Bob Cleek

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. 

"Gun metal, also known as red brass in the United States, is a type of bronze – an alloy of copper, tin, and zinc. Proportions vary but 88% copper, 8–10% tin, and 2–4% zinc is an approximation. Originally used chiefly for making guns, it has largely been replaced by steel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunmetal
 
Yet another example of imprecise nomenclature in common usage!

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. 

And whoever said it was ever appropriate to use bright copper and brass on an historically accurate ship model?  
 
It's a matter of style. To my mind, in MY opinion, as others have said, an historically accurate ship model should portray the historical features accurately. That said, some amazing builder's yard models of the "golden age" had all their metal parts gold plated! It was a style in vogue at the time to show off the quality of the craftsmanship and it yielded a spectacular artistic effect. These models were historically correct, but not visually correct. An alternate style is to leave all materials "bright," i.e. "unfinished" as is the style currently in vogue in European modeling of "Admiralty board" style models. (Not all of which were so built.) Finally, there is the style of modeling a "compelling impression of reality in miniature," which portrays the subject as the viewer would see the subject vessel from a "scale viewing distance" in real life. All of these classic styles are valid and can produce spectacular models. That said, mixing these styles up in the same model is often detrimental to the overall result, and sometimes catastrophically so. Needless to say, out of scale and misplaced  trunnels, deck planking butts, copper sheathing tacks, and a myriad of incorrect colors are not historically correct, and yield a crude result.
 
It should be noted that leaving uncoated copper unfinished will, as the copper naturally oxidizes, yields a very convincing appearance of naturally weathered bronze fittings. This is a good technique for portraying bronze railings and handholds, cleats, winches, and the like, particularly on models of yachts which carry quality metal fittings.
 
For those who may not be familiar with a bright metal builder's model (in apparent need of some restoration attention... note the faded paint on the stack, damaged rigging, and bent stern railing):
 

 

 

 
and, if you want to give your model-maker's ego a real beating, check out the builder's model of Mauretania! : 
 
And RMS Berengaria, with bright metal only where it would have appeared at "scale viewing distance." 
 
 
 
 
 

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. 

The distinction appears to be a matter of semantics. Bronze is a copper alloy commonly used below the waterline. While I'm aware of the use of copper bolts, rivets, and drifts as construction fastenings, which are somewhat encapsulated in the wood and not in direct contact with the salt water electrolyte, I've never heard of copper, as opposed to bronze, underwater rudder fittings. Copper, alone, isn't all that strong.  Bronze is much easier to cast than copper, as well. I'm also aware of the corrosion issues realized with wrought iron in contact with a coppered bottom. In Cutty Sark's case, she was indeed a composite build with iron frames and sheathed with Muntz metal, another copper alloy that is considered a brass. The Muntz metal, which is very resistant to galvanic corrosion, may have been closer to wrought iron on the galvanic scale, or they simply considered the iron rudder fittings "sacrificial" and replaced them as needed, as they would have had plenty of "meat" to spare. I do know that when I was in her hold, decades ago before her total rebuild, when she was, shall we say, "less than fully restored," her iron frames showed no gross corrosion, but appearances can be deceiving, I suppose.
 
Your mention of HMS Pandora demonstrates the semantic confusion. An alloy of 87.3 percent copper and 6.9 percent tin, with trace amounts of lead and zinc (commonly added to improve machineability) is decidedly a bronze, which are alloys of copper and tin, albeit with a somewhat lower amount of tin than is seen modernly. (Copper-zinc alloys are brasses.) Clearly, the terms "hardened copper" and "copper alloy" were referencing a bronze. (The zinc in brass being, less noble than copper and iron, would deteriorate in short order, leaving something of a micro-crystaline copper "Swiss cheese" which would have little or no strength.) 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

IMHO Anyone buying power tools, particularly stationary ones, should not overlook used ones built by old line manufacturers 40 years or so. Ones that have been well taken care will outlast their owners.
 
Often new tools come with a lot of bells and whistles type features to attract buyers but are seldom used.  
 
Old tools are also usually belt driven so if the motor dies it can be replaced.  Parts like bearings are usually commercially and they are assembled with threaded fasteners available at a hardware store.
 
As far as I am concerned many new hand held power tools should almost be considered to be disposable.
 
 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

And whoever said it was ever appropriate to use bright copper and brass on an historically accurate ship model?  
 
It's a matter of style. To my mind, in MY opinion, as others have said, an historically accurate ship model should portray the historical features accurately. That said, some amazing builder's yard models of the "golden age" had all their metal parts gold plated! It was a style in vogue at the time to show off the quality of the craftsmanship and it yielded a spectacular artistic effect. These models were historically correct, but not visually correct. An alternate style is to leave all materials "bright," i.e. "unfinished" as is the style currently in vogue in European modeling of "Admiralty board" style models. (Not all of which were so built.) Finally, there is the style of modeling a "compelling impression of reality in miniature," which portrays the subject as the viewer would see the subject vessel from a "scale viewing distance" in real life. All of these classic styles are valid and can produce spectacular models. That said, mixing these styles up in the same model is often detrimental to the overall result, and sometimes catastrophically so. Needless to say, out of scale and misplaced  trunnels, deck planking butts, copper sheathing tacks, and a myriad of incorrect colors are not historically correct, and yield a crude result.
 
It should be noted that leaving uncoated copper unfinished will, as the copper naturally oxidizes, yields a very convincing appearance of naturally weathered bronze fittings. This is a good technique for portraying bronze railings and handholds, cleats, winches, and the like, particularly on models of yachts which carry quality metal fittings.
 
For those who may not be familiar with a bright metal builder's model (in apparent need of some restoration attention... note the faded paint on the stack, damaged rigging, and bent stern railing):
 

 

 

 
and, if you want to give your model-maker's ego a real beating, check out the builder's model of Mauretania! : 
 
And RMS Berengaria, with bright metal only where it would have appeared at "scale viewing distance." 
 
 
 
 
 

I know exactly what you're talking about and you can rant all you want on my threads. This was just one of those occasions that I thought a two use tool might fit the bill but but in a recent survey 2 out of 3 said they didn't like this kind of tool and the third was undecided😃😃😃

The distinction appears to be a matter of semantics. Bronze is a copper alloy commonly used below the waterline. While I'm aware of the use of copper bolts, rivets, and drifts as construction fastenings, which are somewhat encapsulated in the wood and not in direct contact with the salt water electrolyte, I've never heard of copper, as opposed to bronze, underwater rudder fittings. Copper, alone, isn't all that strong.  Bronze is much easier to cast than copper, as well. I'm also aware of the corrosion issues realized with wrought iron in contact with a coppered bottom. In Cutty Sark's case, she was indeed a composite build with iron frames and sheathed with Muntz metal, another copper alloy that is considered a brass. The Muntz metal, which is very resistant to galvanic corrosion, may have been closer to wrought iron on the galvanic scale, or they simply considered the iron rudder fittings "sacrificial" and replaced them as needed, as they would have had plenty of "meat" to spare. I do know that when I was in her hold, decades ago before her total rebuild, when she was, shall we say, "less than fully restored," her iron frames showed no gross corrosion, but appearances can be deceiving, I suppose.
 
Your mention of HMS Pandora demonstrates the semantic confusion. An alloy of 87.3 percent copper and 6.9 percent tin, with trace amounts of lead and zinc (commonly added to improve machineability) is decidedly a bronze, which are alloys of copper and tin, albeit with a somewhat lower amount of tin than is seen modernly. (Copper-zinc alloys are brasses.) Clearly, the terms "hardened copper" and "copper alloy" were referencing a bronze. (The zinc in brass being, less noble than copper and iron, would deteriorate in short order, leaving something of a micro-crystaline copper "Swiss cheese" which would have little or no strength.) 

Rob,
A few posts back I shared a page which confirms Glory's sheer was indeed seven feet. From this beautiful 1877 Glory docked at San Francisco scene, her lovely sheer is clearly evident. This is the same image that reveals her impressively lofty rig as well. I agree with Sailor, please share your stitched together scene with our group.

Druxey is correct about the metal recycling programs in Britain during the War. (And, later, in the U.S.) However, if the period depicted in the model is "circa 1940," it has to be remembered that the War in Europe began in September, 1939, and British "metal drives" began in July of 1940. It seems highly unlikely that serviceable cargo vessels, equivalent to today's tractor-trailer trucks, would have been cannibalized for their metal at that point in the conflict. Moreover, Britain's famous "iron railing" scrap iron drive, and pretty much all others in Britain and the U.S., are generally recognized by historians to have been more a propaganda effort to galvanize civilian support and participation in the war effort than anything else. They focused primarily on the large amount of Victorian-era iron fence and gate work that, at that time, was deemed "expendable." It certainly was good propaganda. Nobody wanted to be the only "unpatriotic" one on their block with iron fencing and gates still standing in front of their house! In fact, it appears only a small fraction of the ornamental ironwork contributed to the war effort ever was used for wartime production and, while some made its way into the post-war recycling chain, an awful lot of it seems to have simply been dumped. (Reportedly, wartime Thames Estuary pilots complained that so much ornamental ironwork was being dumped in the Thames Estuary that it was throwing off their ships' compasses!) Curiously, after the War, the records of what was done with the more than a million tons of valuable British hand-wrought ornamental ironwork was discovered to have been mysteriously shredded.  Ever since, there's been quite a bit of resentment over the loss of what was a signature piece of British architectural heritage that was destroyed for political reasons rather than wartime necessity. 
 
See: https://www.londongardenstrust.org/features/railings3.htm 
 
       https://mashable.com/2016/02/03/wwii-scrap-metal/