Bob Cleek

As said, it's a matter of scale. You can get away with it, barely, at 3/4" to the foot, as below, if you use very fine thread and the closest stitch setting. but corners hand stitched with the same thread produces a bit cruder results and bolt roping is a real challenge. On this model, I didn't sew the panels together, but rather simply stitched through the single sheet of fine cloth. There's no seam overlap on the panels, but the line of stitching does produce an impression of reality.
 
I didn't have any better close-ups of machine-sewn sails, but these shots of a three-quarters inch scale catboat give some idea of as much as one might expect of a home sewing machine. Below that, I wouldn't recommend cloth sails at all. (The copper fittings were left to develop a natural "penny brown" patina on their own, thereby simulating bronze. The photos were taken before that process had taken place.)
 
 
 




 
 
 



 
 
 

Did I mention that both my parents grew up in Stockton? High school sweethearts at Franklin, class of '59. My mom lived between Cherokee Lane and Waterloo Road, and dad lived on the other side of 99 off Walker Lane. One grandpa worked at Sharpe Army Depot, the other was a night watchman at Rough and Ready Island. Still have family in the area.

J boats had their day before the invention of synthetic fabrics. The color would have been a light cream.

J boats had their day before the invention of synthetic fabrics. The color would have been a light cream.

Will she be mounted with her sailing rig in place?

Will she be mounted with her sailing rig in place?

Will she be mounted with her sailing rig in place?

Great information there! Just enough to explain the use of the term, "caulked trunnels." By that is obviously meant, variously, wedging the end of the trunnel, or actually caulking it, but not in the way described by one poster above as driving oakum in the seam between the trunnel and the plank! This latter meaning also better explains the purpose of a "trenail caulking iron" mentioned in the Antique Tool Collectors' Research Forum. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.ency.34.59a.html  I've never before heard of the method described, but it makes perfect sense. The trunnel iron would be a "dumb iron" the width of a trunnel diameter used to split the trunnel end-grain and spread it to create a caulking seam. Oakum would then be driven into the crossed caulking seams in the head of the trunnel with an ordinary spike iron the width of the trunnel diameter, thereby spreading four quadrants of the trunnel end to apply pressure to the sides of the hole. These seams would then be stopped as any other  caulked seam. The term, "caulking," is used consistently here, and properly, to increase the pressure against adjacent faying surfaces in order to create a watertight seal. The inboard end of a through-trunnel would presumably be simply wedged, as watertightness from that end would not be a concern. Trunnels which were set in "blind holes" which were not drilled entirely through the frame, would be "wedged blind," being split at the inboard end with the wedge partially inserted before driving, such that when the trunnel "bottomed out" in the hole, the wedge would be driven fully into the trunnel, spreading the end of the trunnel as it reached the bottom of the blind hole.
 
This mechanics of caulking are often misunderstood by laypersons who think that it is the "caulking" material that "keeps the water out." (Although in modern general usage the term is used to describe the use of putties and tube-packaged goops to seal windows and bathtub seams and so do just that.) Not so. "Caulking" in the shipbuilding sense, is the practice of hammering material between joints to increase the pressure of the faying surfaces against each other which then, with the swelling of the wood in a wet environment, creates a tight seam under great pressure. That tight wood-to-wood joint is what makes the joint watertight.
 
So, if one is anally oriented, it's time for them to start drawing little black (or dark brown) "X's" on the heads of all those over-scale trunnels to which they seem so attached.
 
As for the good Mr. Caruthers' explanation of "caulked" plugs over countersunk fastenings as described above, I have to say "baloney" to that. Plugs are cut so their grain, when in place, will run the same as the host plank, not perpendicular to the surrounding grain, as do trunnels. (Were it otherwise, the plug's end-grain, being "tougher," would wear less than the face of the planks and, in short order, the plugs would begin to stand proud of the plank, resulting in a "bumpy" deck, making holystoning difficult, if not impossible, and protruding plugs liable to being knocked loose over time.) Trunnels, as described earlier, are held in place by being driven drier than the surrounding wood and then swelling up as they absorb moisture. Plugs are driven tight, but are held in place simply by that friction in their holes and may, or may not, be set in thickened shellac or other adhesive to ensure they stay in place. Plugs are not subject to the mechanical stresses that trunnels are. In fact, plugs are subject to little or no stress whatsoever once in place. Coating the countersunk head of an iron fastening with tar before the plug is set is sufficient to retard rusting which could serve to push the plug up and out of the countersunk hole. Traditionally, square-cut bare iron ship's nails had a string of oakum wrapped around the shank beneath their heads and the nail and oakum wrapping dipped in tar immediately before driving the square nail into the smaller round drilled pilot hole for the nail. The same was done beneath the washers with iron bolts and drifts. (This was in later times called "Chinese galvanizing," but I'm not exactly sure why. Perhaps it was a perjorative reference intended to convey a "quick and dirty" cost-cutting practice.) The plug was then set in the countersunk hole. There's no way to "caulk" a countersunk plug because its end-grain can't be split because it runs horizontally, not vertically, as does a trunnel's.  Obviously, if a driven iron fastening were so loose that it was not watertight all on its own, watertightness was the least of its problems! 

Great information there! Just enough to explain the use of the term, "caulked trunnels." By that is obviously meant, variously, wedging the end of the trunnel, or actually caulking it, but not in the way described by one poster above as driving oakum in the seam between the trunnel and the plank! This latter meaning also better explains the purpose of a "trenail caulking iron" mentioned in the Antique Tool Collectors' Research Forum. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.ency.34.59a.html  I've never before heard of the method described, but it makes perfect sense. The trunnel iron would be a "dumb iron" the width of a trunnel diameter used to split the trunnel end-grain and spread it to create a caulking seam. Oakum would then be driven into the crossed caulking seams in the head of the trunnel with an ordinary spike iron the width of the trunnel diameter, thereby spreading four quadrants of the trunnel end to apply pressure to the sides of the hole. These seams would then be stopped as any other  caulked seam. The term, "caulking," is used consistently here, and properly, to increase the pressure against adjacent faying surfaces in order to create a watertight seal. The inboard end of a through-trunnel would presumably be simply wedged, as watertightness from that end would not be a concern. Trunnels which were set in "blind holes" which were not drilled entirely through the frame, would be "wedged blind," being split at the inboard end with the wedge partially inserted before driving, such that when the trunnel "bottomed out" in the hole, the wedge would be driven fully into the trunnel, spreading the end of the trunnel as it reached the bottom of the blind hole.
 
This mechanics of caulking are often misunderstood by laypersons who think that it is the "caulking" material that "keeps the water out." (Although in modern general usage the term is used to describe the use of putties and tube-packaged goops to seal windows and bathtub seams and so do just that.) Not so. "Caulking" in the shipbuilding sense, is the practice of hammering material between joints to increase the pressure of the faying surfaces against each other which then, with the swelling of the wood in a wet environment, creates a tight seam under great pressure. That tight wood-to-wood joint is what makes the joint watertight.
 
So, if one is anally oriented, it's time for them to start drawing little black (or dark brown) "X's" on the heads of all those over-scale trunnels to which they seem so attached.
 
As for the good Mr. Caruthers' explanation of "caulked" plugs over countersunk fastenings as described above, I have to say "baloney" to that. Plugs are cut so their grain, when in place, will run the same as the host plank, not perpendicular to the surrounding grain, as do trunnels. (Were it otherwise, the plug's end-grain, being "tougher," would wear less than the face of the planks and, in short order, the plugs would begin to stand proud of the plank, resulting in a "bumpy" deck, making holystoning difficult, if not impossible, and protruding plugs liable to being knocked loose over time.) Trunnels, as described earlier, are held in place by being driven drier than the surrounding wood and then swelling up as they absorb moisture. Plugs are driven tight, but are held in place simply by that friction in their holes and may, or may not, be set in thickened shellac or other adhesive to ensure they stay in place. Plugs are not subject to the mechanical stresses that trunnels are. In fact, plugs are subject to little or no stress whatsoever once in place. Coating the countersunk head of an iron fastening with tar before the plug is set is sufficient to retard rusting which could serve to push the plug up and out of the countersunk hole. Traditionally, square-cut bare iron ship's nails had a string of oakum wrapped around the shank beneath their heads and the nail and oakum wrapping dipped in tar immediately before driving the square nail into the smaller round drilled pilot hole for the nail. The same was done beneath the washers with iron bolts and drifts. (This was in later times called "Chinese galvanizing," but I'm not exactly sure why. Perhaps it was a perjorative reference intended to convey a "quick and dirty" cost-cutting practice.) The plug was then set in the countersunk hole. There's no way to "caulk" a countersunk plug because its end-grain can't be split because it runs horizontally, not vertically, as does a trunnel's.  Obviously, if a driven iron fastening were so loose that it was not watertight all on its own, watertightness was the least of its problems! 

Caulking was a trade and was carried out under the eye of the master shipwright. It had specialist tools, agreed rates of pay and working conditions. I have never seen anything that indicated that the job of 'caulker' was concerned with anything other filling the seams and holes of the boat to whatever was the agreed specification of the day and doing it quickly.
Anything is possible but I believe Bob's view ...
 
... is correct. Some other worker drove and wedged the treenails and the caulker followed behind. 
And don't forget, my comment is worth what you paid.

My understanding was/is that treenails are slightly tapered and driven into their respective holes from the outside, after having been dipped into tar and the holes themselves also being tarred. The treenail then is spilt inside the hull and the wedge being driven in thus locking (clenching) the treenail. On the outside, the treenails would be planed flush with the planking.
 
Any attempt to caulk a treenail would loosen it in its hole and, hence, compromise its function of locking the planking to structural members of the hull.
 
I am not sure, but I think also that the grain in the treenail was set perpendicular to the run of the planking. Otherwise, as the planks shrink perpendicular to the grain when drying out, the loosening of treenail by the holes becoming larger would be compounded as the treenail also becomes smaller perpendicular to the grain.

Beautiful! Does it sound good?  
 
Have you ever visited the website of the Craftsmanship Museum that is run by the Sherline Company that makes small lathes? It's full of beautiful photos and information about the most amazing miniatures and models I've ever seen. (The website has a lot of "depth" beneath the home page, so play around with it to see how much is there.)  Check it out: https://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/
 
And all moving parts in the prototype move in the miniature model!

I don't claim to be an authority on Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century British Admiralty shipbuilding practices, but I do have a small bit of hands-on experience calking seams and driving trunnels. I may later stand corrected, but I don't believe seams on vertical surfaces were ever payed, which is the process of pouring hot molten liquid tar (or pitch compounds) from a hot can with a specialized spout designed for the purpose. Generally, then, it was only decks which were payed. I believe seams on vertical surfaces were "stopped" with similar "stopping" compounds of "plastic," rather than "liquid," pitch or tar applied with a putty knife. 
 
I don't dispute the obvious reference in the contemporary specifications to "caulking" trunnels, but, in that instance, I believe the reference is to the practice of sealing the end-grain with tar or pitch inside of the trunnel hole immediately before driving the trunnel or to apply stopping to wedged trunnels which had split or broken edges after driving. There is certainly no reason to drive oakum around a trunnel as has been described above in this thread. That's just plain silly. I've got at least a couple of dozen caulking irons in my caulker's bucket, which I obtained many years ago from the widow of a lifelong master ship caulker. While some are "bent irons," with their shafts bent to permit accessing difficult to reach seams, none are shaped like a gouge on the working edge of the iron for the purpose of caulking curved seams or trunnels. This is simply because such a gouge-shaped iron would prevent the proper driving of the caulking material which requires the iron to be "rocked" as the material is progressively driven down the length of the seam. Furthermore, caulking must be driven into a proper "V"-shaped "caulking seam" and there are irons called "dumb irons" which are made for the purpose of creating such seams. There's no such thing as a "dumb iron" for making caulking seams around the sides of trunnels. Making a caulking seam around the head of a trunnel would serve no purpose whatsoever, and would serve to weaken the holding power of the trunnel itself. 
 
Most of my caulking irons were made by C.Drew and Company, the foremost American manufacturers of wooden shipwrights tools back in the day. Fortunately, some wonk has posted the old Drew catalogs on the Antique Tool Collectors' Research Forum. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.ency.34.59a.html The Drew catalogs do mention "treenail irons," but provide no details or pictures. The author adds a detailed note, however, explaining that another apparently British catalog shows a picture of a "treenail iron" and describes the treenail iron as "like a spike iron but usually with a blunt edge about 1" wide" and the catalog explains that these were "Used for splitting and spreading the head of a trenail (British spelling) before inserting a wedge or caulking material." It remains a mystery why a caulker would ever have occasion to "caulk" a wedge, except that wedges or trunnel edges may chip, split, creating defective voids and these would be filled with stopping compound as the caulkers came across them when stopping the hull seams. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.note19.html
 
Bottom line, it would appear nobody ever drove oakum around trunnels. Just imagine, were the assertion true, how much work that would be to create the caulking seam, drive the caulking material home. and stop the seam in thousands of trunnels ... and for what purpose? 

I don't claim to be an authority on Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century British Admiralty shipbuilding practices, but I do have a small bit of hands-on experience calking seams and driving trunnels. I may later stand corrected, but I don't believe seams on vertical surfaces were ever payed, which is the process of pouring hot molten liquid tar (or pitch compounds) from a hot can with a specialized spout designed for the purpose. Generally, then, it was only decks which were payed. I believe seams on vertical surfaces were "stopped" with similar "stopping" compounds of "plastic," rather than "liquid," pitch or tar applied with a putty knife. 
 
I don't dispute the obvious reference in the contemporary specifications to "caulking" trunnels, but, in that instance, I believe the reference is to the practice of sealing the end-grain with tar or pitch inside of the trunnel hole immediately before driving the trunnel or to apply stopping to wedged trunnels which had split or broken edges after driving. There is certainly no reason to drive oakum around a trunnel as has been described above in this thread. That's just plain silly. I've got at least a couple of dozen caulking irons in my caulker's bucket, which I obtained many years ago from the widow of a lifelong master ship caulker. While some are "bent irons," with their shafts bent to permit accessing difficult to reach seams, none are shaped like a gouge on the working edge of the iron for the purpose of caulking curved seams or trunnels. This is simply because such a gouge-shaped iron would prevent the proper driving of the caulking material which requires the iron to be "rocked" as the material is progressively driven down the length of the seam. Furthermore, caulking must be driven into a proper "V"-shaped "caulking seam" and there are irons called "dumb irons" which are made for the purpose of creating such seams. There's no such thing as a "dumb iron" for making caulking seams around the sides of trunnels. Making a caulking seam around the head of a trunnel would serve no purpose whatsoever, and would serve to weaken the holding power of the trunnel itself. 
 
Most of my caulking irons were made by C.Drew and Company, the foremost American manufacturers of wooden shipwrights tools back in the day. Fortunately, some wonk has posted the old Drew catalogs on the Antique Tool Collectors' Research Forum. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.ency.34.59a.html The Drew catalogs do mention "treenail irons," but provide no details or pictures. The author adds a detailed note, however, explaining that another apparently British catalog shows a picture of a "treenail iron" and describes the treenail iron as "like a spike iron but usually with a blunt edge about 1" wide" and the catalog explains that these were "Used for splitting and spreading the head of a trenail (British spelling) before inserting a wedge or caulking material." It remains a mystery why a caulker would ever have occasion to "caulk" a wedge, except that wedges or trunnel edges may chip, split, creating defective voids and these would be filled with stopping compound as the caulkers came across them when stopping the hull seams. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.note19.html
 
Bottom line, it would appear nobody ever drove oakum around trunnels. Just imagine, were the assertion true, how much work that would be to create the caulking seam, drive the caulking material home. and stop the seam in thousands of trunnels ... and for what purpose? 

End grain and moisture are always an issue that needs to be dealt with.

I don't claim to be an authority on Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century British Admiralty shipbuilding practices, but I do have a small bit of hands-on experience calking seams and driving trunnels. I may later stand corrected, but I don't believe seams on vertical surfaces were ever payed, which is the process of pouring hot molten liquid tar (or pitch compounds) from a hot can with a specialized spout designed for the purpose. Generally, then, it was only decks which were payed. I believe seams on vertical surfaces were "stopped" with similar "stopping" compounds of "plastic," rather than "liquid," pitch or tar applied with a putty knife. 
 
I don't dispute the obvious reference in the contemporary specifications to "caulking" trunnels, but, in that instance, I believe the reference is to the practice of sealing the end-grain with tar or pitch inside of the trunnel hole immediately before driving the trunnel or to apply stopping to wedged trunnels which had split or broken edges after driving. There is certainly no reason to drive oakum around a trunnel as has been described above in this thread. That's just plain silly. I've got at least a couple of dozen caulking irons in my caulker's bucket, which I obtained many years ago from the widow of a lifelong master ship caulker. While some are "bent irons," with their shafts bent to permit accessing difficult to reach seams, none are shaped like a gouge on the working edge of the iron for the purpose of caulking curved seams or trunnels. This is simply because such a gouge-shaped iron would prevent the proper driving of the caulking material which requires the iron to be "rocked" as the material is progressively driven down the length of the seam. Furthermore, caulking must be driven into a proper "V"-shaped "caulking seam" and there are irons called "dumb irons" which are made for the purpose of creating such seams. There's no such thing as a "dumb iron" for making caulking seams around the sides of trunnels. Making a caulking seam around the head of a trunnel would serve no purpose whatsoever, and would serve to weaken the holding power of the trunnel itself. 
 
Most of my caulking irons were made by C.Drew and Company, the foremost American manufacturers of wooden shipwrights tools back in the day. Fortunately, some wonk has posted the old Drew catalogs on the Antique Tool Collectors' Research Forum. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.ency.34.59a.html The Drew catalogs do mention "treenail irons," but provide no details or pictures. The author adds a detailed note, however, explaining that another apparently British catalog shows a picture of a "treenail iron" and describes the treenail iron as "like a spike iron but usually with a blunt edge about 1" wide" and the catalog explains that these were "Used for splitting and spreading the head of a trenail (British spelling) before inserting a wedge or caulking material." It remains a mystery why a caulker would ever have occasion to "caulk" a wedge, except that wedges or trunnel edges may chip, split, creating defective voids and these would be filled with stopping compound as the caulkers came across them when stopping the hull seams. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.note19.html
 
Bottom line, it would appear nobody ever drove oakum around trunnels. Just imagine, were the assertion true, how much work that would be to create the caulking seam, drive the caulking material home. and stop the seam in thousands of trunnels ... and for what purpose? 

Great photos, Kevin! Thanks for posting them.

Paying a horizontal seam with hot tar is a trick I'd love to see.  
 
Fascinating. i've never heard of caulked trunnels. or "Dutchmen" (a graving piece let in over a bolt in this case.) Trunnels are always driven as dry as they can be into tight holes so that when they swell back in the higher relative humidity, they will hold fast. They may also be tenoned, blind at the bottom, and/or at the top. There's no caulking in the world that is going to create a stronger friction fit than that (which would only be around the outer edge of the trunnel, anyhow.) I can't imagine what benefit there would possibly be to a "caulked" trunnel. As for Dutchmen, there's not enough meat on them for any sort of caulking to hold them in place reliably. Until the advent of modern adhesives, they were generally bedded and mechanically fastened.
 
Is there a book that tells more about early trunneling practices? I sure can't wrap my head around what you're describing about caulking them.

... which was the most practical posture, given that they often put their chest into it to push the bar. Oddly, though, the  contemporary pictorial record frequently depicts seamen carelessly pushing the bars with their hands. Perhaps this was a casual approach used to take up a slack cable before the real work began. 
 
The guy on the right in the black cap is definitely a slacker, but then again, there's nothing on the drum!

 
The men to the left are doing it right. The men to the right aren't. Likely "artistic license" in this engraving.

 
It seems the Finnish Navy did things differently, but there doesn't appear to be anything on the drum in this apparently posed photo. I mean, really, who mans a capstan in their dress blues?

 
Doing it right, but again, everybody's in their Class A's and this steam screw vessel appears underway at sea with white-painted anchor chain secured, clean and Bristol fashion, so what are they hauling, anyway?

 
 
Germans, correctly putting their backs into it like they actually might be doing some real work.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

... which was the most practical posture, given that they often put their chest into it to push the bar. Oddly, though, the  contemporary pictorial record frequently depicts seamen carelessly pushing the bars with their hands. Perhaps this was a casual approach used to take up a slack cable before the real work began. 
 
The guy on the right in the black cap is definitely a slacker, but then again, there's nothing on the drum!

 
The men to the left are doing it right. The men to the right aren't. Likely "artistic license" in this engraving.

 
It seems the Finnish Navy did things differently, but there doesn't appear to be anything on the drum in this apparently posed photo. I mean, really, who mans a capstan in their dress blues?

 
Doing it right, but again, everybody's in their Class A's and this steam screw vessel appears underway at sea with white-painted anchor chain secured, clean and Bristol fashion, so what are they hauling, anyway?

 
 
Germans, correctly putting their backs into it like they actually might be doing some real work.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

So, Jim, now that you've got the R&D done, when might we expect this new Model Machines toy to go into production?  

My problem wasn't the power, but the size of the tools. When we bought our current place 16 years ago, a house and a 1500 square foot workshop building on 2.5 acres zoned "commercial/agricultural," I noticed the two transformers on the utility pole with the "drop" to the workshop. The workshop had originally been a cabinetmaker's shop before the sellers had bought the place. There was no mention of what was obviously 440 VAC three-phase commercial-rate power to the shop, and I said nothing.   I've never had the need to acquire any three-phase equipment, which can often be found dirt cheap on the used market, but I did pull two 220 VAC circuits off of the 440 VAC panel and wire the shop with 220 VAC outlets all around for my stationary power tools. Three-phase power is much less expensive than single phase, so the monthly bill on the shop meter is less than ten bucks. (Yes, I've thought of running a line from the shop back to the house, but you can go to jail for doing that.) Years later, a friend who worked for the local power company told me getting 440 VAC three-phase commercial service installed, assuming one could get a permit, would run at least $25,000 and I nearly wet my pants!  Meanwhile, if I come across a big Bridgeport with all the trimmings for the price of hauling it away, I'm good to go.

... which was the most practical posture, given that they often put their chest into it to push the bar. Oddly, though, the  contemporary pictorial record frequently depicts seamen carelessly pushing the bars with their hands. Perhaps this was a casual approach used to take up a slack cable before the real work began. 
 
The guy on the right in the black cap is definitely a slacker, but then again, there's nothing on the drum!

 
The men to the left are doing it right. The men to the right aren't. Likely "artistic license" in this engraving.

 
It seems the Finnish Navy did things differently, but there doesn't appear to be anything on the drum in this apparently posed photo. I mean, really, who mans a capstan in their dress blues?

 
Doing it right, but again, everybody's in their Class A's and this steam screw vessel appears underway at sea with white-painted anchor chain secured, clean and Bristol fashion, so what are they hauling, anyway?

 
 
Germans, correctly putting their backs into it like they actually might be doing some real work.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

... which was the most practical posture, given that they often put their chest into it to push the bar. Oddly, though, the  contemporary pictorial record frequently depicts seamen carelessly pushing the bars with their hands. Perhaps this was a casual approach used to take up a slack cable before the real work began. 
 
The guy on the right in the black cap is definitely a slacker, but then again, there's nothing on the drum!

 
The men to the left are doing it right. The men to the right aren't. Likely "artistic license" in this engraving.

 
It seems the Finnish Navy did things differently, but there doesn't appear to be anything on the drum in this apparently posed photo. I mean, really, who mans a capstan in their dress blues?

 
Doing it right, but again, everybody's in their Class A's and this steam screw vessel appears underway at sea with white-painted anchor chain secured, clean and Bristol fashion, so what are they hauling, anyway?

 
 
Germans, correctly putting their backs into it like they actually might be doing some real work.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Neither do I, but catching up to them is challenging! I've come to accept that I haven't enough time left on this mortal coil to justify the time and energy investment in the steep learning curve CAD demands. I'm reconciled to dying at my drawing board, I'm afraid.