Bob Cleek

An old wood finishing book had instructions for French polish.  The instructions were to use a cloth pad that had a small quantity of Linseed oil in the middle which was then soaked with shellac.   The pad was to be rubbed on the wood surface with constant movement and a jet takeoff removal.  Otherwise the cloth will leave its weave pattern on the finish - which was to be only a wet layer.
 
I took this to mean that French polish is primarily shellac with a small admixture of polymerizing oil.   It seems to me that Tung oil could be used instead of Linseed oil. 

I buy mine pre-mixed in quart cans, which last for years. I've never had any show any indication of "going bad." Maybe they put some additive in the canned shellac to give it shelf-life. 
 
Shellac will thicken if the alcohol is allowed to evaporate. That's easily fixed by adding a bit more alcohol. I've used a lot of "old" shellac and I've never had any bad results doing so. 
 
Sometimes I suspect that "shellac going bad" is just disinformation spread by the shellac manufacturers to increase sales.  

In smaller scales, very fine wire is frequently a better option for rigging line. Fishermen's fly-tying thread is also a good material for fine rigging line. 
 

In smaller scales, very fine wire is frequently a better option for rigging line. Fishermen's fly-tying thread is also a good material for fine rigging line. 
 

In smaller scales, very fine wire is frequently a better option for rigging line. Fishermen's fly-tying thread is also a good material for fine rigging line. 
 

It's the water that raises the grain. No water, no raised grain. 
 
Bend your wood using dry heat. A bending iron is good if you have one. If not, a small clothes iron works well. A piece of metal pipe of suitable diameter can be heated from the inside with a torch and used by bending the wood against it. Some have even found good success by using a microwave oven to heat the wood. Use the forum search engine to see various dry heat methods. Review Chuck Passaro's great video turtorials on plank bending in the resources section under the "More" drop down menu at the top of the forum page.
 
Water based paints run the risk of raising wood grain if they are too thin because of their water content. If using water-based paints, prime the wood with thinned shellac as mentioned above. Shellac will not raise the grain. it is thinned with alcohol. Oil-based paints will not raise wood grain. This is a significant advantage of oil-based paints, although it is a simple matter to prime wood for water-based painting using shellac which dries very quickly.

Actually, shellac is a ground-up resin that is secreted by female lac beetles to build self-protective tubes (sort of like termites) from which they suck the sap from the trees upon which they live. Shellac is collected by scraping the tubes from the trees, then heating them to liquify the shellac, and straining the liquid shellac to remove impurities. Modelers who use shellac can reassure animal rights activists by labeling their models: "No beetles were harmed during the making of this model."  
 
Shellac is also edible! They use it to put a shine on apples and citrus fruit for the supermarkets and to make jelly beans shiny.
 

Wipe-on polyurethane is simply full-strength polyurethane thinned down with solvent ("paint thinner"). Solvent is a lot cheaper than the base polyurethane coating, so you are paying a lot of extra money for half the polyurethane canned in a "wipe-on" pre-thinned consistency. It's far higher in VOCs than alcohol, so you've got the toxic fumes and environmental downside to consider and its solvent-required clean up can be somewhat of pain, however small those considerations may be in scale model amounts. (Polymerizing polyurethane produces an amalgam of toxic compounds that can be extremely toxic when released as fumes into the indoor air.)  This "value added for DIY marketing" seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon. I've heard that Minwax doesn't export their "wipe-on" product in Europe because the apparently more sophisticated European market realizes thinning the product yields the same result at lower cost. 
 
That said, polyurethane is a great finish. It is highly abrasion-resistant and impervious to liquids, particularly alcohol, which absolutely makes it the best choice for things like hardwood floors, table and bar tops, and the like. When thinned, It yields a nice finish on any bare wood and can be applied by unskilled finishers by simply wiping it on with a rag.  
 
Shellac is dissolved in alcohol and is easier to clean up without any toxic risks. It doesn't have the abrasion-resistance of polyurethane, and spilling an alcoholic beverage on it will require restoring the finish as the alcohol will dissolve the shellacked finish. However, this characteristic is an advantage in modeling, particularly when shellac is used to stiffen catenaries in rigging line, to secure rigging knots, and as an adhesive. Shellac can be used in a thick suspension as an adhesive and thinned as desired for a variety of finish effects. Obviously, polyurethane's abrasion-resistance and imperviousness to alcohol is unnecessary in modeling applications so shellac's lack thereof is of no moment.
 
About the only reasons I would consider sound for favoring shellac over polyurethane for modeling applications are 1) the uncertainty of polyurethane's long-term archival qualities, although for the relatively short period polyurethane has been around, it's not exhibited any tendency to deteriorate. 2) Shellac and its alcohol solvent is less expensive than wipe-on polyurethane, though not by much. 3) Shellac apparently has a better shelf life than polyurethane coatings and won't start polymerizing upon exposure to air and "go bad in the can." 4) Shellac can be easily removed with alcohol at any time after it "dries" by the alcohol's evaporation. Polyurethane cannot be easily removed with solvent once it polymerizes. Very aggressive strippers or mechanical removal is required once it's "cured."
 
I don't think the any of the reasons for or against both polyurethane finishes and shellac are "silly," they're just a matter of taste. As the saying goes, "Ya gotta dance with the girl ya brought" and it's bad form to judge another guy's date harshly. It's all just a matter of taste.

Everything written about shellac that I've ever read contains the caveat that it has a limited "shelf life." I'm sure at least some of these articles have been written by experts. I've always used Zinsser's "Bullseye" brand pre-mixed "orange" (amber) or "white" (clear) shellac in quart cans. All I know is that I've never perceived any deterioration of the product over the passage of time and, in some instances, it took me several years to consume a quart of the stuff. I've certainly had it thicken a bit due to the evaporation of the alcohol solvent, which is easily resolved by simply adding more alcohol, but I've never seen any of the Zinsser's Bullseye shellac "go bad" sitting on the shelf. As this stuff probably has to set on the shelf in the store for a long time before it's sold, perhaps Zinsser has found some additive that solves the short shelf life problem? I don't know.
 
What i do know is that shellac is one of the handiest materials I know for modeling. It dries very quickly. It's easily thickened by just letting a small amount sit in the open air for the alcohol to evaporate. Thinned shellac is an excellent wood finish that can provide the entire range from matte to high gloss, depending on how thick you wish to apply it. It's also one of the most moisture resistant coatings available. It can be hand-rubbed to a perfect finish ("French polishing") or, applied thin, can serve as an invisible matte sealer beneath any other coating. It can also be used to stiffen rope to form catenaries in rigging and seal rigging knots which can later be easily undone if needed. Thickened shellac is an excellent adhesive. Shellac is archival material that will last for centuries and is easily dissolved and removed with common alcohol. It's also non-toxic (except for the denatured alcohol its dissolved in. Shellac is used in confectionary making to give a gloss to candies such as jelly beans.) And, last but not least, it's readily available in paint and hardware stores and relatively inexpensive.
 
I can't see what's not to like about the stuff. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrus_pyrifolia
 
It looks like Swiss pear wood. The hardwood has a very sturdy and dense surface, and I hardly notice its grains. Also, the price is similar to cherry wood, although I have to cut it by myself. I'm glad that I found a quality wood supplier locally. 
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrus_communis
(European pear or common pear)

Thanks again Bob and for your valued input and to further explain  about two sheets being fitted to the clue . I have bought the book by John Harland called Seamanship in the age of sail so hopefully I will be able to learn a bit more about ship handling and what the different sails and tackle is used for and hopefully reading this will eventually make more sense to me. Best regards Dave

While I'm no expert on period ordinance, I agree that there are questions that I'd certainly be expecting answered before I bought it. Consider the following:
 
If it is an "insurance cannon," of approximately 1780, how did they come to this conclusion? What was it doing in a river? What river and what was the archaeological context in which it was found. (A shipwreck or just alone in the mud? Etc.) I suppose if the river was freshwater, this cannon might show less deterioration than were it in saltwater for 250 years, but, based on the old iron cannon I've seen, I'd expect this one to show a lot more evidence of iron corrosion, even with state of the art conservation. The rusting (which accelerates rapidly once they are out of the water) can be stopped but not reversed. This cannon looks suspiciously well-preserved, but here again, I'm not an expert in conserving cannon.
 
If it is an "insurance cannon," it was present for "insurance purposes" and I doubt any insurer would have extended coverage to the vessel without a survey which would include confirming the required ordinance aboard, together with proper provision for the safe stowage of powder, competent crew to operate the piece, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurer would have required some identification data on the requisite cannon when the vessel survey was done, but it seems this cannon has no identifying markings at all.
 
I would presume that any ordinance barrel of that period would have been made by a competent cannon foundry, but during that period only certain barrels would have been proof-marked, primarily military ones and then only when placed in service. British tubes would certainly have carried the "Broad Arrow" together with other identifying marks. (American arms were, and still are, not required to be proofed, although many were and are.) This marking chart may, or may not, be helpful if there are any foundry markings on the piece: https://www.nramuseum.org/media/940944/proofmarks.pdf Foundry markings, as distinct by proofing-markings, have been somewhat standardized for centuries now. As you probably know, these marks will be found on the top of the breech, the face of the muzzle, and the faces of each trunion. I find it suspicious that this cannon carries no identifying markings at all. 
 
From the photo of the muzzle, it appears the barrel was sleeved, which is curious.  This is done to restore the usefulness of worn barrels or to strengthen old barrels for use with modern smokeless, rather than black powder. This could have been done at any point in the cannon's life, but it is interesting to note that the technology for boring cast cannon bores, which would have been a prerequisite to installing a sleeve, didn't come into existence until the late 1700's as the Industrial Revolution developed the technology to do it. It is possible that this cannon was cast modernly and sleeved when new. Some reproduction cast iron cannon sold today can be ordered sleeved to permit actual projectile firing. 
 
As I understand it, "insurance guns" were primarily mounted on wheeled carriages similar to mountain howitzer carriages so that they could be easily stowed and easily rolled to where they were to be used, being the only gun on deck. Some were also mounted as swivel guns. Most fired grapeshot, since that would be most effective against pirates approaching in small boats and the size of this cannon shot wouldn't do much of anything against the hull of a ship. (The merchantmen carrying the "insurance guns" were no match for any well-armed vessel.) The naval truck it is now on would not likely have been used because not only is it less easy to move and train, but also because it requires a gun stations with gun ports, and breeching rope and training tackles at each station, none of which are commonly found on merchantmen.
 
There are a number of retailers in the US and GB who make cast iron reproduction cannon very similar to this one. It may be that the story about it being found underwater and 250 years old is pure bunk, in which case, it would be a lot of fun to have and to fire if you have $2,500 you don't know what to do with. See: https://www.castcannons.co.uk/

If you pre-shape the plank by spiling or heat and edge bending, finger pressure and PVA (or CA if you choose) for less than a minute is all you need MOST of the time.   Clamps certainly come into play at times, but if the plank is shaped beforehand, pins and clamps are not usually needed.  Scale matters as well.  If you are building at 1:48, the pin hole should be the same as a trennal, about 0.03".  At 1:96 it would be 0.015.  Trennals would then fill the hole, but at scales smaller than 1:64, they are extremely difficullt to make to scale, even using bamboo.  
 
Allan

While I'm no expert on period ordinance, I agree that there are questions that I'd certainly be expecting answered before I bought it. Consider the following:
 
If it is an "insurance cannon," of approximately 1780, how did they come to this conclusion? What was it doing in a river? What river and what was the archaeological context in which it was found. (A shipwreck or just alone in the mud? Etc.) I suppose if the river was freshwater, this cannon might show less deterioration than were it in saltwater for 250 years, but, based on the old iron cannon I've seen, I'd expect this one to show a lot more evidence of iron corrosion, even with state of the art conservation. The rusting (which accelerates rapidly once they are out of the water) can be stopped but not reversed. This cannon looks suspiciously well-preserved, but here again, I'm not an expert in conserving cannon.
 
If it is an "insurance cannon," it was present for "insurance purposes" and I doubt any insurer would have extended coverage to the vessel without a survey which would include confirming the required ordinance aboard, together with proper provision for the safe stowage of powder, competent crew to operate the piece, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurer would have required some identification data on the requisite cannon when the vessel survey was done, but it seems this cannon has no identifying markings at all.
 
I would presume that any ordinance barrel of that period would have been made by a competent cannon foundry, but during that period only certain barrels would have been proof-marked, primarily military ones and then only when placed in service. British tubes would certainly have carried the "Broad Arrow" together with other identifying marks. (American arms were, and still are, not required to be proofed, although many were and are.) This marking chart may, or may not, be helpful if there are any foundry markings on the piece: https://www.nramuseum.org/media/940944/proofmarks.pdf Foundry markings, as distinct by proofing-markings, have been somewhat standardized for centuries now. As you probably know, these marks will be found on the top of the breech, the face of the muzzle, and the faces of each trunion. I find it suspicious that this cannon carries no identifying markings at all. 
 
From the photo of the muzzle, it appears the barrel was sleeved, which is curious.  This is done to restore the usefulness of worn barrels or to strengthen old barrels for use with modern smokeless, rather than black powder. This could have been done at any point in the cannon's life, but it is interesting to note that the technology for boring cast cannon bores, which would have been a prerequisite to installing a sleeve, didn't come into existence until the late 1700's as the Industrial Revolution developed the technology to do it. It is possible that this cannon was cast modernly and sleeved when new. Some reproduction cast iron cannon sold today can be ordered sleeved to permit actual projectile firing. 
 
As I understand it, "insurance guns" were primarily mounted on wheeled carriages similar to mountain howitzer carriages so that they could be easily stowed and easily rolled to where they were to be used, being the only gun on deck. Some were also mounted as swivel guns. Most fired grapeshot, since that would be most effective against pirates approaching in small boats and the size of this cannon shot wouldn't do much of anything against the hull of a ship. (The merchantmen carrying the "insurance guns" were no match for any well-armed vessel.) The naval truck it is now on would not likely have been used because not only is it less easy to move and train, but also because it requires a gun stations with gun ports, and breeching rope and training tackles at each station, none of which are commonly found on merchantmen.
 
There are a number of retailers in the US and GB who make cast iron reproduction cannon very similar to this one. It may be that the story about it being found underwater and 250 years old is pure bunk, in which case, it would be a lot of fun to have and to fire if you have $2,500 you don't know what to do with. See: https://www.castcannons.co.uk/

There was a transport board requirement for vessels under hire to carry 'at least 6 guns of at least 6lbs' or 'of a smaller calibre according to the rating of the vessel' (sic). Or after the 1780s these guns could be exchanged for carronades of 'at least 12lbs'. These minimums were associated with an allowance of £5 per gun to carry additional ordnance at the master's option.

Similar rules for ships operating on foreign trade (along with imposed convoying) were made by Lloyds of London and other notable maritime insurers for the same reasons that the transport board preferred *some* armament on their hired vessels.

Those serious about their trade might seek out a 'real' ordnance able to fight off an opponent of similar scale of arms, in retreat at least when the chasing vessel is also only able to engage with it's own chase ordnance - or to take, sink or burn in a close engagement with a small vessel armed with guns if fitted with carronades. Those merely complying with the regulation might opt for the cheapest 'cutt' which complies with the letter of the requirement.

Companies such as Carron offered guns to the ordnance board according to the establishment of guns in place at the time (when not banned for proof failures), but they also offered 'medium guns' and guns similar to the ordnance regulation guns and carronades to those who could pay (including exporting a gun-foundry to Russia, controversially.

A half pound swivel would not qualify as a gun for the transport board requirement, but would be useful as a counter-boarding weapon before the advent of the *much* more effective carronades, and also served as armament for boats, with a small piece in the bows and 2-4 swivels mounted to the gunwales. Found in a river, a boat swivel seems more plausible than an insurance gun or transport board qualifier. YMMV

Private companies, such as the HBC also manufactured their own ordnance to suit their needs, and it is possible it is from such a source, rather than a private sale from a supplier to the ordnance board.

An absence of government proof marks is expected from private company production and ordnance not supplied to the government for proofing, but offered for direct sale to merchant or private hire shipping.

My curiosity gland is inflamed, I wish someone was enamored because I could easily be talked into driving up and having a look see. And I'm betting $2,500.00 is the starting price not the "help me load it in my truck" price. 

While I'm no expert on period ordinance, I agree that there are questions that I'd certainly be expecting answered before I bought it. Consider the following:
 
If it is an "insurance cannon," of approximately 1780, how did they come to this conclusion? What was it doing in a river? What river and what was the archaeological context in which it was found. (A shipwreck or just alone in the mud? Etc.) I suppose if the river was freshwater, this cannon might show less deterioration than were it in saltwater for 250 years, but, based on the old iron cannon I've seen, I'd expect this one to show a lot more evidence of iron corrosion, even with state of the art conservation. The rusting (which accelerates rapidly once they are out of the water) can be stopped but not reversed. This cannon looks suspiciously well-preserved, but here again, I'm not an expert in conserving cannon.
 
If it is an "insurance cannon," it was present for "insurance purposes" and I doubt any insurer would have extended coverage to the vessel without a survey which would include confirming the required ordinance aboard, together with proper provision for the safe stowage of powder, competent crew to operate the piece, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurer would have required some identification data on the requisite cannon when the vessel survey was done, but it seems this cannon has no identifying markings at all.
 
I would presume that any ordinance barrel of that period would have been made by a competent cannon foundry, but during that period only certain barrels would have been proof-marked, primarily military ones and then only when placed in service. British tubes would certainly have carried the "Broad Arrow" together with other identifying marks. (American arms were, and still are, not required to be proofed, although many were and are.) This marking chart may, or may not, be helpful if there are any foundry markings on the piece: https://www.nramuseum.org/media/940944/proofmarks.pdf Foundry markings, as distinct by proofing-markings, have been somewhat standardized for centuries now. As you probably know, these marks will be found on the top of the breech, the face of the muzzle, and the faces of each trunion. I find it suspicious that this cannon carries no identifying markings at all. 
 
From the photo of the muzzle, it appears the barrel was sleeved, which is curious.  This is done to restore the usefulness of worn barrels or to strengthen old barrels for use with modern smokeless, rather than black powder. This could have been done at any point in the cannon's life, but it is interesting to note that the technology for boring cast cannon bores, which would have been a prerequisite to installing a sleeve, didn't come into existence until the late 1700's as the Industrial Revolution developed the technology to do it. It is possible that this cannon was cast modernly and sleeved when new. Some reproduction cast iron cannon sold today can be ordered sleeved to permit actual projectile firing. 
 
As I understand it, "insurance guns" were primarily mounted on wheeled carriages similar to mountain howitzer carriages so that they could be easily stowed and easily rolled to where they were to be used, being the only gun on deck. Some were also mounted as swivel guns. Most fired grapeshot, since that would be most effective against pirates approaching in small boats and the size of this cannon shot wouldn't do much of anything against the hull of a ship. (The merchantmen carrying the "insurance guns" were no match for any well-armed vessel.) The naval truck it is now on would not likely have been used because not only is it less easy to move and train, but also because it requires a gun stations with gun ports, and breeching rope and training tackles at each station, none of which are commonly found on merchantmen.
 
There are a number of retailers in the US and GB who make cast iron reproduction cannon very similar to this one. It may be that the story about it being found underwater and 250 years old is pure bunk, in which case, it would be a lot of fun to have and to fire if you have $2,500 you don't know what to do with. See: https://www.castcannons.co.uk/

I recall reading with some surprise that Hahn did indeed use those blades back when he built his models "in the days of wooden chips and iron men." Finish wood was a lot less dear and more widely available back then, as well, so the kerf width wasn't so much of a consideration. The depth of cut on those Craftsman blades was 1 and 1/4", which probably explains why Hahn devised a jig to cut the pieces for gluing up his frame blanks... that was as wide a sheet stock as he could get. Interestingly, on the other side of the pond in Hahn's time, Gerald Wingrove was cutting his strips on the table saw attachment on his Unimat SL. 
 
I checked those Craftsman plywood blades out on eBay. I'm not so sure about buying used circular saw blades on eBay. With the high tooth count, I expect the saw sharpening shop would charge a bit to sharpen one. I expect they didn't get a lot of "mileage" out of one cutting plywood, which can be hard on an edge. I'll have to check, but I may even have one in my stash in the shop, inherited from my father decades ago. Delta and others currently make comparable high-tooth-count, (relatively) thin-kerf plywood-cutting blades, some less expensive new than the used ones on eBay. StewMac makes a 6" "fret-slotting table saw blade" with the outer 3/8" or so  of the edge hollow ground down to .023", but its depth of cut is very limited. That puppy will set you back around $150.00. https://www.stewmac.com/luthier-tools-and-supplies/types-of-tools/saws/fret-slotting-table-saw-blade.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=shopping&utm_campaign=2021-03-gp&gclid=Cj0KCQiA1pyCBhCtARIsAHaY_5fEdm8TK9oqsPrp2m7Lu8AeI0SXQvFi4cnuQ9byVdTiKgVLVwa3EIoaApVqEALw_wcB Freud has a 10"x80T thin kerf "Ultimate Plywood and Melamine Blade" with a 3/32" kerf for around $75.00 on sale. https://www.amazon.com/Freud-Ultimate-Plywood-Melamine-LU79R010/dp/B000GJTIIK
 
I have a 1950 Craftsman/King Seeley 8" tilting arbor table saw that was my father's. It gets little or no use these days, since I have a Delta Unisaw and a Byrnes saw, but when it was all I had, I got a lot of use out of it. I still have all my fingers, no doubt due to my Guardian Angel working overtime. I always feel using it is a bit like playing with a pet rattlesnake. (Not that I don't feel the same about the other saws, though less so with the Jim Saw.) The fence on the Craftsman is very fiddly to set up and keep set and with the relatively small table, I have to set up infeed and outfeed roller supports for stock of any length. I have a good selection of molding head cutters for it, though, and I occasionally use it for that. Someone who had the smaller Craftsman tilting table saw with a thin kerf, high tooth count, blade for it wouldn't go far wrong, if they had a fence that didn't drive them crazy. What's scary about  these "widdowmakers" is that there is the tendency for the work to slide "downhill" when sawing with the table tilted, but that can be compensated for with caution and a jig if you need it. It's just that with a 3/32" kerf, cutting 1/16" strips will cost you more in sawdust than you're getting in stripwood, which is okay for some, I suppose. Everybody's mileage differs.
 
 

The 1950's era Craftsman 8" table saw is a better "old 'arn" option. They don't make 'em like they used to. The 8" saw is a fixed table with a tilting arbor. The smaller "Companion" tilt-table model was originally their "second best" line below Craftsman. The tilting table gives many concern regarding safety of operation. 

The listing stated it was an "insurance cannon." What's an "insurance cannon?" I looked it up. I learn something new here every day!
 
1840 BRITISH INSURANCE GUN - SWIVEL CANNON - DECK CARRIAGE (buckstix.com)

Many plank on frame kits have spacing jigs for the rib layout. I built this to mount the jig to. It spins so I can work from the top or the bottom.
 
 

 

 

 
EJ
 

The listing stated it was an "insurance cannon." What's an "insurance cannon?" I looked it up. I learn something new here every day!
 
1840 BRITISH INSURANCE GUN - SWIVEL CANNON - DECK CARRIAGE (buckstix.com)

The listing stated it was an "insurance cannon." What's an "insurance cannon?" I looked it up. I learn something new here every day!
 
1840 BRITISH INSURANCE GUN - SWIVEL CANNON - DECK CARRIAGE (buckstix.com)

Yes, and there are many of them out there on the used market. The actual Delta "old 'arn" models aren't nearly as common as the "pirate clones" turned out (and still being turned out) by the "Revolutionary Peoples' Patriotic Bandsaw Collective," but these Chinese knock-offs are fine at the top end (e.g. Grizzly G0555) and there are a ton of after-market up-grade kits that can turn them into real "hot rods." 
 
See: Search Results (woodcraft.com)

Yes, and there are many of them out there on the used market. The actual Delta "old 'arn" models aren't nearly as common as the "pirate clones" turned out (and still being turned out) by the "Revolutionary Peoples' Patriotic Bandsaw Collective," but these Chinese knock-offs are fine at the top end (e.g. Grizzly G0555) and there are a ton of after-market up-grade kits that can turn them into real "hot rods." 
 
See: Search Results (woodcraft.com)