Bob Cleek

While Howard I. Chapelle wrote in an era when his position as an academic author and employee of the Smithsonian was accorded the respect it deserved, he was nonetheless quite controversial in some matters. 
 
The controversy for which he is most famous had to do with his correct assessment that the USS Constellation of 1797 and the USS Constellation of 1854 were entirely distinct ships, a dispute which festered for some time between Boston, with USS Constitution and Baltimore with USS Constellation, which promoters argued was one and the same with the 1797 frigate which had actually been broken up in 1853, the USS Constellation of 1854, built a year later, being the original Constellation's replacement.
 
Chapelle's drawings have been criticized for inaccuracies and a penchant for his substituting information when such was lacking. Given the nature of the work he was doing, and particularly the work of others he was directing during the WPA Historic American Merchant Marine Survey, these being out of work architects, engineers, and draftsmen who were not always conversant with naval architecture and marine engineering, those inaccuracies are understandable and not "controversial." Nobody disputes them.
 
Chapelle's writing style may seem pedantic, "harshly judgmental, and/or "arrogant," to today's reader, but at the risk of being accused of the same (as has happened before ) Chapelle's prose style was entirely appropriate in its time. It is only fairly recently that an ethic of "political correctness" has our diluted our academic literary style, resulting in what one might call the "Little League Syndrome" where "everybody wins a prize," and God help anybody who's heard to say that the losing team lost because they played poorly! What today's readers would consider arrogance in dismissing the work of a predecessor with the comment that they "were not educated" was taken as an authoritative assessment by Chapelle at the time of its writing. Chapelle wasn't alone in his forthrightness and candor. Most commentators of the time were similarly unrestrained in their criticism when they found cause to express it. L.F. Herreshoff was famous for his curmudgeonly, and often quire humorous, prose on the subject of yachts and yachting. In Chapelle's day, the uneducated would never have disputed the pronouncements of the educated, affording them the respect due their degrees, but not so today when "everybody has a right to their own opinion" and the internet provides a platform for hucksters and snake oil salesmen to peddle their wares to the gullible and most feel socially constrained to stand mute when confronted with stupidity.
 
You can get a good sense of Chapelle's "straight from the shoulder" style from his articles Ship Models That Should be Built (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Ought to be Built (thenrg.org) and Ship Models That Should Not be Built, (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Should Not be Built (thenrg.org) which are available in the forum's "Articles Database" (under "More" in the top of the page menu.) Just imagine what sort of reception you'd get in this forum if you expressed Chapelle's opinion that:
 
"There are enough Flying Clouds, Constitutions, racing fishermen, and imaginary galleons God knows, and there is surely some type of boat or vessel that will interest a modeler that has not yet been modeled. But, if you are not interested in accurate models and desire to build stuff of a level of truthfulness of a Hollywood movie "Pirate Ship" or "Spanish Galleon" forget I brought the matter up."
 
 They'd scratch your eyes out for sure. 

Change your plan and stain the model!  One of the wood dyes is more likely to penetrate the repaired area.

While Howard I. Chapelle wrote in an era when his position as an academic author and employee of the Smithsonian was accorded the respect it deserved, he was nonetheless quite controversial in some matters. 
 
The controversy for which he is most famous had to do with his correct assessment that the USS Constellation of 1797 and the USS Constellation of 1854 were entirely distinct ships, a dispute which festered for some time between Boston, with USS Constitution and Baltimore with USS Constellation, which promoters argued was one and the same with the 1797 frigate which had actually been broken up in 1853, the USS Constellation of 1854, built a year later, being the original Constellation's replacement.
 
Chapelle's drawings have been criticized for inaccuracies and a penchant for his substituting information when such was lacking. Given the nature of the work he was doing, and particularly the work of others he was directing during the WPA Historic American Merchant Marine Survey, these being out of work architects, engineers, and draftsmen who were not always conversant with naval architecture and marine engineering, those inaccuracies are understandable and not "controversial." Nobody disputes them.
 
Chapelle's writing style may seem pedantic, "harshly judgmental, and/or "arrogant," to today's reader, but at the risk of being accused of the same (as has happened before ) Chapelle's prose style was entirely appropriate in its time. It is only fairly recently that an ethic of "political correctness" has our diluted our academic literary style, resulting in what one might call the "Little League Syndrome" where "everybody wins a prize," and God help anybody who's heard to say that the losing team lost because they played poorly! What today's readers would consider arrogance in dismissing the work of a predecessor with the comment that they "were not educated" was taken as an authoritative assessment by Chapelle at the time of its writing. Chapelle wasn't alone in his forthrightness and candor. Most commentators of the time were similarly unrestrained in their criticism when they found cause to express it. L.F. Herreshoff was famous for his curmudgeonly, and often quire humorous, prose on the subject of yachts and yachting. In Chapelle's day, the uneducated would never have disputed the pronouncements of the educated, affording them the respect due their degrees, but not so today when "everybody has a right to their own opinion" and the internet provides a platform for hucksters and snake oil salesmen to peddle their wares to the gullible and most feel socially constrained to stand mute when confronted with stupidity.
 
You can get a good sense of Chapelle's "straight from the shoulder" style from his articles Ship Models That Should be Built (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Ought to be Built (thenrg.org) and Ship Models That Should Not be Built, (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Should Not be Built (thenrg.org) which are available in the forum's "Articles Database" (under "More" in the top of the page menu.) Just imagine what sort of reception you'd get in this forum if you expressed Chapelle's opinion that:
 
"There are enough Flying Clouds, Constitutions, racing fishermen, and imaginary galleons God knows, and there is surely some type of boat or vessel that will interest a modeler that has not yet been modeled. But, if you are not interested in accurate models and desire to build stuff of a level of truthfulness of a Hollywood movie "Pirate Ship" or "Spanish Galleon" forget I brought the matter up."
 
 They'd scratch your eyes out for sure. 

While Howard I. Chapelle wrote in an era when his position as an academic author and employee of the Smithsonian was accorded the respect it deserved, he was nonetheless quite controversial in some matters. 
 
The controversy for which he is most famous had to do with his correct assessment that the USS Constellation of 1797 and the USS Constellation of 1854 were entirely distinct ships, a dispute which festered for some time between Boston, with USS Constitution and Baltimore with USS Constellation, which promoters argued was one and the same with the 1797 frigate which had actually been broken up in 1853, the USS Constellation of 1854, built a year later, being the original Constellation's replacement.
 
Chapelle's drawings have been criticized for inaccuracies and a penchant for his substituting information when such was lacking. Given the nature of the work he was doing, and particularly the work of others he was directing during the WPA Historic American Merchant Marine Survey, these being out of work architects, engineers, and draftsmen who were not always conversant with naval architecture and marine engineering, those inaccuracies are understandable and not "controversial." Nobody disputes them.
 
Chapelle's writing style may seem pedantic, "harshly judgmental, and/or "arrogant," to today's reader, but at the risk of being accused of the same (as has happened before ) Chapelle's prose style was entirely appropriate in its time. It is only fairly recently that an ethic of "political correctness" has our diluted our academic literary style, resulting in what one might call the "Little League Syndrome" where "everybody wins a prize," and God help anybody who's heard to say that the losing team lost because they played poorly! What today's readers would consider arrogance in dismissing the work of a predecessor with the comment that they "were not educated" was taken as an authoritative assessment by Chapelle at the time of its writing. Chapelle wasn't alone in his forthrightness and candor. Most commentators of the time were similarly unrestrained in their criticism when they found cause to express it. L.F. Herreshoff was famous for his curmudgeonly, and often quire humorous, prose on the subject of yachts and yachting. In Chapelle's day, the uneducated would never have disputed the pronouncements of the educated, affording them the respect due their degrees, but not so today when "everybody has a right to their own opinion" and the internet provides a platform for hucksters and snake oil salesmen to peddle their wares to the gullible and most feel socially constrained to stand mute when confronted with stupidity.
 
You can get a good sense of Chapelle's "straight from the shoulder" style from his articles Ship Models That Should be Built (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Ought to be Built (thenrg.org) and Ship Models That Should Not be Built, (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Should Not be Built (thenrg.org) which are available in the forum's "Articles Database" (under "More" in the top of the page menu.) Just imagine what sort of reception you'd get in this forum if you expressed Chapelle's opinion that:
 
"There are enough Flying Clouds, Constitutions, racing fishermen, and imaginary galleons God knows, and there is surely some type of boat or vessel that will interest a modeler that has not yet been modeled. But, if you are not interested in accurate models and desire to build stuff of a level of truthfulness of a Hollywood movie "Pirate Ship" or "Spanish Galleon" forget I brought the matter up."
 
 They'd scratch your eyes out for sure. 

While Howard I. Chapelle wrote in an era when his position as an academic author and employee of the Smithsonian was accorded the respect it deserved, he was nonetheless quite controversial in some matters. 
 
The controversy for which he is most famous had to do with his correct assessment that the USS Constellation of 1797 and the USS Constellation of 1854 were entirely distinct ships, a dispute which festered for some time between Boston, with USS Constitution and Baltimore with USS Constellation, which promoters argued was one and the same with the 1797 frigate which had actually been broken up in 1853, the USS Constellation of 1854, built a year later, being the original Constellation's replacement.
 
Chapelle's drawings have been criticized for inaccuracies and a penchant for his substituting information when such was lacking. Given the nature of the work he was doing, and particularly the work of others he was directing during the WPA Historic American Merchant Marine Survey, these being out of work architects, engineers, and draftsmen who were not always conversant with naval architecture and marine engineering, those inaccuracies are understandable and not "controversial." Nobody disputes them.
 
Chapelle's writing style may seem pedantic, "harshly judgmental, and/or "arrogant," to today's reader, but at the risk of being accused of the same (as has happened before ) Chapelle's prose style was entirely appropriate in its time. It is only fairly recently that an ethic of "political correctness" has our diluted our academic literary style, resulting in what one might call the "Little League Syndrome" where "everybody wins a prize," and God help anybody who's heard to say that the losing team lost because they played poorly! What today's readers would consider arrogance in dismissing the work of a predecessor with the comment that they "were not educated" was taken as an authoritative assessment by Chapelle at the time of its writing. Chapelle wasn't alone in his forthrightness and candor. Most commentators of the time were similarly unrestrained in their criticism when they found cause to express it. L.F. Herreshoff was famous for his curmudgeonly, and often quire humorous, prose on the subject of yachts and yachting. In Chapelle's day, the uneducated would never have disputed the pronouncements of the educated, affording them the respect due their degrees, but not so today when "everybody has a right to their own opinion" and the internet provides a platform for hucksters and snake oil salesmen to peddle their wares to the gullible and most feel socially constrained to stand mute when confronted with stupidity.
 
You can get a good sense of Chapelle's "straight from the shoulder" style from his articles Ship Models That Should be Built (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Ought to be Built (thenrg.org) and Ship Models That Should Not be Built, (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Should Not be Built (thenrg.org) which are available in the forum's "Articles Database" (under "More" in the top of the page menu.) Just imagine what sort of reception you'd get in this forum if you expressed Chapelle's opinion that:
 
"There are enough Flying Clouds, Constitutions, racing fishermen, and imaginary galleons God knows, and there is surely some type of boat or vessel that will interest a modeler that has not yet been modeled. But, if you are not interested in accurate models and desire to build stuff of a level of truthfulness of a Hollywood movie "Pirate Ship" or "Spanish Galleon" forget I brought the matter up."
 
 They'd scratch your eyes out for sure. 

While Howard I. Chapelle wrote in an era when his position as an academic author and employee of the Smithsonian was accorded the respect it deserved, he was nonetheless quite controversial in some matters. 
 
The controversy for which he is most famous had to do with his correct assessment that the USS Constellation of 1797 and the USS Constellation of 1854 were entirely distinct ships, a dispute which festered for some time between Boston, with USS Constitution and Baltimore with USS Constellation, which promoters argued was one and the same with the 1797 frigate which had actually been broken up in 1853, the USS Constellation of 1854, built a year later, being the original Constellation's replacement.
 
Chapelle's drawings have been criticized for inaccuracies and a penchant for his substituting information when such was lacking. Given the nature of the work he was doing, and particularly the work of others he was directing during the WPA Historic American Merchant Marine Survey, these being out of work architects, engineers, and draftsmen who were not always conversant with naval architecture and marine engineering, those inaccuracies are understandable and not "controversial." Nobody disputes them.
 
Chapelle's writing style may seem pedantic, "harshly judgmental, and/or "arrogant," to today's reader, but at the risk of being accused of the same (as has happened before ) Chapelle's prose style was entirely appropriate in its time. It is only fairly recently that an ethic of "political correctness" has our diluted our academic literary style, resulting in what one might call the "Little League Syndrome" where "everybody wins a prize," and God help anybody who's heard to say that the losing team lost because they played poorly! What today's readers would consider arrogance in dismissing the work of a predecessor with the comment that they "were not educated" was taken as an authoritative assessment by Chapelle at the time of its writing. Chapelle wasn't alone in his forthrightness and candor. Most commentators of the time were similarly unrestrained in their criticism when they found cause to express it. L.F. Herreshoff was famous for his curmudgeonly, and often quire humorous, prose on the subject of yachts and yachting. In Chapelle's day, the uneducated would never have disputed the pronouncements of the educated, affording them the respect due their degrees, but not so today when "everybody has a right to their own opinion" and the internet provides a platform for hucksters and snake oil salesmen to peddle their wares to the gullible and most feel socially constrained to stand mute when confronted with stupidity.
 
You can get a good sense of Chapelle's "straight from the shoulder" style from his articles Ship Models That Should be Built (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Ought to be Built (thenrg.org) and Ship Models That Should Not be Built, (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Should Not be Built (thenrg.org) which are available in the forum's "Articles Database" (under "More" in the top of the page menu.) Just imagine what sort of reception you'd get in this forum if you expressed Chapelle's opinion that:
 
"There are enough Flying Clouds, Constitutions, racing fishermen, and imaginary galleons God knows, and there is surely some type of boat or vessel that will interest a modeler that has not yet been modeled. But, if you are not interested in accurate models and desire to build stuff of a level of truthfulness of a Hollywood movie "Pirate Ship" or "Spanish Galleon" forget I brought the matter up."
 
 They'd scratch your eyes out for sure. 

Thanks for this suggestion. I ordered the Tage Frid books 1 and 2 used for $18. I'm not sure if I need the third one on furniture making, but may seek it out later.

While Howard I. Chapelle wrote in an era when his position as an academic author and employee of the Smithsonian was accorded the respect it deserved, he was nonetheless quite controversial in some matters. 
 
The controversy for which he is most famous had to do with his correct assessment that the USS Constellation of 1797 and the USS Constellation of 1854 were entirely distinct ships, a dispute which festered for some time between Boston, with USS Constitution and Baltimore with USS Constellation, which promoters argued was one and the same with the 1797 frigate which had actually been broken up in 1853, the USS Constellation of 1854, built a year later, being the original Constellation's replacement.
 
Chapelle's drawings have been criticized for inaccuracies and a penchant for his substituting information when such was lacking. Given the nature of the work he was doing, and particularly the work of others he was directing during the WPA Historic American Merchant Marine Survey, these being out of work architects, engineers, and draftsmen who were not always conversant with naval architecture and marine engineering, those inaccuracies are understandable and not "controversial." Nobody disputes them.
 
Chapelle's writing style may seem pedantic, "harshly judgmental, and/or "arrogant," to today's reader, but at the risk of being accused of the same (as has happened before ) Chapelle's prose style was entirely appropriate in its time. It is only fairly recently that an ethic of "political correctness" has our diluted our academic literary style, resulting in what one might call the "Little League Syndrome" where "everybody wins a prize," and God help anybody who's heard to say that the losing team lost because they played poorly! What today's readers would consider arrogance in dismissing the work of a predecessor with the comment that they "were not educated" was taken as an authoritative assessment by Chapelle at the time of its writing. Chapelle wasn't alone in his forthrightness and candor. Most commentators of the time were similarly unrestrained in their criticism when they found cause to express it. L.F. Herreshoff was famous for his curmudgeonly, and often quire humorous, prose on the subject of yachts and yachting. In Chapelle's day, the uneducated would never have disputed the pronouncements of the educated, affording them the respect due their degrees, but not so today when "everybody has a right to their own opinion" and the internet provides a platform for hucksters and snake oil salesmen to peddle their wares to the gullible and most feel socially constrained to stand mute when confronted with stupidity.
 
You can get a good sense of Chapelle's "straight from the shoulder" style from his articles Ship Models That Should be Built (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Ought to be Built (thenrg.org) and Ship Models That Should Not be Built, (Nautical Research Guild - Article - Ship Models that Should Not be Built (thenrg.org) which are available in the forum's "Articles Database" (under "More" in the top of the page menu.) Just imagine what sort of reception you'd get in this forum if you expressed Chapelle's opinion that:
 
"There are enough Flying Clouds, Constitutions, racing fishermen, and imaginary galleons God knows, and there is surely some type of boat or vessel that will interest a modeler that has not yet been modeled. But, if you are not interested in accurate models and desire to build stuff of a level of truthfulness of a Hollywood movie "Pirate Ship" or "Spanish Galleon" forget I brought the matter up."
 
 They'd scratch your eyes out for sure. 

Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking: Three Step-by-Step Guidebooks to Essential Woodworking Techniques. Book 1: "Joinery," Book 2:  "Shaping, Veneering, Finishing," and ""Book 3: "Furniture making," In print for probably close to 40 years now, this is considered by some the Bible on classic hand tool woodworking. Originally three separate volumes published by Fine Woodworking, and then in a three volume slip-cased set by Taunton Press.  Written by the late Tage Frid, a traditionally trained Danish-born woodworker who was a big player in the American custom art furniture movement. Nearly everything in Frid's books translates easily to modeling because he covers well the basics of traditional woodworking hand tools.  Modern power woodworking tools are covered, as well. Profusely illustrated. A recognized primary reference work on the subject.  Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking: Three Step-by-Step Guidebooks to Essential Woodworking Techniques: Frid, Tage: 9781561588268: Amazon.com: Books
 
It's also available in online in PDF format: [pdf] Download Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking Ebook and Read Online (saintlukebc.org)

I highly recommend these Micro-Jig Grr-Rippers.  The picture below shows it on a full size table saw, but you can get a 1/8” leg and so I use it on my Byrnes saw.  Much easier and safer than using push sticks.
 

 
Another great safety accessory is a cross-cut sled.  You can order one from Jim if you have a Byrnes saw.
 

 
I feel very fortunate to not have suffered an injury thus far.  I find it best to first think about the cut and make sure you tick off your safety list.  For me, my list includes things like eye protection, where am I standing, appropriate blade height, and visualizing and setting up how am I supporting and pushing the wood through the blade.  I always wear short sleeve t shirts and would never wear gloves!
 
I’ve often had to stop myself when thinking to do a “quick cut” to take a step back and make sure the safety y precautions are taken.  My guess is rushing and getting too in a groove to the point you’re not fully concentrating are some of the biggest contributors to accidents.

Dear friends,
I proud to let you know that we are completely renewed and run new version of our site - ShipWorkshop.com
 
Whats new:
Redesigned "Shop" with credit/debit card processing as well as payments via PayPal; Our "News" implemented as blog where we can communicate with our customers showing them product design changes as well as just put some useful info in; Redesigned "Downloads" section where you may find printed/video guides how to assemble and use our tools. We still provide some services for modelers like: Complete ship reconstruction, Design the hull, Model construction and custom tools design for your need. You may "Contact" us filling the form or just drop us email.  

You're right because you've correctly determined a $20 pin vise has the ability to do the work you want it to do. I'd expect this is true of most ship modelers and certainly of those starting out. This fact is a good example of why the maxim that one should always buy the best tool they can afford has to be tempered by common sense. 
 
As far as I can see, what hasn't been mentioned in this thread is what difference there is between the low-priced pin vises and the high-priced ones. The determining factor is the level of accuracy to which each is capable. For most ship modeling tasks, however, we aren't talking about the sort of accuracy a fine watchmaker or scientific instrument maker requires, but rather the sort of accuracy a  wooden ship modeler requires. A pin vise's accuracy comes from the pin vise's ability to hold a bit (or any other cylindrical piece) of a given diameter in perfect alignment with the vise shaft itself.  The less expensive, and less accurate pin vises are just less reliable in their ability to grasp and hold a bit shaft in perfect alignment with the vise body. If a pin vise is twisted by hand, within the tolerance limits of a wooden ship model, the "runout," as machinists call it, i.e. the amount of "out of true" the bit point will rotate at, is not particularly problematic. On the other hand, if a pin vise is mounted in a drill press, the "whip" from the runout can often cause a bit to break.
 
What the buyer gets for their $100 when buying a top-end professional grade pin vise like a Starrett or Moody is the certainty that the costly close-tolerance machining in the expensive pin vise ensures negligible runout at the tip of the drill bit and consequently drills holes to very high tolerances. 
 
Another bit of important information not mentioned is that a four-jaw (or more) collet holds a bit with much more accuracy than does a three- or four-jaw chuck. Collets are made to hold specifically sized cylindrical shapes. While there's some range of  "play" in inexpensive collets, machinists' collects are made to fit specific diameters so that when the collet holder cap is tightened down the collet evenly grasps the cylinder all around its circumference, ensuring secure holding with negligible runout. Chucks only hold cylinders by applying pressure at points equal to their number of jaws and are consequently more prone to runout. Here again, precision machining in a chuck's manufacture determines the price of a given chuck at a given accuracy tolerance level. Inexpensive chucks simply do not ensure accuracy to tight tolerances.
 
While those who own them are probably already aware, it might be noted that the style of pin vise made by General and, I believe others, and pictured in posts #9 and #11 above actually contains two double-ended differently-sized collets. The collet holder cap nut permits the double-ended collet it holds to be removed and end-for-ended. The second double-ended collet is stored in the shaft of the pin vise, which unscrews to permit access to it. I mention this because I owned one of these General-style pin vises for decades without realizing there was another double ended collet stored in the shaft of the vise handle!  
 
 
 

You're right because you've correctly determined a $20 pin vise has the ability to do the work you want it to do. I'd expect this is true of most ship modelers and certainly of those starting out. This fact is a good example of why the maxim that one should always buy the best tool they can afford has to be tempered by common sense. 
 
As far as I can see, what hasn't been mentioned in this thread is what difference there is between the low-priced pin vises and the high-priced ones. The determining factor is the level of accuracy to which each is capable. For most ship modeling tasks, however, we aren't talking about the sort of accuracy a fine watchmaker or scientific instrument maker requires, but rather the sort of accuracy a  wooden ship modeler requires. A pin vise's accuracy comes from the pin vise's ability to hold a bit (or any other cylindrical piece) of a given diameter in perfect alignment with the vise shaft itself.  The less expensive, and less accurate pin vises are just less reliable in their ability to grasp and hold a bit shaft in perfect alignment with the vise body. If a pin vise is twisted by hand, within the tolerance limits of a wooden ship model, the "runout," as machinists call it, i.e. the amount of "out of true" the bit point will rotate at, is not particularly problematic. On the other hand, if a pin vise is mounted in a drill press, the "whip" from the runout can often cause a bit to break.
 
What the buyer gets for their $100 when buying a top-end professional grade pin vise like a Starrett or Moody is the certainty that the costly close-tolerance machining in the expensive pin vise ensures negligible runout at the tip of the drill bit and consequently drills holes to very high tolerances. 
 
Another bit of important information not mentioned is that a four-jaw (or more) collet holds a bit with much more accuracy than does a three- or four-jaw chuck. Collets are made to hold specifically sized cylindrical shapes. While there's some range of  "play" in inexpensive collets, machinists' collects are made to fit specific diameters so that when the collet holder cap is tightened down the collet evenly grasps the cylinder all around its circumference, ensuring secure holding with negligible runout. Chucks only hold cylinders by applying pressure at points equal to their number of jaws and are consequently more prone to runout. Here again, precision machining in a chuck's manufacture determines the price of a given chuck at a given accuracy tolerance level. Inexpensive chucks simply do not ensure accuracy to tight tolerances.
 
While those who own them are probably already aware, it might be noted that the style of pin vise made by General and, I believe others, and pictured in posts #9 and #11 above actually contains two double-ended differently-sized collets. The collet holder cap nut permits the double-ended collet it holds to be removed and end-for-ended. The second double-ended collet is stored in the shaft of the pin vise, which unscrews to permit access to it. I mention this because I owned one of these General-style pin vises for decades without realizing there was another double ended collet stored in the shaft of the vise handle!  
 
 
 

You're right because you've correctly determined a $20 pin vise has the ability to do the work you want it to do. I'd expect this is true of most ship modelers and certainly of those starting out. This fact is a good example of why the maxim that one should always buy the best tool they can afford has to be tempered by common sense. 
 
As far as I can see, what hasn't been mentioned in this thread is what difference there is between the low-priced pin vises and the high-priced ones. The determining factor is the level of accuracy to which each is capable. For most ship modeling tasks, however, we aren't talking about the sort of accuracy a fine watchmaker or scientific instrument maker requires, but rather the sort of accuracy a  wooden ship modeler requires. A pin vise's accuracy comes from the pin vise's ability to hold a bit (or any other cylindrical piece) of a given diameter in perfect alignment with the vise shaft itself.  The less expensive, and less accurate pin vises are just less reliable in their ability to grasp and hold a bit shaft in perfect alignment with the vise body. If a pin vise is twisted by hand, within the tolerance limits of a wooden ship model, the "runout," as machinists call it, i.e. the amount of "out of true" the bit point will rotate at, is not particularly problematic. On the other hand, if a pin vise is mounted in a drill press, the "whip" from the runout can often cause a bit to break.
 
What the buyer gets for their $100 when buying a top-end professional grade pin vise like a Starrett or Moody is the certainty that the costly close-tolerance machining in the expensive pin vise ensures negligible runout at the tip of the drill bit and consequently drills holes to very high tolerances. 
 
Another bit of important information not mentioned is that a four-jaw (or more) collet holds a bit with much more accuracy than does a three- or four-jaw chuck. Collets are made to hold specifically sized cylindrical shapes. While there's some range of  "play" in inexpensive collets, machinists' collects are made to fit specific diameters so that when the collet holder cap is tightened down the collet evenly grasps the cylinder all around its circumference, ensuring secure holding with negligible runout. Chucks only hold cylinders by applying pressure at points equal to their number of jaws and are consequently more prone to runout. Here again, precision machining in a chuck's manufacture determines the price of a given chuck at a given accuracy tolerance level. Inexpensive chucks simply do not ensure accuracy to tight tolerances.
 
While those who own them are probably already aware, it might be noted that the style of pin vise made by General and, I believe others, and pictured in posts #9 and #11 above actually contains two double-ended differently-sized collets. The collet holder cap nut permits the double-ended collet it holds to be removed and end-for-ended. The second double-ended collet is stored in the shaft of the pin vise, which unscrews to permit access to it. I mention this because I owned one of these General-style pin vises for decades without realizing there was another double ended collet stored in the shaft of the vise handle!  
 
 
 

You're right because you've correctly determined a $20 pin vise has the ability to do the work you want it to do. I'd expect this is true of most ship modelers and certainly of those starting out. This fact is a good example of why the maxim that one should always buy the best tool they can afford has to be tempered by common sense. 
 
As far as I can see, what hasn't been mentioned in this thread is what difference there is between the low-priced pin vises and the high-priced ones. The determining factor is the level of accuracy to which each is capable. For most ship modeling tasks, however, we aren't talking about the sort of accuracy a fine watchmaker or scientific instrument maker requires, but rather the sort of accuracy a  wooden ship modeler requires. A pin vise's accuracy comes from the pin vise's ability to hold a bit (or any other cylindrical piece) of a given diameter in perfect alignment with the vise shaft itself.  The less expensive, and less accurate pin vises are just less reliable in their ability to grasp and hold a bit shaft in perfect alignment with the vise body. If a pin vise is twisted by hand, within the tolerance limits of a wooden ship model, the "runout," as machinists call it, i.e. the amount of "out of true" the bit point will rotate at, is not particularly problematic. On the other hand, if a pin vise is mounted in a drill press, the "whip" from the runout can often cause a bit to break.
 
What the buyer gets for their $100 when buying a top-end professional grade pin vise like a Starrett or Moody is the certainty that the costly close-tolerance machining in the expensive pin vise ensures negligible runout at the tip of the drill bit and consequently drills holes to very high tolerances. 
 
Another bit of important information not mentioned is that a four-jaw (or more) collet holds a bit with much more accuracy than does a three- or four-jaw chuck. Collets are made to hold specifically sized cylindrical shapes. While there's some range of  "play" in inexpensive collets, machinists' collects are made to fit specific diameters so that when the collet holder cap is tightened down the collet evenly grasps the cylinder all around its circumference, ensuring secure holding with negligible runout. Chucks only hold cylinders by applying pressure at points equal to their number of jaws and are consequently more prone to runout. Here again, precision machining in a chuck's manufacture determines the price of a given chuck at a given accuracy tolerance level. Inexpensive chucks simply do not ensure accuracy to tight tolerances.
 
While those who own them are probably already aware, it might be noted that the style of pin vise made by General and, I believe others, and pictured in posts #9 and #11 above actually contains two double-ended differently-sized collets. The collet holder cap nut permits the double-ended collet it holds to be removed and end-for-ended. The second double-ended collet is stored in the shaft of the pin vise, which unscrews to permit access to it. I mention this because I owned one of these General-style pin vises for decades without realizing there was another double ended collet stored in the shaft of the vise handle!  
 
 
 

Capella
 
Starrett or Moody,  the best there is
 
Jim

There is a lengthy series of posts under the name Pin Vice Help Needed.  You can find it with the search function above.
 
I bought a 4 pin vice set made by Moody in Providence, RI.  Good quality.

There's no miter gauge required at all. It's a "rip taper gauge." Here's a photo of the rip taper gauge made by Byrnes Model Machines and sized for their 4" table saw:
 

 
Byrnes Model Machines - Table Saw
 
This one is adjustable for the angle of the taper desired, but a wedge of plywood cut to the desired angle will serve as well to cut a single angle. alternately, a rip taper gauge is easily made in the shop from scrap wood. As pictured, with the "straight" leg of the rip taper gauge against the fence, the work piece is slid down the angled side of the rip taper gauge as if the angled leg of the gauge were the fence and the taper is cut in that fashion.
 
 

Kevin,
 
That’s right, one rudder, with two fixed offset parts.  I don’t know when or if they stopped using them; my Naval Architecture education occurred in the first half of the 1960’s and they were still being fitted to new ships.  
 
Finite element modeling, CAD, and powerful PC’s have allowed Naval Architects to analyze complex fluid flow problems that could not be solved in the 1960’s.  I would, therefore, believe that this has improved efficiency of propellers.
 
It may seem counter intuitive but propulsion efficiency is better for single screw than twin screw ships as the single propeller works in an area where it can capture more energy from turbulent water shed from the hull.  This “extra boost is called the Wake Fraction.
 
Roger

An easy way to make straight tapered masts.  This assumes that you have  table saw.
 
1.  Rig up a simple taper jig.  This is nothing more than a strip of wood that fits into the saw’s miter gauge slot fastened to a board.
 
2. Tack glue a mast blank to the jig so that it passes through the blade with the correct taper.  Rip the blank.  Rotate the blank 90 degrees, glue to the jig and rip again.  You now have a tapered mast blank. 
 
3. A second jig: two pieces of wood with one edge of each chamfered. Fasten the boards together edge to edge with the chamfers forming a Vee groove.
 
4.  Lay the tapered blank in the Vee groove and plane each corner the same number of strokes.  
 
5.  Clamp an electric drill in a vice, chuck the mast blank and turn on the drill at slow speed.  Carefully sand the octagonal plank round.
 
It’s easier than it sounds.
 
Roger
 
 

Kevin,
 
That’s called a ContraGuide rudder.   It is shaped that way to straighten flow from the propeller.
 
The propeller works by accelerating a column of water behind the ship.  The reaction to this column of water, Newton’s Third Law, is a force in the opposite direction that pushes the ship ahead. Water, however, is viscous and this viscosity causes the water in the column from the propeller to rotate.   This rotation is lost energy.  The offsets on the rudder are intended to introduce a vector opposite to that of the rotating water column, to recover the lost energy.
 
Roger
 
 

Picked up a cheap Oral-B 500 toothbrush on ebay and made an oscillating detail sander from it.  Pulled the bristles out of the head and glued a small piece of sandpaper on it.  Tried it out on the hull of a model I am working on and it worked great.  Produces a nice smooth surface.  I am not going to trying using coarse sandpaper with it as I think it would be to aggressive.  The head oscillates at a high rate.

Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking: Three Step-by-Step Guidebooks to Essential Woodworking Techniques. Book 1: "Joinery," Book 2:  "Shaping, Veneering, Finishing," and ""Book 3: "Furniture making," In print for probably close to 40 years now, this is considered by some the Bible on classic hand tool woodworking. Originally three separate volumes published by Fine Woodworking, and then in a three volume slip-cased set by Taunton Press.  Written by the late Tage Frid, a traditionally trained Danish-born woodworker who was a big player in the American custom art furniture movement. Nearly everything in Frid's books translates easily to modeling because he covers well the basics of traditional woodworking hand tools.  Modern power woodworking tools are covered, as well. Profusely illustrated. A recognized primary reference work on the subject.  Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking: Three Step-by-Step Guidebooks to Essential Woodworking Techniques: Frid, Tage: 9781561588268: Amazon.com: Books
 
It's also available in online in PDF format: [pdf] Download Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking Ebook and Read Online (saintlukebc.org)

Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking: Three Step-by-Step Guidebooks to Essential Woodworking Techniques. Book 1: "Joinery," Book 2:  "Shaping, Veneering, Finishing," and ""Book 3: "Furniture making," In print for probably close to 40 years now, this is considered by some the Bible on classic hand tool woodworking. Originally three separate volumes published by Fine Woodworking, and then in a three volume slip-cased set by Taunton Press.  Written by the late Tage Frid, a traditionally trained Danish-born woodworker who was a big player in the American custom art furniture movement. Nearly everything in Frid's books translates easily to modeling because he covers well the basics of traditional woodworking hand tools.  Modern power woodworking tools are covered, as well. Profusely illustrated. A recognized primary reference work on the subject.  Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking: Three Step-by-Step Guidebooks to Essential Woodworking Techniques: Frid, Tage: 9781561588268: Amazon.com: Books
 
It's also available in online in PDF format: [pdf] Download Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking Ebook and Read Online (saintlukebc.org)

If you have room for them, my advice would be to outfit yourself with full sized woodworking tools, both hand and power and learn how to use them.  You can then move into small modelmaking tools as the need arises.  
 
The one skill that you need to master is keeping your edged tools sharp. Find a good book on sharpening and read it.  When I have a chance later today I’ll post information on an excellent book on the subject.
 
Roger