Bob Cleek

Generally, one would drill before assembly. However, at most model scales, trunnels are invisible at scale viewing distance. In prototype practice, the trunnels were not of greatly contrasting color and never intended to be a visual feature of the design. In large measure, visible trunnels are a modern modeler's fetish, not an accurate depiction of the real thing.
 
For a price, there are small right-angle handpieces for the Foredom flex-shaft system and professional "dental engines," which will drill at any angle you want in small spaces, like your mouth.
 
For Foredom flex-shaft machines, about the size of a pencil:
 

https://www.moldshoptools.com/catalog/list.php?category_id=51
 
 
For dental laboratory engines, the handpiece options are virtually endless. They come in a variety of angles and sizes.
 
Search eBay for used dental laboratory equipment. There are many useful tools used by dentists and dental labs, which make bridges, crowns, and dentures and such, that are extremely useful to the modeler. You might ask your dentist where to go locally for used dental equipment. Dental technology has advanced greatly in recent times. Many dentists are using air-driven dental drills now. The older belt-driven equipment is often piled up in an office closet and may sometimes even be had for the asking! 
 
Here's a once top of the line belt-driven dental lab bench engine with a handpiece on eBay for $500:
 

 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/133352050765?hash=item1f0c66d04d:g:hZoAAOSw-wVeYGMN
 
With 45 and 90 degree handpieces and a few collets, bits and burrs, you'd be able to do just about any sort of drilling and carving a modeler could ever want to do in wood, metal, bone, or plastic.
 
 

I like card models.  It is a very versatile medium, that bashes in well with other mediums.
 
You should look at Doris’s and Ab Hoving’s card models.  They are phenomenal.

The MS Syren kit model is in 1:64 scale. Forgetting for the moment that coppering tacks are driven flush with the plate surface and don't "stick up" at all, the tack heads on her copper plating would be, at most, around 3/8" in diameter, but let's be generous in the spirit of artistic license and call them 1/2" in diameter. To scale, then, they would have to be .0078", and again, let's be generous and call that .008" scale size.  So, the "tiny tacks" with their points cut off that Chuck recommends for dimpling the copper sheets will have to be about the diameter of a #92 twist drill bit, which is actually .0079" and, properly, produce an impression that does not rise above the surface of the plate, which itself renders the "dimpling" exercise pointless. (Pun intended.  )
 
Applying the "scale viewing analysis" I described above to this Syren kit, the question to be answered if one were viewing this model from a distance of two feet, "If you are standing on the 43 yard line of a football field, what would a dime on the nearest goalpost painted the same color as that goalpost, look like?" For the sake of simplicity, we'll ignore variables such as the visual acuity of the viewer and atmospheric distortions.  
 
Of course, one needs to also make sure the scale thickness of the prototype's plates, which were probably around a quarter of an inch thick, are to scale as well, about .004", the average thickness of a human hair, so while you are at the football field, be sure to hang from the goal post a couple of pieces of overlaped quarter-inch plywood painted the same color and check out what that overlapping seam looks like from 43 yards away, too.  
 
 
 
 
 

I bought this used display case today. It's lighted with a mirrored back and measures 46 x 26 x 13 inches ID, the Tennessee is 40 x 22 x 12 inches. It's not your traditional model ship display case but for $65.00 I couldn't pass it up. 
 
 Keith, Pat, and Mark, thank you and thank you to all for stopping by and the likes. 
 
 

 

14 hours ago, Bob Cleek said: The problem, however, is that no copper hull sheathing was ever riveted to a hull. Not once. Not ever. Fastenings were copper tacks.
 
 4 hours ago, Gregory said: Interesting how this keeps getting lost or ignored in the discussion..
 
It is, isn't it? I sure don't get it. Shiny copper foil full of hugely out-of-scale "pimples" that don't remotely represent a prototype certainly doesn't make any sense to me at all. I suppose it's the "monkey see, monkey do" phenomenon. That and the fact that it appears a substantial segment of the kit builders have never been aboard a ship in real life, let alone a two-hundred year old one.  I guess they come by it honestly. If they're having fun, I suppose it's a good thing anyway,  

But expressing ideas often enables one to avoid a lot of unsuccessful executions! 😉

It is at that point where "craftsmanship" segues into "art." Subtle artistic techniques, especially restrained and skillful painting and weathering, can "suggest" features and details which are, in reality, not there. This is what I call "impressionistic modeling:" the art of creating a compelling impression of reality in miniature. 

But expressing ideas often enables one to avoid a lot of unsuccessful executions! 😉

The MS Syren kit model is in 1:64 scale. Forgetting for the moment that coppering tacks are driven flush with the plate surface and don't "stick up" at all, the tack heads on her copper plating would be, at most, around 3/8" in diameter, but let's be generous in the spirit of artistic license and call them 1/2" in diameter. To scale, then, they would have to be .0078", and again, let's be generous and call that .008" scale size.  So, the "tiny tacks" with their points cut off that Chuck recommends for dimpling the copper sheets will have to be about the diameter of a #92 twist drill bit, which is actually .0079" and, properly, produce an impression that does not rise above the surface of the plate, which itself renders the "dimpling" exercise pointless. (Pun intended.  )
 
Applying the "scale viewing analysis" I described above to this Syren kit, the question to be answered if one were viewing this model from a distance of two feet, "If you are standing on the 43 yard line of a football field, what would a dime on the nearest goalpost painted the same color as that goalpost, look like?" For the sake of simplicity, we'll ignore variables such as the visual acuity of the viewer and atmospheric distortions.  
 
Of course, one needs to also make sure the scale thickness of the prototype's plates, which were probably around a quarter of an inch thick, are to scale as well, about .004", the average thickness of a human hair, so while you are at the football field, be sure to hang from the goal post a couple of pieces of overlaped quarter-inch plywood painted the same color and check out what that overlapping seam looks like from 43 yards away, too.  
 
 
 
 
 

The catch is "at the appropriate scale," and this is true not only for tacks in copper plating, but for any detail on a model.  
 
A coppering tack head is between a quarter and three-eighths of an inch in diameter. At 1:48 scale, that .25" tack head is going to be .0052", less than the thickness of a thick human hair and at 1:96 scale, it will be .0026" or half the thickness of a human hair. (Good luck finding a watch gear for your shop made ponce wheel that will replicate that!)  At 1:48 scale, a one inch trunnel is going to be .02", which is the diameter of a #76 twist drill bit and at !:98 scale, a #87 twist drill bit .  (Remember also that trunnels were not generally made of wood of color which highly contrasted with the wood into which they were placed.) If you can work to these tolerances, by all means, go for it, but realize that even if your work is done well, very few viewers will notice it unless they are examining your model under a magnifying glass. 
 
At most common model scales, copper tacks and copper plate laps are virtually invisible at "scale viewing distance." The fetish with out-of-scale "rivets" and trunnels is the result of a lack of understanding of the importance of scale viewing distance. Scale viewing distance is the distance a person would have to stand from the prototype to equal the distance from which they are viewing the model. Another way of looking at it, so to speak, is that if you are looking at a model with your eyes two feet from a model built to 1:48 scale, the scale viewing distance is 96 feet, so you have to ask ask yourself, if you are standing on the 32 yard line of a football field, can you see a quarter inch bolt head on the goal posts closest to you? And if your model is built to 1:96 scale, you'd be standing on the other side's 14 yard line trying to see a quarter inch bolt head on the goal posts farthest from you. 

14 hours ago, Bob Cleek said: The problem, however, is that no copper hull sheathing was ever riveted to a hull. Not once. Not ever. Fastenings were copper tacks.
 
 4 hours ago, Gregory said: Interesting how this keeps getting lost or ignored in the discussion..
 
It is, isn't it? I sure don't get it. Shiny copper foil full of hugely out-of-scale "pimples" that don't remotely represent a prototype certainly doesn't make any sense to me at all. I suppose it's the "monkey see, monkey do" phenomenon. That and the fact that it appears a substantial segment of the kit builders have never been aboard a ship in real life, let alone a two-hundred year old one.  I guess they come by it honestly. If they're having fun, I suppose it's a good thing anyway,  

It is at that point where "craftsmanship" segues into "art." Subtle artistic techniques, especially restrained and skillful painting and weathering, can "suggest" features and details which are, in reality, not there. This is what I call "impressionistic modeling:" the art of creating a compelling impression of reality in miniature. 

But expressing ideas often enables one to avoid a lot of unsuccessful executions! 😉

The MS Syren kit model is in 1:64 scale. Forgetting for the moment that coppering tacks are driven flush with the plate surface and don't "stick up" at all, the tack heads on her copper plating would be, at most, around 3/8" in diameter, but let's be generous in the spirit of artistic license and call them 1/2" in diameter. To scale, then, they would have to be .0078", and again, let's be generous and call that .008" scale size.  So, the "tiny tacks" with their points cut off that Chuck recommends for dimpling the copper sheets will have to be about the diameter of a #92 twist drill bit, which is actually .0079" and, properly, produce an impression that does not rise above the surface of the plate, which itself renders the "dimpling" exercise pointless. (Pun intended.  )
 
Applying the "scale viewing analysis" I described above to this Syren kit, the question to be answered if one were viewing this model from a distance of two feet, "If you are standing on the 43 yard line of a football field, what would a dime on the nearest goalpost painted the same color as that goalpost, look like?" For the sake of simplicity, we'll ignore variables such as the visual acuity of the viewer and atmospheric distortions.  
 
Of course, one needs to also make sure the scale thickness of the prototype's plates, which were probably around a quarter of an inch thick, are to scale as well, about .004", the average thickness of a human hair, so while you are at the football field, be sure to hang from the goal post a couple of pieces of overlaped quarter-inch plywood painted the same color and check out what that overlapping seam looks like from 43 yards away, too.  
 
 
 
 
 

You are indeed correct ... I never quite 'got my head around the math' of scale, and see now that fretting about infinitesimal marks on a hull below the waterline does not make for much fun in building - especially since the details ABOVE the water line are far more important (like rigging).  Yet in some applications, a few items (judiciously) not quite to scale can lend a lot to the overall effect of an intermediate level build.  For instance, if you peek at my (old Billings 1:100) Wasa build - I put in rows of round toothpicks where the bulkheads are (I was a teen then) as 'tree nails'.  They are larger than scale tree nails should be, but still the light tan ends of toothpicks go well with the natural color of the mahogany planking.  I'm rather happy with the look of it, even though ships so constructed have a lot more of them - and it seems the Wasa planks were nailed with iron rather than tree nailed.  My job with recent work has been to correct major defects in the early version of the kit (loads more is known from Wasa reconstruction) in order to nudge the project closer to the prototype - but one can only do so much, yet still end up with something attractive to display.

The MS Syren kit model is in 1:64 scale. Forgetting for the moment that coppering tacks are driven flush with the plate surface and don't "stick up" at all, the tack heads on her copper plating would be, at most, around 3/8" in diameter, but let's be generous in the spirit of artistic license and call them 1/2" in diameter. To scale, then, they would have to be .0078", and again, let's be generous and call that .008" scale size.  So, the "tiny tacks" with their points cut off that Chuck recommends for dimpling the copper sheets will have to be about the diameter of a #92 twist drill bit, which is actually .0079" and, properly, produce an impression that does not rise above the surface of the plate, which itself renders the "dimpling" exercise pointless. (Pun intended.  )
 
Applying the "scale viewing analysis" I described above to this Syren kit, the question to be answered if one were viewing this model from a distance of two feet, "If you are standing on the 43 yard line of a football field, what would a dime on the nearest goalpost painted the same color as that goalpost, look like?" For the sake of simplicity, we'll ignore variables such as the visual acuity of the viewer and atmospheric distortions.  
 
Of course, one needs to also make sure the scale thickness of the prototype's plates, which were probably around a quarter of an inch thick, are to scale as well, about .004", the average thickness of a human hair, so while you are at the football field, be sure to hang from the goal post a couple of pieces of overlaped quarter-inch plywood painted the same color and check out what that overlapping seam looks like from 43 yards away, too.  
 
 
 
 
 

The catch is "at the appropriate scale," and this is true not only for tacks in copper plating, but for any detail on a model.  
 
A coppering tack head is between a quarter and three-eighths of an inch in diameter. At 1:48 scale, that .25" tack head is going to be .0052", less than the thickness of a thick human hair and at 1:96 scale, it will be .0026" or half the thickness of a human hair. (Good luck finding a watch gear for your shop made ponce wheel that will replicate that!)  At 1:48 scale, a one inch trunnel is going to be .02", which is the diameter of a #76 twist drill bit and at !:98 scale, a #87 twist drill bit .  (Remember also that trunnels were not generally made of wood of color which highly contrasted with the wood into which they were placed.) If you can work to these tolerances, by all means, go for it, but realize that even if your work is done well, very few viewers will notice it unless they are examining your model under a magnifying glass. 
 
At most common model scales, copper tacks and copper plate laps are virtually invisible at "scale viewing distance." The fetish with out-of-scale "rivets" and trunnels is the result of a lack of understanding of the importance of scale viewing distance. Scale viewing distance is the distance a person would have to stand from the prototype to equal the distance from which they are viewing the model. Another way of looking at it, so to speak, is that if you are looking at a model with your eyes two feet from a model built to 1:48 scale, the scale viewing distance is 96 feet, so you have to ask ask yourself, if you are standing on the 32 yard line of a football field, can you see a quarter inch bolt head on the goal posts closest to you? And if your model is built to 1:96 scale, you'd be standing on the other side's 14 yard line trying to see a quarter inch bolt head on the goal posts farthest from you. 

14 hours ago, Bob Cleek said: The problem, however, is that no copper hull sheathing was ever riveted to a hull. Not once. Not ever. Fastenings were copper tacks.
 
 4 hours ago, Gregory said: Interesting how this keeps getting lost or ignored in the discussion..
 
It is, isn't it? I sure don't get it. Shiny copper foil full of hugely out-of-scale "pimples" that don't remotely represent a prototype certainly doesn't make any sense to me at all. I suppose it's the "monkey see, monkey do" phenomenon. That and the fact that it appears a substantial segment of the kit builders have never been aboard a ship in real life, let alone a two-hundred year old one.  I guess they come by it honestly. If they're having fun, I suppose it's a good thing anyway,  

The catch is "at the appropriate scale," and this is true not only for tacks in copper plating, but for any detail on a model.  
 
A coppering tack head is between a quarter and three-eighths of an inch in diameter. At 1:48 scale, that .25" tack head is going to be .0052", less than the thickness of a thick human hair and at 1:96 scale, it will be .0026" or half the thickness of a human hair. (Good luck finding a watch gear for your shop made ponce wheel that will replicate that!)  At 1:48 scale, a one inch trunnel is going to be .02", which is the diameter of a #76 twist drill bit and at !:98 scale, a #87 twist drill bit .  (Remember also that trunnels were not generally made of wood of color which highly contrasted with the wood into which they were placed.) If you can work to these tolerances, by all means, go for it, but realize that even if your work is done well, very few viewers will notice it unless they are examining your model under a magnifying glass. 
 
At most common model scales, copper tacks and copper plate laps are virtually invisible at "scale viewing distance." The fetish with out-of-scale "rivets" and trunnels is the result of a lack of understanding of the importance of scale viewing distance. Scale viewing distance is the distance a person would have to stand from the prototype to equal the distance from which they are viewing the model. Another way of looking at it, so to speak, is that if you are looking at a model with your eyes two feet from a model built to 1:48 scale, the scale viewing distance is 96 feet, so you have to ask ask yourself, if you are standing on the 32 yard line of a football field, can you see a quarter inch bolt head on the goal posts closest to you? And if your model is built to 1:96 scale, you'd be standing on the other side's 14 yard line trying to see a quarter inch bolt head on the goal posts farthest from you. 

You're right about going crazy with wood 'tiles'.  As another reminded me, devildog's Thermie build (Mantua 1:124) used them - I was hoping to see more of that build, but there were no posts beyond page 3.  I saw another post of a Mamoli Victory build where the builder used the green stained wood provided ... and it did look like a lot of trouble.  Your paper idea would flex and glue to a faired surface FAR easier than wood - and the shellac (I'm a big shellac fan, and I've even compounded my own from dried flakes and ethanol - which works better and smells better than methanol as long as the ethanol is lab grade.  'Everclear' 190 proof still has 5% water which clouds the shellac.)  Paper does not have the grain that wood possesses, so only one  light coats of shellac might be needed.
 
   The watch gear idea proposed by another contributor might then (very lightly) make the slightest line of marks into the shellacked paper at the appropriate scale.  Then paint a thin brown coat and apply verdigris washes and it should look fine.  What I'll do is to make a 'test board' to see is this latest approach will work ... although it will be some time before I try and build a ship needing a copper sheathed appearance.    Johnny

Ya think?  
 
In a book somewhere (like everything else I can't remember) and perhaps in the USN ship model mill-specs, there is a rule to follow for scale detail. It goes something like, "At 1:48 scale, all detail larger in size than a foot in any direction must be represented." (And conversely, all detail smaller than a foot in any direction may be omitted.) So at what scale would a quarter or three-eighth's inch copper tack head not required to be represented?  

Interesting how this keeps getting lost or ignored in the discussion..

Ya think?  
 
In a book somewhere (like everything else I can't remember) and perhaps in the USN ship model mill-specs, there is a rule to follow for scale detail. It goes something like, "At 1:48 scale, all detail larger in size than a foot in any direction must be represented." (And conversely, all detail smaller than a foot in any direction may be omitted.) So at what scale would a quarter or three-eighth's inch copper tack head not required to be represented?  

Round head rivets were not used in the hull above the waterline either.  Hull structure including shell plating was fabricated with Pan Head rivets.  The Pan Head was trapezoidal in cross section.  The rivet was inserted from the inside of the hull so the pan head fayed against the inside hull structure and was backed up by a heavy backing tool.  The plain end of the rivet called the Point was then hammered from the outside of the hull.  Since the rivet was hot it was malleable and flowed into the hole which had a slight taper.  When the rivet cooled it shrank pulling the joint tightly together.  A properly driven rivet would have had a slight crown 1/8 in or so high on the outside of the hull. See photos.  The last photo is of the William A. Irvin an all riveted ship built in the late 1930’s.  Even this close up the rivets are almost invisible.
 
The rivet beloved by model railroad rivet counters with the prominent domed shape was called a Snap Rivet.  The dome was formed by a special die.  Snap rivets were used to join light gage superstructure not highly stressed hull structure.
 
 

Referring to the bottom photo of a fine Cutty Sark model ... THAT'S IT !    I mean, that is exactly the look I'd go for, and I think that the idea of wood 'tiles' applied the bottom when second planking would give that effect if green and white washes were carefully applied by hand over a coppery-brown base paint layer.  When I saw that picture, it was the same feeling in the scene form "A Charlie Brown Christmas" when Lucy asked Schroder to play Jingle Bells for her ... and version after version was rejected by Lucy who said something like, "You know, Jingle Bells - like Ho, Ho, Ho, mistletoe and ... pretty girls."  Whereupon Schroder banged out a one-finger version on a toy piano ... then Lucy shouted, "THAT'S IT ! "
 
  Anyway, all this back and forth about copper sheathing (actually I love it, since anything can be a springboard for new ideas) reminds me of a scene from the musical "Fiddler on the Roof" where the men are stating their different opinions on some subject - and Tevya tells one man, "You're right".  Then another man puts forth an opposing argument to Tevya who says to him, "You know, you're right."  A third man exclaims, "He's right, and he's right ... How can BOTH be right?"  Tevya responds, "You are also right."     ...     Johnny