot scale, perhaps plate thickness would be barely visible. The modeler should calculate the scale viewing distance and model accordingly. 
 
If a realistic scale effect requires actual lapped plates, cutting plates from paper of suitably scaled thickness and gluing these to the hull (shellac is a good adhesive for this purpose) will provide the desired effect. If individual lapped plates are not required, then the modeler can proceed directly to painting the hull. Realistic coppered bottom weathering effects are best achieved with an airbrush using standard artistic techniques. Refer to online photographs to observe the actual appearance to be replicated.
 
Ship model kit manufacturers frequently include "real copper hull plating" for what can only be a sales gimmick suggesting their kit is "high quality." Unsophisticated purchasers expect this, apparently in the mistaken belief that a high quality model should be constructed of the same materials as the prototype vessel. Individual copper sheet or foil plates would only be useful in very large scale models and the use of real metal sheet or foil is not preferable due to the limitations of adhesives. Most all of the kit-supplied coppering material is over-scale as to thickness, if not as well as to surface dimension. Fasteners will not be visible at model scale viewing distances. (In fact, the mark of a proper coppering job was that the nails were as flush with the surface as possible (accomplished by a proper "coppering hammer" with its dimpled head.) A smooth bottom is a fast bottom. A bottom studded with nail heads the scale size of a man's fist is not.
 
 
 

 

 

 
Photos before and after re-coppering. Note that copper in saltwater environment will quickly turn verdigris green when exposed to air as seen here with USS Constitution in dock as it's pumped out. The second picture shows her newly coppered bottom right before launch. Here the new copper, exposed to the elements, but not saltwater while in the dock, shows the classic "used penny brown" color of naturally oxidized copper. The modeler will have to decide in which condition they wish to depict the vessel's bottom: freshly coppered (which isn't to say "new penny copper" colored,) as a just-hauled fouled bottom, or as a hauled and cleaned bottom exposed to the air (verdigris green, which many prefer.)
 
Note that Constitution has about a five-foot wide band of reddish bottom paint applied over her coppered bottom just above her light load waterline. Modernly, most coppered bottoms have antifouling paint applied over the copper in this fashion. While the copper provides a mechanical barrier to marine boring organisms, it does not prevent fouling with seaweed. The bottom paint prevents this growth in the "sunlight zone" below the surface of the water. Further antifouling applied below where there is sufficient sunlight to sustain seaweed growth is omitted as redundant. Note that this is a period issue. Bottom paint came into common usage around 1850 and copper plating correspondingly decreased thereafter.
 
 

It all depends on the scale. At eighth inch scale, copper plate thickness isn't going to be visible. At a quarter inch to the foot scale, perhaps plate thickness would be barely visible. The modeler should calculate the scale viewing distance and model accordingly. 
 
If a realistic scale effect requires actual lapped plates, cutting plates from paper of suitably scaled thickness and gluing these to the hull (shellac is a good adhesive for this purpose) will provide the desired effect. If individual lapped plates are not required, then the modeler can proceed directly to painting the hull. Realistic coppered bottom weathering effects are best achieved with an airbrush using standard artistic techniques. Refer to online photographs to observe the actual appearance to be replicated.
 
Ship model kit manufacturers frequently include "real copper hull plating" for what can only be a sales gimmick suggesting their kit is "high quality." Unsophisticated purchasers expect this, apparently in the mistaken belief that a high quality model should be constructed of the same materials as the prototype vessel. Individual copper sheet or foil plates would only be useful in very large scale models and the use of real metal sheet or foil is not preferable due to the limitations of adhesives. Most all of the kit-supplied coppering material is over-scale as to thickness, if not as well as to surface dimension. Fasteners will not be visible at model scale viewing distances. (In fact, the mark of a proper coppering job was that the nails were as flush with the surface as possible (accomplished by a proper "coppering hammer" with its dimpled head.) A smooth bottom is a fast bottom. A bottom studded with nail heads the scale size of a man's fist is not.
 
 
 

 

 

 
Photos before and after re-coppering. Note that copper in saltwater environment will quickly turn verdigris green when exposed to air as seen here with USS Constitution in dock as it's pumped out. The second picture shows her newly coppered bottom right before launch. Here the new copper, exposed to the elements, but not saltwater while in the dock, shows the classic "used penny brown" color of naturally oxidized copper. The modeler will have to decide in which condition they wish to depict the vessel's bottom: freshly coppered (which isn't to say "new penny copper" colored,) as a just-hauled fouled bottom, or as a hauled and cleaned bottom exposed to the air (verdigris green, which many prefer.)
 
Note that Constitution has about a five-foot wide band of reddish bottom paint applied over her coppered bottom just above her light load waterline. Modernly, most coppered bottoms have antifouling paint applied over the copper in this fashion. While the copper provides a mechanical barrier to marine boring organisms, it does not prevent fouling with seaweed. The bottom paint prevents this growth in the "sunlight zone" below the surface of the water. Further antifouling applied below where there is sufficient sunlight to sustain seaweed growth is omitted as redundant. Note that this is a period issue. Bottom paint came into common usage around 1850 and copper plating correspondingly decreased thereafter.
 
 

I've never heard of such a process. I tie the ratlines on the shrouds and then I apply white shellac, which soaks into the thread and locks the stiches. As the alcohol evaporates, the thread will stiffen as the shellac dries. This permits shaping any desired catenary into the ratlines. Some others used thinned PVA instead of shellac. I prefer shellac because is is easily dissolved by an application of denatured alcohol. PVA can also be dissolved in isopropyl alcohol, but with more difficulty and mess than shellac. 
 
Perhaps others have a different technique.

From what I can see from their literature, about the only archaeological data on the Sutton Hoo ship that exists is an approximation of its length. The  Sutton Hoo "replica" will actually be a replica of one of the Scandanavian ships that was excavated intact, more or less. The stem and stern of the Sutton Hoo ship was non-existent when discovered. The presence of any wood was indicated only by a discoloration in the sand. All the archaeological field notes and other research records were reportedly destroyed in the Blitz. It's one of those famous ships the actual appearance of which is unknown and unknowable.

From what I can see from their literature, about the only archaeological data on the Sutton Hoo ship that exists is an approximation of its length. The  Sutton Hoo "replica" will actually be a replica of one of the Scandanavian ships that was excavated intact, more or less. The stem and stern of the Sutton Hoo ship was non-existent when discovered. The presence of any wood was indicated only by a discoloration in the sand. All the archaeological field notes and other research records were reportedly destroyed in the Blitz. It's one of those famous ships the actual appearance of which is unknown and unknowable.

The Administrators may wish to add their trademark registration notation to their FaceBook page, as well.
 
Also, perhaps it's time to send Remco's Model Ship World FaceBook page a "cease and desist" letter. See: (1) Remco's Model Ship World | Facebook

From what I can see from their literature, about the only archaeological data on the Sutton Hoo ship that exists is an approximation of its length. The  Sutton Hoo "replica" will actually be a replica of one of the Scandanavian ships that was excavated intact, more or less. The stem and stern of the Sutton Hoo ship was non-existent when discovered. The presence of any wood was indicated only by a discoloration in the sand. All the archaeological field notes and other research records were reportedly destroyed in the Blitz. It's one of those famous ships the actual appearance of which is unknown and unknowable.

To focus on the part of this that I find to be worth real interest - How much of it is good for building a serious model? ....
So Sutton Ho is from between 400 and 800 - given the burial mound bit - probably closer to the 400 part?
There are no definitive lines.   Any plans available from the current operation would be a guess? 
Yet another replica aimed at tourists and not advertising that it is just a likely to have as much wrong as correct?
 
The construction technology is invaluable from an academic perspective.

Wow! What a prince!  I'm impressed.
 
Looks like your mom had an heir and a spare and you're it. I suppose there's nothing for it but for you to tattle to the tabloids and cable news. Not to worry. The last "spare" to do that got $100,000,000 for his tell-all TV special!  

That may be a worthy excuse for some thread drift!  

Wow! What a prince!  I'm impressed.
 
Looks like your mom had an heir and a spare and you're it. I suppose there's nothing for it but for you to tattle to the tabloids and cable news. Not to worry. The last "spare" to do that got $100,000,000 for his tell-all TV special!  

Just to close out this discussion, I've agreed (and sent the check) to acquire this set. After a little searching, I'm donating them to the library at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in New York. Now the logistics are such that I'll wait out winter before going to pick them up.
Tom

Yes, indeed. Proportional dividers are invaluable modeling tools. They are also very handy for scaling plans. Rather than worrying about getting copies that are accurate to a different scale, you can simply take up the measurement from the plan you have at whatever scale (or better yet, if you are an accuracy wonk, take the measurement indicated on the plan from a rule and then let your proportional dividers translate that to the scale you desire with exact accuracy. (Of course, alternately, the same can be accomplished with a regular divider and a scale rule.)
 
I'd urge anybody who is interested to spring the extra few bucks for the Keuffel and Essser Paragon (model) ten-inch rack and pinion decimally scaled proportional dividers, rather than the less expensive 6" or 7" proportional dividers. The rack and pinion 10" dividers are easy to set with a high degree of accuracy and are adjustable with Vernier adjustment to .001. The beauty of the decimal scaling is that you can accurately set the instrument for any proportion, expressed as a decimal equivalent. The less expensive models only give you proportional scaling of 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and so on. (You can adjust them "manually" by setting the points to known measurements without regard to the scaling on the instrument.)
 
The 10" proportionally scaled dividers are also sold by other instrument makers, such a Post, Bowen, and Dietzgen. All of these are the same instrument made in the same German instrument factory and branded as required. the Keuffel and Esser Paragon models seem to bring a higher price on eBay because K&E is recognized as a top end marque (although they offered a wide range of quality at different price points.) A ten inch decimally scaled geared adjusting proportional dividers in decent shape can usually be had on eBay for less than $100. (Highly collectable "mint in the box" examples often sell for much more.)
 
An example sold by Post now listed on US eBay for $89.99:
 VINTAGE POST #931 10" PROPORTIONAL DIVIDER W/ ORIGINAL BOX GERMANY | eBay

 
An early Keuffel and Esser model listed for $109.99 Vintage K&E Paragon 10" Proportional Dividers Drafting Set Drawing Instruments | eBay
 

Very late production (1980's?) K&E in apparent mint condition asking $269.99 and will probably never see that. KEUFFEL & ESSER PARAGON UNIVERSAL PROPORTIONAL DIVIDER TOOL W/ CASE GERMANY | eBay The "end of an era" "Mark I" line of K&E instruments were of a lesser "fit and finish" than the earlier K&E "Paragon" line, which was their highest quality model line. Much of the older Paragon stock was packaged in "Mark 1" boxing, as is the case with this example. Still a fine example, but not as "elegant" as the earlier hand-fitted matched serial number instruments of the "Golden Age."

Later production K&E case with "cheat sheet" plate on bottom of case listing common settings and equivalents:

These price points may be a bit steep for some, I realize, but this instrument will last you for a lifetime and many more if given reasonable care. You will never wrestle with the math of calculating proportional measurements or dividing a line of a circle into any number of equal segments, plus loads of other stuff you'll probably never need or understand if you are mathematically challenged like I am. And you'll never have to fiddle with dead batteries! These are the finest and most versatile proportional dividers ever manufactured and they aren't making any more of them, so the prices keep going up as time goes on. Compare these to the junk MicroMark is selling for $165! Proportional Divider, scale drawing up or down, moveable pivot point adjusts ratio one end to the other (micromark.com)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

That may be a worthy excuse for some thread drift!  

I'd be interested in knowing whether there is any archaeological evidence of woven wool cloth being used as "caulking" in the manner depicted by saxonship.org's website.  Since none of the wooden hull survived the centuries, it's hard to believe there is any evidence of woolen woven material used in the Sutton Hoo ship. It's surely unlike any clinker planking technique I've ever encountered before.
 
From the project's website:
 

 
Clinker or lapstrake planking is always plainsawn, not quartersawn, as it is with carvel planking. Clinker planking is generally not caulked at all. The flat plainsawn planks swell tightly against one another at the laps. There's no way to drive caulking between the laps without damaging the lapstrake plank seams. (Although, today's clinker builders often resort to some poly-something goop to avoid the need to permit a dry stored boat to take up or to compensate for plywood's lack of swelling at all.) As pictured above, they have quarter-sawn (edge-grained) planking with a rather thin lap and what they claim is woolen fabric laid flat between the lap. I can't see how that piece of fabric adds much of anything at all to "caulking" a lapped seam that doesn't require any caulking in the first place. Moreover, I don't believe the builders in that era even had sawing technology. I could be wrong on this, but I believe they got out their plank by splitting it from the trunk and then shaping it with broad axes, adzes, and draw knives. That alone would preclude quarter sawn planking.
 
I am unsure whether the Norse ships that have been discovered with their wood intact in Scandanavia were constructed identically to the Saxon period English vessels. I also was of the impression that none of the wood hull of the Sutton Hoo ship survived the elements, save to leave a "ghost" impression in the surrounding soil which permitted some very rudimentary measurement of her midship lines. (Any trace of the bow and stern were gone completely when excavated.) I do know that all the Science Museum's records on the Sutton Hoo ship (which was excavated immediately prior to WWII) were destroyed in the Blitz. I am unsure whether the Norse ships that have been discovered with their wood intact in Scandanavia were constructed identically the Saxon period English vessels. However it would appear this "replica" ship is really going to be another "educated guess" a in the case of Columbus' ships of discovery, Drake's Golden Hinde, Mayflower, a host of other "replicas" extant today.
 
I'm not knocking replicas. They have their place and any boat is fine, some are just finer than others. This outfit has some nice CGI depictions of their ambitions, but I'm afraid they need to realize that there's many a slip between the cup and the lip.

That may be a worthy excuse for some thread drift!  

I'd be interested in knowing whether there is any archaeological evidence of woven wool cloth being used as "caulking" in the manner depicted by saxonship.org's website.  Since none of the wooden hull survived the centuries, it's hard to believe there is any evidence of woolen woven material used in the Sutton Hoo ship. It's surely unlike any clinker planking technique I've ever encountered before.
 
From the project's website:
 

 
Clinker or lapstrake planking is always plainsawn, not quartersawn, as it is with carvel planking. Clinker planking is generally not caulked at all. The flat plainsawn planks swell tightly against one another at the laps. There's no way to drive caulking between the laps without damaging the lapstrake plank seams. (Although, today's clinker builders often resort to some poly-something goop to avoid the need to permit a dry stored boat to take up or to compensate for plywood's lack of swelling at all.) As pictured above, they have quarter-sawn (edge-grained) planking with a rather thin lap and what they claim is woolen fabric laid flat between the lap. I can't see how that piece of fabric adds much of anything at all to "caulking" a lapped seam that doesn't require any caulking in the first place. Moreover, I don't believe the builders in that era even had sawing technology. I could be wrong on this, but I believe they got out their plank by splitting it from the trunk and then shaping it with broad axes, adzes, and draw knives. That alone would preclude quarter sawn planking.
 
I am unsure whether the Norse ships that have been discovered with their wood intact in Scandanavia were constructed identically to the Saxon period English vessels. I also was of the impression that none of the wood hull of the Sutton Hoo ship survived the elements, save to leave a "ghost" impression in the surrounding soil which permitted some very rudimentary measurement of her midship lines. (Any trace of the bow and stern were gone completely when excavated.) I do know that all the Science Museum's records on the Sutton Hoo ship (which was excavated immediately prior to WWII) were destroyed in the Blitz. I am unsure whether the Norse ships that have been discovered with their wood intact in Scandanavia were constructed identically the Saxon period English vessels. However it would appear this "replica" ship is really going to be another "educated guess" a in the case of Columbus' ships of discovery, Drake's Golden Hinde, Mayflower, a host of other "replicas" extant today.
 
I'm not knocking replicas. They have their place and any boat is fine, some are just finer than others. This outfit has some nice CGI depictions of their ambitions, but I'm afraid they need to realize that there's many a slip between the cup and the lip.

I'd be interested in knowing whether there is any archaeological evidence of woven wool cloth being used as "caulking" in the manner depicted by saxonship.org's website.  Since none of the wooden hull survived the centuries, it's hard to believe there is any evidence of woolen woven material used in the Sutton Hoo ship. It's surely unlike any clinker planking technique I've ever encountered before.
 
From the project's website:
 

 
Clinker or lapstrake planking is always plainsawn, not quartersawn, as it is with carvel planking. Clinker planking is generally not caulked at all. The flat plainsawn planks swell tightly against one another at the laps. There's no way to drive caulking between the laps without damaging the lapstrake plank seams. (Although, today's clinker builders often resort to some poly-something goop to avoid the need to permit a dry stored boat to take up or to compensate for plywood's lack of swelling at all.) As pictured above, they have quarter-sawn (edge-grained) planking with a rather thin lap and what they claim is woolen fabric laid flat between the lap. I can't see how that piece of fabric adds much of anything at all to "caulking" a lapped seam that doesn't require any caulking in the first place. Moreover, I don't believe the builders in that era even had sawing technology. I could be wrong on this, but I believe they got out their plank by splitting it from the trunk and then shaping it with broad axes, adzes, and draw knives. That alone would preclude quarter sawn planking.
 
I am unsure whether the Norse ships that have been discovered with their wood intact in Scandanavia were constructed identically to the Saxon period English vessels. I also was of the impression that none of the wood hull of the Sutton Hoo ship survived the elements, save to leave a "ghost" impression in the surrounding soil which permitted some very rudimentary measurement of her midship lines. (Any trace of the bow and stern were gone completely when excavated.) I do know that all the Science Museum's records on the Sutton Hoo ship (which was excavated immediately prior to WWII) were destroyed in the Blitz. I am unsure whether the Norse ships that have been discovered with their wood intact in Scandanavia were constructed identically the Saxon period English vessels. However it would appear this "replica" ship is really going to be another "educated guess" a in the case of Columbus' ships of discovery, Drake's Golden Hinde, Mayflower, a host of other "replicas" extant today.
 
I'm not knocking replicas. They have their place and any boat is fine, some are just finer than others. This outfit has some nice CGI depictions of their ambitions, but I'm afraid they need to realize that there's many a slip between the cup and the lip.