Bob Cleek

Very true. Most quality artists' paints, in the US, these would be Windsor and Newton, Grumbacher, Liquitex, and the like, have various levels of quality, priced accordingly. Their "professional" or "archival" level is the "good stuff," from there, they sell less expensive "student" or "amateur" paints. The big difference is in the quality of the pigments, both as to color stability and fineness of their grinding. It's generally been my impression, at least since Floquil went off the market, that "modelers' paints" are generally of a lower quality compared to professional "archival" quality artists' paints sold in a tube. I first used an acrylic paint on a model back in the early 1980's. I needed to paint an "H" signal flag ("I have a pilot on board") for a pilot schooner model and didn't have any red paint handy. Being lazy, and it being a small part, I used some from my daughter's kid's paint set that "cleaned up with water." The model has always been in a case and kept out of direct sunlight. That signal flag, which used to be red and white, is now pink and white!
 

The following is from my wooden canoe restoring experience.  It may or may not be applicable to the much smaller cross sections that we encounter.
 
Wood canvas Canoes use wood for two structural elements; Ribs 5/16in thick x 2-1/2in wide, steam bent into a U shape, and Planking 3/16in thick x 3in wide.  Material is Northern Cedar and in some cases Red Cedar.
 
Stock for ribs is usually flat sawn as it is considered to be easier to bend.  quarter sawn stock is preferred for planking.
 
 

They certainly have that right, but the models won't last just because McCaffery built them.   Perhaps he chooses more reliable materials, perhaps he doesn't.   I don't really know...   My guess is that from a material standpoint, there is likely little difference between his models and your own.   In my opinion, its up to clients to ensure a proper display environment, which in the end is the only thing that I believe will have an impact on their longevity.   
 
As far as the original premise "that a properly built ship model should last for a hundred years," well I don't know.   I don't know how you define "properly built," and feel the target of 100 years is mostly arbitrary.  As far as the original text:  "...it is reasonable to expect a new ship model to last one hundred years before deterioration is visible."  Frankly, I don't know what this curator is talking about - after 100 years I can think of  an arbitrary number of ways decay might be visible.   Off the top of my head, I can't think of any man-made object, let alone a compound object, that will not show some form of decay after 50 years.   

Lloyd  McCaffery’s Model are works of art that command commensurate prices.  As such, his clients have a right to expect them to last 100 years.  The same is true for many of the carefully researched and beautifully built models that we see in the scratch built section of the forum.  Hopefully, these will eventually be acquired by institutions, collectors, or appreciative family members who are able and willing to care for them.
 
On the other hand, there are the run of the mill POB kit models, often with crudely shaped hulls, over scale fittings, etc.  (There are now on the market some kits that will produce beautiful, accurate models.). I continue to be surprised by builders of these models who obsess over minute details when the model itself is not an accurate representation of the real thing.

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. 

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.

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.

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?

Very true. Most quality artists' paints, in the US, these would be Windsor and Newton, Grumbacher, Liquitex, and the like, have various levels of quality, priced accordingly. Their "professional" or "archival" level is the "good stuff," from there, they sell less expensive "student" or "amateur" paints. The big difference is in the quality of the pigments, both as to color stability and fineness of their grinding. It's generally been my impression, at least since Floquil went off the market, that "modelers' paints" are generally of a lower quality compared to professional "archival" quality artists' paints sold in a tube. I first used an acrylic paint on a model back in the early 1980's. I needed to paint an "H" signal flag ("I have a pilot on board") for a pilot schooner model and didn't have any red paint handy. Being lazy, and it being a small part, I used some from my daughter's kid's paint set that "cleaned up with water." The model has always been in a case and kept out of direct sunlight. That signal flag, which used to be red and white, is now pink and white!
 

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 addition to the paint quality, very important is the application method. Early Renessance artists used to grind their own pigments by hand - resulting in various sizes granules, hence excellent paint quality, unlike the modern electric mills, which grind everything in the same size powders, resulting in 'boring' look of the paint. Grounding (the way of priming the surface) was also critical. The best was priming using gypsum media - lean, white and uniform, suitable for tempera, egg tempera or oil paints!
One of the great earlier Flemish artists, Johannes van Eyck, devised and popularized egg tempera - a tempera pigment mixed in yolk of an egg - this resulted in one of the most permanent paints, that after half of a millennium still look like they were painted yestarday. (Google "The Portrait of Arnolfini" to see it yourselves in a large resolution).
These artists painted with the technique of "laserunek" (Polish term) - the so called "glazing" - multiple layers, one on top of the others, of exceedingly thinly applied paint, heavily diluted in oil in such a way, that earlier layers were visible through the later ones, coming through. It could be more than 10 layers of a detail in a painting, like various shades of skin, jewelry pieces, fabrics, lace...! The end result was a middle color comprised of all intermediate ones. A painting like this was very intense in color and light - you could see it even in near darkness, it had its own light!
 
Also, in those times, there was a separate profession - people preparing wooden panels for artists - they were made from boards of hardwood attached together (tongue and groove usually) into a required size and grounded with that primer - gypsum powder mixed with rabbit skin glue together to form a thin paste similar to watery cream. Those people produced the best panels for artists (I am talking about the era before artists used canvases, which were used later).
I encourage you to watch the movie mentioned earlier in this thread - "A Girl with a Pearl Earring" - it shows you, among other things, the steps of preparation of the pigments, grounding them and mixing with linen oil, with all the attention to detail. Also, the technique of painting itself is shown. Vermeer Van Delft was one of the most preeminent artist of his times, known for the quality of his works, which can be appreciated and admired today...
One of the mistakes Leonardo made with his "Last Supper", was that he painted it on a dry stucco, instead of fresh, wet one (hence the name al fresco). This resulted in very unstable painting, which quickly started to deteriorate and even today is still deteriorating.
 
So, the paint quality was one variable, but there were other as well...

Ive actually tested this in artificial aging chambers and in a light-bleaching lab.    Given the right parameters, nothing is "archival."       "Archival" paints are favored for their inert chemical make-up and their light-fastness as a stand-alone product.   Its all in how you use these products, not the products themselves. 

As a professional conservator I probably land on the more conservative side of this discussion.   Many of the materials being used today, especially on model ships, make me cringe.  The coatings, the glues, the plastics and display scenarios are all either not well vetted or are just what is practical (vs. ideal).   The worst are those that use really modern materials to provide an easier building experience.   There is no such thing as archival quality anything - given the right scenario all things will deteriorate.  This becomes even more complex as we combine many different materials into a compound object of organic and inorganic materials.    The best "archival" acrylic paints were never tested in combination with highly acidic woods - etc.   That paint may be red forever, but it may also end up as red flakes at the bottom of your display case...     Those decals and such will just be brown in 15 years, or worse will be brown on one side and white on the other.     Its very hard to predict how an object will age, but it is very easy to make the right decisions early and be knowledgable of inherent vice.     
 
All this to say that I cringe only because I know the time and care put into these objects, and its difficult not to get up on a soapbox every time I see something I know with absolute authority will not last.   We have to decide for ourselves, few will end up in a museum, and even fewer of us will have grandchildren who want these things laying around so I say enjoy what you are doing now, and forget the rest 🙃

I'll say! It's already lost 1/6 of its letters!
 
Carry on.
 
 

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. 

The good old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics gets us all and everything - sooner or later
 

Very true. Most quality artists' paints, in the US, these would be Windsor and Newton, Grumbacher, Liquitex, and the like, have various levels of quality, priced accordingly. Their "professional" or "archival" level is the "good stuff," from there, they sell less expensive "student" or "amateur" paints. The big difference is in the quality of the pigments, both as to color stability and fineness of their grinding. It's generally been my impression, at least since Floquil went off the market, that "modelers' paints" are generally of a lower quality compared to professional "archival" quality artists' paints sold in a tube. I first used an acrylic paint on a model back in the early 1980's. I needed to paint an "H" signal flag ("I have a pilot on board") for a pilot schooner model and didn't have any red paint handy. Being lazy, and it being a small part, I used some from my daughter's kid's paint set that "cleaned up with water." The model has always been in a case and kept out of direct sunlight. That signal flag, which used to be red and white, is now pink and white!
 

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. 

Very true. Most quality artists' paints, in the US, these would be Windsor and Newton, Grumbacher, Liquitex, and the like, have various levels of quality, priced accordingly. Their "professional" or "archival" level is the "good stuff," from there, they sell less expensive "student" or "amateur" paints. The big difference is in the quality of the pigments, both as to color stability and fineness of their grinding. It's generally been my impression, at least since Floquil went off the market, that "modelers' paints" are generally of a lower quality compared to professional "archival" quality artists' paints sold in a tube. I first used an acrylic paint on a model back in the early 1980's. I needed to paint an "H" signal flag ("I have a pilot on board") for a pilot schooner model and didn't have any red paint handy. Being lazy, and it being a small part, I used some from my daughter's kid's paint set that "cleaned up with water." The model has always been in a case and kept out of direct sunlight. That signal flag, which used to be red and white, is now pink and white!
 

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. 

Blocks move easily in both directions. A free-turning block makes the work easier because the friction is low. Deadeyes, on the other hand, aren't intended to move freely. Friction is a good thing in a deadeye. Deadeyes, having no moving parts, are also somewhat easier to manufacture than blocks and they are stronger because they distribute their load more. Blocks carry their entire load on the sheave axle. Deadeyes are adjusted when first "setting up" rigging or when taking up the stretch in new standing rigging after it "settles in," but aren't otherwise generally intended to be adjusted periodically. The lee shrouds will be slack and the windward shrouds tight when the ship is under sail. They change places every time the ship is tacked. Nothing is done to the deadeye lanyards when that occurs.

Oh yeah! And not just "looks like the same...," either. Some years back I bought a set of bathroom fawcets to replace the ones in a remodel we were doing. They were a name brand, Delta, I believe. I got them from Home Depot, I recall. When my buddy, a plumber, came by, he asked where I got the fawcets and when I told him, he shook his head and said, "If you want to pull these ones out and return them, I'll get you better ones. I pulled them out and he came by with what looked like the identical fawcet set, new in the box from the same manufacturer. I said, "These are the same." He smiled and opened one up and pulled the valve cartridge out of it. It was some sort of plastic. Then he opened up one of the replacements he'd brought from his shop and pulled the valve cartridge out of it. It was all metal. In short, the outside castings were the same, but the "guts" of the two models were very different. I was happy to pay him the lower (wholesale) price for the ones he brought me and I returned the cheapo ones. He explained that the big box stores often buy huge numbers of units and have the manufacturers cut quality to bring the price down. You think you are buying the very same name-brand product, but it isn't.

I'd draw the same conclusion! I think the reviews on MSW are quite reliable.
 

Before I could say, "Don't get me started...."  
 
Wen Tools used to be a mid-range US electric tool manufacturer of fair repute during the last half of the 20th Century . They were perhaps best known for their "second best" or "DIY quality" soldering gun, which competed with Weller's, and their "second best" rotary tool which competed with Dremel's . Wen has always targeted the occasional, non-professional user, rather than the professionals and its greatest selling point has been its lower price. Now the Wen brand has, from all indications, become just another casualty of the power-tool market.
 
Remember reputable brands like "Bell and Howell," (movie cameras,)  "Emerson," (radios and TV's), and just about every tool company you've ever heard of? Times have changed. Today, the brand names themselves have become commodities, monetized for their "customer loyalty" and established good reputation. The business model is 1) buy out a brand name with a good reputation, 2) "value re-engineer" the products by reducing the quality, plastic parts replacing metal where possible, etc., 3) close domestic manufacturing operations and move manufacturing to low-labor-cost Third World factories, 4) slap the reputable label on "generic" offshore products, 5) flood the market with advertising touting the brand name without disclosing the change in ownership and manufacturing origins, and 6) reap the profits for as long as possible until the consumers finally, if ever, figure it out. You still get what you pay for, to a large extent, because the higher priced units will generally have better quality control, warranties, and customer service, although, sometimes you get lucky and find a lower-priced brand of the same unit, built in the same factory in China by the People's Patriotic Power Tool Collective which just happened to be assembled "on a good day." 
 
If you think today's Milwaukee are any different, think again. Milwaukee is Chinese-owned and Chinese-made, one hundred percent. Unfortunately, these new offshore "name brand owners" are very internet savvy. If you go trying to find reviews and comparisons of their products, you'll find multiple websites posing as "neutral reviewers" which, using the identical language, wax eloquent about how great their products are. It's all a big con job. 
 
While Wen tools were once "Made in the USA," Wen is, by all indications, simply selling Wen-branded generic Chinese-made tools these days. Wen never was a top tier tool manufacturer, anyway. It's market niche, even in the 1950's, was the homeowner interested more in price point than quality. 
 
Find the Wen:
 

 
Read the links below to get some idea of how pointless it is for us to even begin to look to a label as any indication of the quality of a tool these days!  With all the internet purchasing, we can't even hold one in our hand before buying it. About the best we can do is to ask the guy who has one, and be careful of doing that if it's just an Amazon review!  
 
https://pressurewashr.com/tool-industry-behemoths/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tool_manufacturers
 
So, sorry for the thread drift, but I couldn't help but rant about the sorry state of tool quality these days.