Bob Cleek

Call up Jim and have him add the cross-cut sled to your order. You know you want it. You will likely save considerably on shipping if it all goes out in one box. If She Who Must Be Obeyed objects, just tell her that you saved a bundle on shipping ordering the sled too. She'll see the logic of that right away. I'll bet she uses the same approach on you all the time if she's like most!  
 
I'd also suggest you spring for the taper jig. It doesn't cost much and is a thing of beauty to behold. It's handy for tapering, too.
 

I’ll give Moab an answer to his question with a story.
 
Twenty years ago I got involved in the restoration of wood canvas.  These projects all involved replacing the heavy canvas that had to be stretched over a fully planked wooden hull.  Procurement of this heavy cotton duck canvas could have been a problem.  Fortunately there is an excellent builder of new wood canvas canoes in Knife River, MN, a short drive from Duluth who was willing to sell me the canvas that I needed.
 
On a trip to buy canvas, as I pulled into his driveway I noticed a table saw and a canoe trailer in his yard each with a sign that read $150.  When I asked him about the saw, he said that it was a 10in Delta Contractor’s Saw and he was selling it because he had bought a new Saw Stop Saw.
 
I wrote him a check for $150 plus the cost of the canvas.  While wondering aloud about loading the saw into my SUV, he said, “How about a toofer, take the trailer too.”
 
I got the saw home and managed to get it into my shop.  20+ years later it still runs as well as it did the day that I bought it.  Unfortunately my wife and the lady next door conspired for me to “get rid of the ugly trailer” so I no longer have it.  I remind her of this whenever she wants something hauled.
 
This saw was bought from a professional canoe builder who had used it to cut miles of wood into canoe parts and I use it constantly.  I doubt that any  table saw on the market today sold through a big box store would give this kind of trouble free service.  There are, of course, high quality table saws available from specialized woodworking dealers, but these sell for many times what I paid.
 
Roger
 
 
 
 
 
 

That's like the Lowes "Craftsman Tools". They are not made by the same company that the Sears Craftsman tools were made by. Lowes bought the name and logo from Sears, but Stanley makes the tools. Sears still sells them, also, but reserved the right to continue to have their original manufacturer produce them, for I believe 10 years.

Craftsman still has the lifetime warranty on hand tools..  I don't know if it as easy to claim it as it used to be.
 
I used to could take a 10 year old screwdriver with a chipped blade into a Sears store and swap it out, no questions asked.

Read the article you cited. If they mention a material, it's suitable. If they don't, research it online. "Archival" is a term used by the fine arts professionals to mean a material will last for at least a hundred years. Search and find out whether the material is considered "archival." Many modern materials, generally plastics, acrylics, polymers, and cyanoacrylate adhesives, are not archival. You want to avoid anything that deteriorates, which includes particularly materials containing acids.
 
For a more detailed set of specifications, see Howard I. Chappelle's General Preliminary Building Specifications, written for submissions to the Smithsonian Institution's ship model collections. http://www.shipmodel.com/2018SITE/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ship-model-classification-guidelines-1980.pdf
 
Paints and varnishes are a particularly dangerous pitfall in modern times. Chapelle's Specifications were written in 1961, just as acrylic coatings were becoming available. His broad reference to paints addresses traditional oil-based paints, not the water-based paints now dominating the market. The water-based paints, not yet a hundred years old, are seen by conservatives as not proven to be archival, although others are very optimistic that they will prove so in time. As with any paint or varnish, the archival quality is in large measure a function of their manufacture. Cheap paint will never be archival, regardless of its type. Only the highest quality paints should be used, which will cost more, but not so one would notice it in the small amounts used in modeling. Such archival quality paints will generally say so on the tube or bottle.
 
Since Chapelle's Specifications were written, some then-common materials have become relatively unavailable, notably ivory, ebony wood, and linen thread. Modern substitutes have to be found, but great caution must be exercised in their use. For example, early Dacron thread deteriorated quickly when exposed to UV radiation, not what you'd want to use for rigging! Some respected museums are comfortable with modern synthetic thread and others are not. We  have to make do with what's available. This requires doing a fair amount of online research to identify suitable substitutes, a skill most modelers come to realize is essential. Sometimes, we just have to close our eyes, hold our noses, and jump in.
 
Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper began to exhibit marked deterioration less than 25 years after he painted it and has continued to deteriorate to this day, only five percent of it remaining as original, because he decided to experiment with a new oil painting technique instead of using the tried and true tempera paint fresco techniques of his time. The "Old Masters" enthusiastically used the then-newly-invented blue smalt pigment as an alternative to the very expensive ground azurite or lapis lazuli pigment which were previously available in their day without realizing that over decades smalt in oil becomes increasingly transparent and turns to brown, dramatically changing the appearance of colors. Consequently, Rembrandt's later works look overwhelming dark and brown and what we see today is not what they looked like when new. Vermeer, on the other hand, "bit the bullet" and used the very expensive ultramarine blue pigment, and so his Girl with a Pearl Earring's blue head scarf remains with us to this day, albeit with a fair amount of cracking.
 

 
Many modeler's will say, "Oh, posh!" I build models for my own enjoyment and I could care less how long they last. To them I say, "Very well. Go for it!" The task of those who pursue perfection is more challenging. Do we stay with the "tried and true," like Vermeer, or do we experiment with new techniques and materials, like Rembrandt and Da Vinci? I suppose the real question for our age is whether we good enough at what we do to risk a surprise, which Rembrandt and Da Vinci unquestionably were able to do. 

In due time.   You'll be happy you went with the Byrnes even if the wife isn't!   The sliding table is excellent, and something I use very often.

Well,
I did it. I ordered the Model Machines saw. I figured the Hyuda was just a copy of a good saw and I would be replacing my junk with more stuff that I would be unsatisfied with early on or down the road. I don't think there is any comparison really to the horsepower (or fraction thereof) of the Jim Saw and the small DC motor and I really liked the idea of having someone right here on MSW that will, should it be needed, support his product. From what everyone has written, the Model Machines saw will be working still when my bones are dust. The other thing that threw me was that I was considering trying to build my own. Locally and as far away as Saudi Arabia I have been quoted 250.00 and upwards of 320.00 for just having the aluminum top milled! You can see the logic! I ended up ordering the micrometer stop, the extended rip fence, adjustable miter gauge extension, accessory pack and a 3 inch Martindale .03 slitting blade. Soon I will be able to use my existing saw as a anchor for my Winchelsea  Any changes you guys can think of? I wish I could have grabbed the sliding table but I still haven't told my wife about the saw. I gotta be real nice in the coming days  Before I forget, thank you for your input on this old subject. I truly appreciate it
Ron

A close look at the end grain directions should reveal if it's sawn or peeled. If you can add heat to the equation, you may be able to bend it back to flat again. Simply getting it we won't likely do much. Given the thickness, it should be capable of being bent to where you want it. Myself, I'd keep it, stored flat, perhaps with some weights on top, and see how it goes. When it came time to use, I'd heat-bend it to where I wanted it to go. 

I have two models built by my father that might make it to 100 years.
 
The First is a 1:96 model of a steam fishing trawler.  It was built before I was born and I would estimate it to be 80 years old.  After my father died it sat in my daughter’s apartment for a while and the rigging was damaged.  I repaired the rigging and it now sits in my bookcase.  Considering it’s age it is in beautiful condition.  I hope to get it in it’s own glass case.
 
The second is an unrigged 1:96 model of Flying Cloud.  It is 75 years old.  When we disposed of my mother’s things, the movers damaged it.  I repaired it cleaned it, repainted the hull, and touched up paintwork on the deck structures.  I also built a glass case to protect it.
 
Both of these models were built from A.J. Fisher kits.  A.J. Fisher’s fittings were made from brass and real boxwood.  Although both of these models needed cleaning and repair the Materials that A.J. Fisher put into the kits and the materials that my father used to build them have withstood the test of time.  I hope that each of my two children will eventually take and care for a model.

OK, let me jump off this bridge: I have built better than 75 ship and boat models over the past 25 years and they have all held up to my knowledge. But no model is goping to last 100 years no matter what materials are used without constant maintence just like a house case or no case. No kit built model will ever be museum quality although the manufacture advertises them in that fashion. Built kits aare a dime a dozen, not distinction or difference they are only a short cut to building a nice represetation of the subject you are modeling nothing more.
 
I don't build scratch built model, I build kits because I love the feeling of opening up the box and taking advantage of those short cuts. That is how I have built those 75 model in 25 years and most of them were sold, traded or donated to libraries or hospitals and all of them were greatly appreciated by the folks or companies that received.    

A thread full of opinions for sure!..... I couldn't resist, its been one of those days.🙂
 
Michael

As much as I admire McCaffery’s work, his insistence on using ‘permanent’ materials on about every second page in his book becomes tedious after a while. 
 
When it comes to the survival of artefacts, it is always a combination of factors and materials choices is but one of them. Storage conditions are of equal importance. Even brief periods of unsuitable conditions by accident can permanently damage a piece that has otherwise been kept under perfect conditions. Even changes from one set of conditions to another one, which both could be benign in themselves, can cause permanent damage. Most private homes do not offer the stable conditions one would find in the better museums.

Totally get that Bob.  I think most of us are just building for ourselves, not for a museum, and not as a family heirloom.  A few years ago when my mother-in-law saw that I was working on three wooden kits, she asked where I was going to put them.  I told her I would send them to her condo so she could have a nautical theme going.   She wasn't too excited by that idea.  😬

Indeed, the exchange of opinions is often enlightening. It gives us the opportunity to see things from the perspectives of others. Opinions, however, are not facts and therein lies the rub. One may have an opinion about anything that is open to dispute or, as is said, "is a matter of opinion about which reasonable minds may differ." We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. What is "true" isn't something that's a matter of opinion. One cannot have an opinion about whether it is raining or not at a given time and place. It's either raining or it's not. They can have an opinion about whether it is going to rain tomorrow, but even that opinion can be negated by a weather satellite photo that shows there's no possibility that it can rain tomorrow. Predicting the weather used to be a more a matter of opinion than not, but science has done a good job of narrowing that window of "opinion" in the modern age. 
 
More commonly, opinions are expressions of personal preference. One can be of the opinion that broccoli tastes awful and that is neither "true" nor "false." It's just a subjective expression of personal taste. One can say subjectively, "Broccoli tastes awful to me," but they can't say it's objectively  true that it tastes awful to everyone else.
 
In the same way, one can have an opinion of the best way to do something, but their "right to their own opinion" goes out the window when it is certain that their "best way" is simply never going to work. Here is where inexperienced people often get into trouble weighing in on the internet about their "opinion" on political issues when they lack the information necessary to form an informed opinion or are relying on false information in the first place, and, in most instances, they then fall back on the retort that they "have a right to their own opinion." Opinions are subjective. Truth is objective. 
 
So, no, I don't think that what is "right" can be different things for different people when the "right" is an objective absolute. like whether or not a material is insufficient for use in an engineering application. An engineer can say with certainty and not as a matter of opinion whether a bridge will carry the weight of a railroad train. We may call that an "expert opinion," but it's really just a matter of scientific fact unless the outcome is just too close to call. Reality determines what is right. Science determines what is reality. On matters of opinion, however, there is no absolute "right." There may be any number of "rights" and any number of "wrongs." 
 
So, for example, if one posits the premise that a properly built ship model should last for a hundred years, and then asks what materials should not be used in a properly built ship model, we can see that there are "rights" that are "right" for everybody, like the fact that cheap acidic papers cannot be expected not to show the effects of deterioration for a hundred years or that we can't say for sure whether CA adhesives or acrylic paints will last a hundred years simply because they haven't been around for a hundred years. On the other hand, whether one should not worry themselves about their model lasting a hundred years because they aren't going to live that long is irrelevant to the discussion because the basic premise is that a well built ship model should last for a hundred years.

As I recall, the famed miniature ship modeler Lloyd McCaffery, uses wire on all of his amazing miniature models. As I recall, he discusses his techniques for that in his book, Ships in Miniature. https://www.amazon.com/SHIPS-MINIATURE-Classic-Manual-Modelmakers/dp/0851774857
 

 
Indeed, the synthetic thread, particularly the earlier stuff, isn't anywhere as long-lasting as the linen thread that used to be available is. Fear not, though. There may be a solution at hand. While the linen thread manufacturers have left the field, there's a growing market for and production of hemp thread happening right now. For all intents and purposes, linen and hemp are virtually identical, save that hemp tends to curl counterclockwise and linen clockwise (or is it the other way around?) Sourcing some and seeing how it lays up as rope is on my "to-do" list one of these days.
 
 

You win the internet today for catching that one! Correction made. Thanks for letting me know.  

As Roger explained, it depends on what the cut piece is going to be used for. Grain orientation is a factor in strength and ease of bending, as well as in the piece's ability to hold fastenings and resist splitting. Most good basic books on woodworking will treat the subject of milling and grain orientaton in their early chapters.

I'm more bothered about what they are going to do with my models after I'm gone than I am about what they are going to do with my stinking carcass.  
 
Of course, enjoying oneself is what it's about at the end of the day and that's a subjective determination. However, as the original poster noted was set forth in the NRG specifications: "...it is reasonable to expect a new ship model to last one hundred years before deterioration is visible." He then asked, "...what materials (adhesives, woods, metals, paints, rigging materials, fillers, etc.) might appear suitable for a model, but should definitely NOT be used in a model expected to last a century?" So I addressed that question.
 
I suppose that like it seems to be with everything else on the internet, when it comes to ship modeling, there's a right way to do things and then there's a myriad of opinions on how to do it by people who don't know their butt from a hot rock, followed by a contingent who argue, "What difference does it make, anyway?"  
 
I think the better course is to advocate "best practices" in the first instance and let circumstances dictate the exceptions. "What difference does it make? You won't be around to that long yourself." sort of seems to be beside the point to me. Somebody famous once described ship modeling as "the pursuit of unattainable perfection," or words to that effect. It's the process of striving for perfection that it's about. Such perfection being unattainable in any event, why else would anyone bother to do it?

Could not agree more - well said!
 
I agree as well. In fact, with a USS Constitution or HMS Victory kit, there is a high probability that it’s never going to get finished before you croak!  (I'd love to see accurate statistics on numbers sold and numbers finished!)
 
However, if someone is assembling a USS Constitution or HMS Victory kit and wants to have it last to perhaps become a family heirloom, and they ask which materials should be used in pursuit of that accomplishment, they deserve an honest answer, not the insinuation that their efforts won't ever be worth that. Just look at all the kit builders who ask questions concerning the often-questionable historical accuracy of their kits. They, too, deserve an honest answer, not the response that it's just a kit that nobody other than themselves will ever care about! I think the best posture to take in all things is to promote "best practices" and if one falls short, that's their choice and if they have fun notwithstanding, so much the better!
 
(This post is written by a guy who when he was a kid used to blow up his old finished models with firecrackers and cherry bombs. The "Joy of Modeling" is in the eye of the beholder.  )

I think we have to presume that the author of those specifications took it as a given that such a model would be properly cared for and kept properly cased. The hundred year span is certainly arbitrary, as well. It's my understanding that a hundred years is the definition of an "antique" in the trade, anything less being classified as "vintage." 

I'm more bothered about what they are going to do with my models after I'm gone than I am about what they are going to do with my stinking carcass.  
 
Of course, enjoying oneself is what it's about at the end of the day and that's a subjective determination. However, as the original poster noted was set forth in the NRG specifications: "...it is reasonable to expect a new ship model to last one hundred years before deterioration is visible." He then asked, "...what materials (adhesives, woods, metals, paints, rigging materials, fillers, etc.) might appear suitable for a model, but should definitely NOT be used in a model expected to last a century?" So I addressed that question.
 
I suppose that like it seems to be with everything else on the internet, when it comes to ship modeling, there's a right way to do things and then there's a myriad of opinions on how to do it by people who don't know their butt from a hot rock, followed by a contingent who argue, "What difference does it make, anyway?"  
 
I think the better course is to advocate "best practices" in the first instance and let circumstances dictate the exceptions. "What difference does it make? You won't be around to that long yourself." sort of seems to be beside the point to me. Somebody famous once described ship modeling as "the pursuit of unattainable perfection," or words to that effect. It's the process of striving for perfection that it's about. Such perfection being unattainable in any event, why else would anyone bother to do it?

Indeed, the exchange of opinions is often enlightening. It gives us the opportunity to see things from the perspectives of others. Opinions, however, are not facts and therein lies the rub. One may have an opinion about anything that is open to dispute or, as is said, "is a matter of opinion about which reasonable minds may differ." We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. What is "true" isn't something that's a matter of opinion. One cannot have an opinion about whether it is raining or not at a given time and place. It's either raining or it's not. They can have an opinion about whether it is going to rain tomorrow, but even that opinion can be negated by a weather satellite photo that shows there's no possibility that it can rain tomorrow. Predicting the weather used to be a more a matter of opinion than not, but science has done a good job of narrowing that window of "opinion" in the modern age. 
 
More commonly, opinions are expressions of personal preference. One can be of the opinion that broccoli tastes awful and that is neither "true" nor "false." It's just a subjective expression of personal taste. One can say subjectively, "Broccoli tastes awful to me," but they can't say it's objectively  true that it tastes awful to everyone else.
 
In the same way, one can have an opinion of the best way to do something, but their "right to their own opinion" goes out the window when it is certain that their "best way" is simply never going to work. Here is where inexperienced people often get into trouble weighing in on the internet about their "opinion" on political issues when they lack the information necessary to form an informed opinion or are relying on false information in the first place, and, in most instances, they then fall back on the retort that they "have a right to their own opinion." Opinions are subjective. Truth is objective. 
 
So, no, I don't think that what is "right" can be different things for different people when the "right" is an objective absolute. like whether or not a material is insufficient for use in an engineering application. An engineer can say with certainty and not as a matter of opinion whether a bridge will carry the weight of a railroad train. We may call that an "expert opinion," but it's really just a matter of scientific fact unless the outcome is just too close to call. Reality determines what is right. Science determines what is reality. On matters of opinion, however, there is no absolute "right." There may be any number of "rights" and any number of "wrongs." 
 
So, for example, if one posits the premise that a properly built ship model should last for a hundred years, and then asks what materials should not be used in a properly built ship model, we can see that there are "rights" that are "right" for everybody, like the fact that cheap acidic papers cannot be expected not to show the effects of deterioration for a hundred years or that we can't say for sure whether CA adhesives or acrylic paints will last a hundred years simply because they haven't been around for a hundred years. On the other hand, whether one should not worry themselves about their model lasting a hundred years because they aren't going to live that long is irrelevant to the discussion because the basic premise is that a well built ship model should last for a hundred years.

As I recall, the famed miniature ship modeler Lloyd McCaffery, uses wire on all of his amazing miniature models. As I recall, he discusses his techniques for that in his book, Ships in Miniature. https://www.amazon.com/SHIPS-MINIATURE-Classic-Manual-Modelmakers/dp/0851774857
 

 
Indeed, the synthetic thread, particularly the earlier stuff, isn't anywhere as long-lasting as the linen thread that used to be available is. Fear not, though. There may be a solution at hand. While the linen thread manufacturers have left the field, there's a growing market for and production of hemp thread happening right now. For all intents and purposes, linen and hemp are virtually identical, save that hemp tends to curl counterclockwise and linen clockwise (or is it the other way around?) Sourcing some and seeing how it lays up as rope is on my "to-do" list one of these days.
 
 

You win the internet today for catching that one! Correction made. Thanks for letting me know.  

I'm more bothered about what they are going to do with my models after I'm gone than I am about what they are going to do with my stinking carcass.  
 
Of course, enjoying oneself is what it's about at the end of the day and that's a subjective determination. However, as the original poster noted was set forth in the NRG specifications: "...it is reasonable to expect a new ship model to last one hundred years before deterioration is visible." He then asked, "...what materials (adhesives, woods, metals, paints, rigging materials, fillers, etc.) might appear suitable for a model, but should definitely NOT be used in a model expected to last a century?" So I addressed that question.
 
I suppose that like it seems to be with everything else on the internet, when it comes to ship modeling, there's a right way to do things and then there's a myriad of opinions on how to do it by people who don't know their butt from a hot rock, followed by a contingent who argue, "What difference does it make, anyway?"  
 
I think the better course is to advocate "best practices" in the first instance and let circumstances dictate the exceptions. "What difference does it make? You won't be around to that long yourself." sort of seems to be beside the point to me. Somebody famous once described ship modeling as "the pursuit of unattainable perfection," or words to that effect. It's the process of striving for perfection that it's about. Such perfection being unattainable in any event, why else would anyone bother to do it?