Bob Cleek

I always put the side that has the most errors closest to the wall.  

I've developed the habit of designating a "show" side of the model early on, and always work on the opposite side first. That way, initial mistakes are concentrated on the "wall" side and I have a better chance of a higher quality "show" side. 

I always put the side that has the most errors closest to the wall.  

I always put the side that has the most errors closest to the wall.  

I always put the side that has the most errors closest to the wall.  

I always put the side that has the most errors closest to the wall.  

I always put the side that has the most errors closest to the wall.  

I was also thinking about drawings. . . Chapelle's lines-drawings are very inconsistent, which strikes me as a little odd.  No doubt certain schools have their "ways," but others just followed their fancy.  The thought of a boat (in model or lines drawing) traveling the direction one reads is interesting, but when I 'read' a boat, I go from bow to stern, so my inclination is to draw them pointing left. (My mentor told me not to draw them that way, BTW...) 
Harvey

Quite true, so long as it's tempered with the realization that if something has been done one way for a long time, it is more likely than not to work well and was the product of a greater number of minds better than one's own. New materials provide opportunities for innovation and improvement, but new materials must be viewed with considered suspicion until they, too, have stood the test of time. It must also be remembers than new ideas come along a lot less frequently than new materials and few, if any of us, ever have an original one. As Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Not at all. I'm happy to be able to share what experience I have. That said, compared to the skill and experience of many forumites, I'm just a journeyman and hardly a master!
 
One other general observation I can share is that in recent decades amateur ship modeling has advanced greatly and what we see being done by hobbyists now is often many times more accurate and refined than the norm even thirty or forty years ago when many of us geezers were cutting out teeth on primitive kit models. The internet has made so much more information readily available and forums like this one have exponentially increased communication within the field. This has in some ways rendered things in the older books on the subject obsolete as new tools, materials, and techniques have been developed. The old ways still work, but not everything in the old books is current practice.

I sprayed on several cots of high build primer. I buy it at the local Industrial Finishes store. ( have no affiliations with this primer producer). It sprays on in a heavy coat. Once thoroughly dried it can be sanded down to the wood leaving any flaw filled with primer. It took several sprayings and sanding to cover up the voids in the planking. With progressive sanding with finer grits it is possible to achieve a very smooth base finish. 

No. The procedure you have mentioned would create a big mess. Do some experimenting before you commit to any approach and draw your own conclusions. You will find that while thinned PVA will stiffen thread somewhat, wetting it again will do nothing to change that after the PVA has cured. If you want to dissolve PVA, you can do so by soaking in isopropyl alcohol, which will soften the PVA in the thread and leave you with sticky thread to work with which makes no sense to me at all. 
 
I don't see the need to shellac all fiber rigging. i use it when I want to "set" a knot that may potentially come undone (especially if the bitter end is cut off close to the knot, in which case i cut off the bitter end after the shellac has dried. In addition to using shellac to "set" catenaries to shape and to make reefing points lay naturally flat against sails, I also shellac coils of rigging line which I want to hang naturally as the prototype would. (Round "donuts" of coiled line on belaying pins look really stupid.) Others, like Eberhard, use thinned cellulose nitrate lacquer, which I believe the British call "nail varnish," which behaves pretty much the same as shellac, but thins with acetone instead of alcohol. Having used both, my own preference is for shellac, which is inexpensive and easy to work with and serves also as my all-purpose sealer on all bare wood. Shellac is about as impervious to moisture as any material available. Its archival qualities are also well-proven. Which of the two to use on rigging is, I believe, simply a matter of personal preference. 
 
I routinely used beeswax to eliminate the fuzz from rigging lines for some time, but abandoned it in favor of simply passing the line through a flame quickly to singe off the fuzz. (A technique called "flame finishing" in the thread industry. You will see some thread described as "flame finished" on the label. This means the thread has been "de-fuzzed" during manufacture.) I found the beeswax tended to prevent the shellac from soaking into the thread and risked imparting a slight gloss shine where the shellac dried on top of the beeswax. As mentioned, beeswax is also acidic and seems to catch dust easily. "Flame finishing" works very effectively and the modern polyester threads, such as the mentioned Gutermann Mara brand, have little, if any fuzz and appear to have been given the imprimatur of knowledgeable museum curators as to their archival longevity, in Europe, at least. 
 
Druxey is correct that beeswax is used by leather workers to lubricate sewing cord and was used by others generally to lubricate thread. This became essential when sewing machines came into use and the friction of the thread passing through the eye of the needles created so much heat that the thread would burn (or melt with synthetics) and break unless it was lubricated. Modernly, most all thread is sold pre-lubricated (or "pre-finished" as the term is used in the trade,) so there's no reason to need to use beeswax to lubricate it.
 
As you are new to the craft, I would strongly urge you to experiment extensively before you try anything on your model. All experienced modelers do this. Experiment on scraps that can be easily discarded thereafter. Your model is the last place you want to "try out new techniques." Always test paints and varnishes for finish and color suitability, and compatibility with any underlying coatings, before starting to paint your finished work. Rather frequently, a color won't be just right or a paint will do something unexpected, like wrinkle or "orange peel" or just bead up and not stick or dry when applied on an incompatible underlying finish. You'll save yourself a lot of grief by testing beforehand.

No. The procedure you have mentioned would create a big mess. Do some experimenting before you commit to any approach and draw your own conclusions. You will find that while thinned PVA will stiffen thread somewhat, wetting it again will do nothing to change that after the PVA has cured. If you want to dissolve PVA, you can do so by soaking in isopropyl alcohol, which will soften the PVA in the thread and leave you with sticky thread to work with which makes no sense to me at all. 
 
I don't see the need to shellac all fiber rigging. i use it when I want to "set" a knot that may potentially come undone (especially if the bitter end is cut off close to the knot, in which case i cut off the bitter end after the shellac has dried. In addition to using shellac to "set" catenaries to shape and to make reefing points lay naturally flat against sails, I also shellac coils of rigging line which I want to hang naturally as the prototype would. (Round "donuts" of coiled line on belaying pins look really stupid.) Others, like Eberhard, use thinned cellulose nitrate lacquer, which I believe the British call "nail varnish," which behaves pretty much the same as shellac, but thins with acetone instead of alcohol. Having used both, my own preference is for shellac, which is inexpensive and easy to work with and serves also as my all-purpose sealer on all bare wood. Shellac is about as impervious to moisture as any material available. Its archival qualities are also well-proven. Which of the two to use on rigging is, I believe, simply a matter of personal preference. 
 
I routinely used beeswax to eliminate the fuzz from rigging lines for some time, but abandoned it in favor of simply passing the line through a flame quickly to singe off the fuzz. (A technique called "flame finishing" in the thread industry. You will see some thread described as "flame finished" on the label. This means the thread has been "de-fuzzed" during manufacture.) I found the beeswax tended to prevent the shellac from soaking into the thread and risked imparting a slight gloss shine where the shellac dried on top of the beeswax. As mentioned, beeswax is also acidic and seems to catch dust easily. "Flame finishing" works very effectively and the modern polyester threads, such as the mentioned Gutermann Mara brand, have little, if any fuzz and appear to have been given the imprimatur of knowledgeable museum curators as to their archival longevity, in Europe, at least. 
 
Druxey is correct that beeswax is used by leather workers to lubricate sewing cord and was used by others generally to lubricate thread. This became essential when sewing machines came into use and the friction of the thread passing through the eye of the needles created so much heat that the thread would burn (or melt with synthetics) and break unless it was lubricated. Modernly, most all thread is sold pre-lubricated (or "pre-finished" as the term is used in the trade,) so there's no reason to need to use beeswax to lubricate it.
 
As you are new to the craft, I would strongly urge you to experiment extensively before you try anything on your model. All experienced modelers do this. Experiment on scraps that can be easily discarded thereafter. Your model is the last place you want to "try out new techniques." Always test paints and varnishes for finish and color suitability, and compatibility with any underlying coatings, before starting to paint your finished work. Rather frequently, a color won't be just right or a paint will do something unexpected, like wrinkle or "orange peel" or just bead up and not stick or dry when applied on an incompatible underlying finish. You'll save yourself a lot of grief by testing beforehand.

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

Brighter => smaller camera aperture => wider depth of field.  Ergo, more depth appears to be in focus.

Shoemakers do it regularly, but they don't use real beeswax, but rather some sort of pitch with wax mixture. It comes in little blocks and thread is drawn between the finger and the block, the friction heat helping to impregnate the thread. However, when sewing shoes, some waterproofing makes sense.
 
If I felt compelled to use wax for historic or other mystic reasons, I would use a hairdryer or a hot-air gun to melt the wax into the thread at least, before using it.
 
It always amazes me, how certain age-old practices are perpetrated simply because they are age-old practices and therefore must be good ...

I suspect the beeswax thing is another of those passed down tales. I believe that heavy thread was waxed years ago to make sewing by hand easier. Some ship model maker saw this and thought "Hey, it makes my coarse thread less hairy," and used it. Word spread and every ship modeler started waxing their thread, whether it needed it or not. Somehow the idea of preservation got into the mix, in spite of the fact that beeswax is slightly acidic. That's my theory, anyway!

The jury is still out on longevity, but even museums nowadays seem to prefer polyester threads, such as Gütermann's Mara (which is what Chuck Passaro seems to use for his ropes). There is little or no fuss on such ropes and no need anymore to mess around with dust-catching tacky bees wax.

I would too, simply because I would image that through handling the tackiness of the line will be prone to picking up (and retaining) all manner of dust and debris thereby making your end result a bit messy?

How do you want to tie the stiff, pre-soaked threads then ? Also, you may not be able to tighten the knots sufficiently with the stiff material. I would advice against pre-soaking.

It's hard to say what's "not enough space" in a workshop. The bench top, of course, is another matter entirely. I try to have a place for every tool and every tool in its place. If I'm going to use a number of tools repetitively, and they threaten to clutter my bench top, I use a wheeled tool cart so tools in use are readily at hand, and unused tools aren't piling up on my bench.  There are two models  from Harbor Freight which are relatively cheap and a pain to assemble, but great time-savers and tool storage solutions. They hold a lot and it can be laid out in organized fashion so tools can quickly and easily be located. When I'm not working, the tool cart can be rolled out of the way into a closet or wherever.
 
This is the four drawer model. One will run you $200, but "Horror Fright" has them on sale for 20% off frequently. If you've got one of their stores within driving distance, you can save the shipping cost. They have a five drawer model as well, for forty bucks more. If I had it to do over again, I'd get the five drawer model, but they didn't have them when I got mine. (They come in a bunch of colors, if that matters to you.)
 

https://www.harborfreight.com/tool-storage-organization/tool-storage/tool-carts/30-in-4-drawer-tech-cart-black-64818.html
 
I also have a couple of mechanic's tool chests on roller bases. These cannot be beat for storing small hand tools. Mine are Kennedy brand, one of the better quality brands I bought ages ago at Costco, which occasionally has such things for sale. Here again, Harbor Freight has the cheapest and the US General brand is sufficiently good for hobby use. It's not like you have to buy Snap-On brand chests for five times the price just to keep up with the other mechanics in the shop!  
 
Here's a reasonably priced $300 roller chest. Note that the shallow drawers are  perfect for laying out small tools so that they can be seen instantly when the drawer is opened, instead of digging through a jumble of junk in a deep drawer. They are perfect for things like pliers, files, and knives.

https://www.harborfreight.com/tool-storage-organization/tool-storage/26-in-x-22-in-single-bank-roller-cabinet-yellow-56233.html
 
The top chest is matched to fit on the lip on top of the rolling chest above, or can be used separately.  It expands the amount of shallow drawer space a lot and the combination of rolling base and top chest can store everything you'd probably ever need, at least until you got into table saws, lathes, and milling machines and their tooling. Figure another $200 for the top chest, so you'd be in for $500 for a stacked set that would permit every hand tool you'd ever need to be at hand conveniently and safely stored away when not in use. As with all Harbor Freight merchandise, signing up for their email ads and mail catalogs (which, rumor has it, they are discontinuing) will get you all their coupons and discount sales codes which generally knock off around twenty percent off their retail list prices. (Disclaimer: I don't own stock in Harbor Freight and I don't consider their products "finestkind" by a long shot, but approached conservatively with an eye to quality and value, there are many bargains to be had from them... along with a lot of junk. Stay away from anything that runs on electricity or has to perform precision work!)
 

https://www.harborfreight.com/tool-storage-organization/tool-storage/26-in-single-bank-top-chest-green-56231.html
 

 
If one doesn't think they need as much storage as a rolling base and top chest, an old fashioned machinist's tool check may serve their needs until they realize that their initial needs assessment was erroneous.  Old-time master machinists favored the US made Gerstner International chests, made of oak and lined with felt. They are a bit pricey beginning at around $450, but they are quite beautiful, so you could probably get away with keeping it in the dining room if your a "dining room table"  modeler. 


https://www.amazon.com/Gerstner-International-GI-T24-11-Drawer-Chest/dp/B076H7WGWG/ref=asc_df_B076H7WGWG/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309807921328&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2792838456457911656&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9032113&hvtargid=pla-569775039015&psc=1
 
Harbor Freight again comes to the rescue with an $80 knockoff that's no where near the "fine furniture" quality of a Gerstner chest, but passable in a utilitarian way. If you wear a Rolex, you'll want the Gerstner.  If you're like most folks, the Harbor Freight knock-off is just fine. (Asian made, but not a copyrighted design. Politics aside, I figure it's somebody's "rice bowl," and since there's nothing electronic about it, it ought to last. Like anything bought at Harbor Freight, save your sales receipts! They'll take anything defective back and replace it, but you've got to have the receipt.)
 

 

https://www.harborfreight.com/eight-drawer-wood-tool-chest-94538.html
 
I have also found magnetic tool holders to be very handy all around my shop. Some I have fastened to walls and other's I've placed on metal rolling tool cabinets (the magnets will hold them in place on metal surfaces.) These are another item that's "safe" to buy at Harbor Freight, although they are widely available elsewhere, probably from the same Asian factory with somebody else's label on them, for a higher price. Harbor Freight sells them for $4.79, but they are often discounted. I bought a half dozen at one "parking lot sale" for something like $2.75 apiece. They're great on the side of a tool cart for holding pliers, scissors, and files within reach when working at the bench.
 

 
https://www.harborfreight.com/18-in-magnetic-tool-holder-60433.html
 
I realize this post may seem to some like overkill when it comes to tool storage. I've come to learn from professional tradesmen that organized tool storage is essential to working efficiency. While not at all a professional, I've learned that while my time may not be worth as much as the professional, having tools conveniently at hand makes enjoyable tasks far more enjoyable and onerous tasks far less protracted. I've also found that having the right tool readily accessible greatly reduces my bad tendency to use the wrong tool for a job and mess it up because I was too lazy to fetch the right one.
 

WOW! I just checked out their website. Micro-Tools has a lot of really useful tools and at really reasonable prices. I had never heard of them before. They've got in a single place all sorts of tools you'd have to search all over hell and back to try to find elsewhere and, it would appear, when you did find it elsewhere, you'd be paying more.
 
Thanks for the link!

I hate buying new paints! Of course, that's probably because I remember Floquil paints and finishes.  
 
I learned how to paint growing up with cousins who ran a large painting and decorating company. That was a long while ago and I've been painting and varnishing full size boats and furniture for much of my life, together with ship models. I have to say I'm an unabashed Luddite. I believe much of the traditional techniques and materials remain the best option. While I strongly support environmental values, I'm dismayed that regulatory agencies so often "pick the low-hanging fruit" and restrict things like VOC's in paints and solvents, which contribute relatively little to envioronmental air pollution, while ignoring other widespread corporate industrial carbon omissions, often for no reason other than that they have a more powerful lobby. Thus we end up with paints and varnishes, or "coatings" as the industry now calls them, which last a third as long and probably have three times the carbon footprint to manufacture than do the old oil-based materials.
 
Living in California, I can't go to the paint store and buy real turpentine or paint thinner because their sale has been banned (except in very small bottles sold in art supply stores.) Luckly, I can still buy acetone, they tell me because it's sold as a "cleaner" and not a "coating," and I can buy Rustoleum oil paint because it's a "rust inhibitor, and not a "paint." (Surprisingly, the hardware stores sell five gallon drums of acetone! Who needs five gallons of acetone from a hardware store? Ask your local meth cook!) Oil paint can also be purchased in marine chandleries because "marine paint" is exempt from the prohibitions. Rattle cans can still be purchased, but like booze, you have to be over 18 to buy them. It's getting pretty crazy and I've had to devise work-arounds, but it's doable. (It's not against the law to possess paint thinner. It's just a crime to sell it.)
 
I use Zinsser white shellac for sealing bare wood (and also for sealing rigging knots.) It's thinned with denatured alcohol.
I use Interlux marine sanding base coat or an equivalent for fairing surfaces, such as topsides.
I use Interlux surfacing putty or an equivalent for heavier fairing of surfaces and such.
I use quality artists' oils in basic colors to paint models, together with the appropriate additives to condtion them to taste for brushing or spraying at the  degree of drying time and the level of gloss or matt I desire.
 
In my opinion, most of today's modeling-specific paints and other finishes are extremely expensive and not particularly easy to use. Their chemistry is complex and there are often incompatibilities between the different brands. The manufacturers take advantage of the fact that their customers don't know how to condition paint or mix colors, hence, we see varieties sold "for brushing" and others "for spraying!" I will concede that where exact color matching is essential, as with modern naval and armor models, pre-mixed paints may offer an advantage in mixing colors (if you trust the paint company's version of "olive drab" and "field gray" as of a certain date during WWII !) That notwithstanding, while I've obtained good results with acrylics, they aren't near the quality of traditional oil-based paints, which also will not raise the grain on bare wood. I've found the pigment size on quality artist's oils is entirely suitable for modeling detail. They are easy to condition for whatever application method one desires. They thin with common solvents and flow control is a function of how much linseed oil one wishes to add. Drying time can be accelerated using Japan drier and the finish controlled to the user's taste with flattening additives or clear matt overcoating. Many pigments can be quite expensive and the quality one is looking for will be reflected in tubed artists' oils, but with oils you aren't paying for packaging in minute amounts, nor is there any need to buy dozens of seven or eight dollar one ounce bottles of different colors. Six or eight tubes of basic primary and secondary colors should enable the ship modeler to pretty much mix any color they'd wish and tubed artists' oils have far less tendency to "dry up" in the tube. How many times have barely used bottled model paints been thrown out because they went bad or dried up in the bottle, no matter how much care was exercised in replacing the screw caps?
 
Interestingly, the "gaming figure" modelers who employ a wide range of colors seem to be the first of the modeling fraternity who have discovered this fact and are going over to artists' oils in increasing numbers if their YouTube posts are any indication. I encourage anybody to try artist's oils (using them correctly) and see if they don't find them a better alternative. It's a matter of taste and opinion, but, as the saying goes, "Try it. You may like it."
 
 

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

Duh-oh! Now I get it.  An obvious solution I completely overlooked. Thanks!