Bob Cleek

As in the US, it's an environmental ban. In 2006, the EU banned "all biocides" including those extracted from plants. Somehow, Stockholm tar fell into this category. An outcry from historical preservationists managed to win an exception for use in historic preservation applications, such as historic Swedish churches and maritime preservation applications. 
 

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.) 

Answer Jim Byrnes' questions above and, odds are, he will solve your problem in short order. I'm guessing you didn't realize "jimbyr" is the famous man himself.  

Answer Jim Byrnes' questions above and, odds are, he will solve your problem in short order. I'm guessing you didn't realize "jimbyr" is the famous man himself.  

This is the corollary to "If your mother says you might put your eye out doing it, then it's definitely going to be fun."

I got a Handy Andy boy's tool box with a selection of basic low-quality tools when I was about four or five. I think it was my dad's intention to keep me out of the drawers in his workshop. I still have the tool box and a few of the tools... a screwdriver, a hammer a square, and a (practically useless) plane. I also still have the scar on the back of my left hand that I gave myself using the handsaw sixty-seven years ago, too! 

Me too! We took good care of our toys, didn't we?

Correct!
 

I think that was pretty much the same in all the militaries of the world around that time. For whatever reason, they all figured out that those shiny bits glistening in the sun made them better targets! 

That copper wouldn't stay shiny bright like that for more than a few weeks, at most. 
 
Polished brass (not bronze) is standard procedure for naval ships, and most others that are kept "Bristol fashion," but that's going to be limited to binnacles, bells, bulkhead clock cases, signage plates, door knobs, railings and the like. Only brass is kept polished. Never bronze, which is left to weather gracefully to bronze brown.
 
BTW, those ham-fisted monkeys in the picture posted of them coppering Constitution are making a dog's breakfast of it. They are using regular carpenter's hammers and the denting of the plates sure shows it. There's a proper tool for the job called a "coppering hammer." Its face is convex and smooth. It drives the tack home and makes a smooth dimple in which the tack head sits and has a claw made to fit copper tacks.
 

 

 
Here's a photo of Cutty Sark's coppered bottom, which has never seen water. Done properly with a coppering hammer, she doesn't look like she's got the pox. She was sheathed with Muntz metal, a patent alloy used in her time which is 60% copper, 40% zinc, and a trace of iron, in essence, a brass. It has to be heated when worked, but it's about two-thirds the price of pure copper. Nobody polishes it, though. Muntz metal holds it color about the same as brass and the photograph was taken when the ship first went on display after her restoration.
 
 

 
 
But bright metal on the prototype will be less glaring at scale viewing distance on a model. It's reported that some gun crews kept their gunmetal (brass) guns polished as a matter of pride. Iron guns and all other ironwork was painted with a mixture of linseed oil, Stockholm tar, and lampblack to prevent rust. 
 
 
And copper gudgeons and pintles, never. They were bronze, if not wrought iron. Copper was not sufficiently strong for heavy load-bearing. Brass was never used for chain for the same reason. Note the photo of Cutty Sark above. Here  rudder fittings are wrought iron, her yellow metal bottom notwithstanding.
 

Every ship that I sailed on had brass fittings and every item that was not in a secure area was painted.   The reason was that when stevedores and other service personnel came aboard, be it Europe,  Africa, or South America, the brass fire hose nozzles and other brass items that could be removed and carried off would be gone in a heart beat.    This was not the navy, but rather, the merchant marine, so we did not have enough personnel to keep an eye on the dozens of people  that came aboard for unloading and loading cargo or supplies. The exception was Asia as we would pay off the sifu or bosu and he would keep his crew from stealing these things.    Fun times    
  

Subterfuge ??  Make a fire ship look like a fire ship and it could be spotted early giving the enemy fleet time to cut anchors / flee.  Make the fireship look like a normal ship of the line and it can get in close to the enemy fleet before the fuses set off the fires / explosives.

Correct!
 

Bingo! You win the internet today!

Thanks Charles,
 
Maybe 1902 Ad Man spin to explain why Stanley did not spend money to grind off the casting spruce?
 
Roger

Bob:
 
I have a 1902 Disston & Sons catalog (copy).  On page 138 it clearly states the nib "...has no practical use whatever, it merely serves to break the straight line of the back of the blade and is an ornamentation only." 

If you type in “simulated rivets on plastic hull” you will find a whole thread on this topic.  Post 13 on this thread  by me includes photos of actual riveted ships and rivets.
 
The domed topped rivets that model railroaders like to count are called Snap Rivets, and aboard ship they are only used for joining relatively light metals like deck houses, smokestacks, etc.  
 
The rivets used to join heavy hull plating are called Pan Head rivets.  These are nearly flush on the outside and are nearly invisible at most common modeling scales.

The challenge with our model ships is scale "brightness". High polish and shine from a distance is not the same as when viewed full scale... distance dulls it to a certain extent... even on Capt. Bligh's Bounty. Even something as large as 1:10 tends to look fake if it is too shiny.  To me, a certain level of dinge adds realism.

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 think that he meant 1.5 times the length of the entire yard when both booms were run out, or 1.5 times half the length of the yard when only one boom was run out. In other words, the length of a stuns'l boom was approximately half the length of the boom and they were run out to extend half of their length with the inboard half of the stuns'l boom doubling the yard. I've never seen any that were otherwise.
 
Since the purpose of the stuns'l booms was to expand the sail area, it makes sense that they would be made as large as possible, which would be half the length of the boom to which they were attached. I think the simplicity of the measurement practice was such that it's failure to be addressed in the contemporary literature is unremarkable.  

Bingo! You win the internet today!

The 1950's era Craftsman 8" table saw is a better "old 'arn" option. They don't make 'em like they used to. The 8" saw is a fixed table with a tilting arbor. The smaller "Companion" tilt-table model was originally their "second best" line below Craftsman. The tilting table gives many concern regarding safety of operation. 

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." 
 
 
 
 
 

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." 
 
 
 
 
 

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."