Bob Cleek

Great progress, Keith! Congratulations on the great outcome on your surgery.
 
Just a thought in passing: These days (in the US, at least) many of the surgical instruments used are "disposable." It's not worth the cost in time and labor to autoclave and sterile package them after each use as was done in the good old days. Regrettably, I expect some of these discards are piled up for sale in large lots to resellers on eBay or to be resold in Third World countries and a lot of it is now sent to the landfill as "bio-hazard waste." You might mention to your surgeon that you'd appreciate it if s/he would save the disposable instruments for you. There's probably a nice Castroviejo iris scissors in your surgical tray, along with maybe some nice tweezers. The eye and micro-surgeons have the best medical instruments to repurpose for modeling use. Unfortunately, I lost my "connection" for "dull," (a relative term) dental burrs some time ago when my friend, and institutional dentist working for the state, told me they were now under an order to "bio-hazard bag" all their discards without exception.  I suppose that's a prudent protocol, but I hate to think that for every kid that makes a trip to the emergency room, there's a nice needle holder that goes into the trash bin.  

Great progress, Keith! Congratulations on the great outcome on your surgery.
 
Just a thought in passing: These days (in the US, at least) many of the surgical instruments used are "disposable." It's not worth the cost in time and labor to autoclave and sterile package them after each use as was done in the good old days. Regrettably, I expect some of these discards are piled up for sale in large lots to resellers on eBay or to be resold in Third World countries and a lot of it is now sent to the landfill as "bio-hazard waste." You might mention to your surgeon that you'd appreciate it if s/he would save the disposable instruments for you. There's probably a nice Castroviejo iris scissors in your surgical tray, along with maybe some nice tweezers. The eye and micro-surgeons have the best medical instruments to repurpose for modeling use. Unfortunately, I lost my "connection" for "dull," (a relative term) dental burrs some time ago when my friend, and institutional dentist working for the state, told me they were now under an order to "bio-hazard bag" all their discards without exception.  I suppose that's a prudent protocol, but I hate to think that for every kid that makes a trip to the emergency room, there's a nice needle holder that goes into the trash bin.  

The silkspan is the brand marketing name of an original paper that was invented in China in the B.C. 50s. The modern paper we use every day is refined by machine and chemicals. The old and original paper have low density and higher tensile strength.
 
The original paper is so popular in the East Asia region. Asians use the original paper for many purpose, such as windows and wallpaper. I can find and buy the silkspan paper at every stationery shop in South Korea. The original paper has different name by country. - Chinese paper in China, Korean paper in Korea, Japanese paper in Japan, or Japanese rice paper, etcs.
 
Wefalck introduced industrially refined original paper made by a German company. The refined paper is optimized for the model project; longer fibers and evenly patterns.
 
I guess it is hard to find the original paper in the Western region, The different names may help you find the "Silkspan". (When I saw the word first, I purchased "silk and span fabric," literally. 😆 )

Great progress, Keith! Congratulations on the great outcome on your surgery.
 
Just a thought in passing: These days (in the US, at least) many of the surgical instruments used are "disposable." It's not worth the cost in time and labor to autoclave and sterile package them after each use as was done in the good old days. Regrettably, I expect some of these discards are piled up for sale in large lots to resellers on eBay or to be resold in Third World countries and a lot of it is now sent to the landfill as "bio-hazard waste." You might mention to your surgeon that you'd appreciate it if s/he would save the disposable instruments for you. There's probably a nice Castroviejo iris scissors in your surgical tray, along with maybe some nice tweezers. The eye and micro-surgeons have the best medical instruments to repurpose for modeling use. Unfortunately, I lost my "connection" for "dull," (a relative term) dental burrs some time ago when my friend, and institutional dentist working for the state, told me they were now under an order to "bio-hazard bag" all their discards without exception.  I suppose that's a prudent protocol, but I hate to think that for every kid that makes a trip to the emergency room, there's a nice needle holder that goes into the trash bin.  

That was exactly what I thought. Once you get down to eight or sixteen sides, rounding it up is a piece of cake with a sheet of sandpaper. (In real life, they might rough out the shape of a solid mast or spar with an adze, but the finish work would have been done with a spar plane, which would have a concave sole and iron sized to match the circumference of the spar. It would take a set of these to get an accurately rounded spar.) I was thinking of a similar arrangement, but rather than a shim that slid under the spar, there would be a grooved "bench hook" base to hold the spar for planing and a threaded "jack" that could be finely adjusted to raise the base and the degree of taper one desired. Once the measurements were identified, an "inches per foot" taper index for each of the scales one used could be attached, making setup even less tedious. A plane would run on a "sled" or in a level track to cut the taper set by the amount of rise above the track set by the "jack" adjustment. This sort of a jig could also be used for cutting scale scarfs. It's the way many scarfs are made in full-size construction these days, often with a router base mounted on a sled running on an angled base.
 
 

I ended up getting the kit. The strip wood was still sealed in bags and none of the containers had ever been opened, over all it looked brand new and in perfect condition. Of all the parts the rudder was missing, it didn't look like it got cut or broken out but rather got missed at the factory. For the $300 it saved me I can easily find a piece of wood and cut it out on the scroll saw. I just started a MS Mayflower a little while ago so I'm going to plug away at that for now and just keep this in my stash until the temptation gets to much for me. 

I have in mind the concept that spars were not exactly a straight line taper.   Is it not a curve with a slope that increases - with most of the increase in the outer quarter?  A very shallow ellipse?
 
Now that I visualize it. A jig with parallel sides and a shim that slides under the spar.  The shim would allow for an elliptical profile.
I think the process would be significantly faster than a lathe.  Planing along the grain would mimic the action of an adz and not leave a surface that is a series of concentric rings - which is what a lathe does. 

As for the HP-8 it is worth each penny. Got mine at a sale from them.

I've heard good things about that HP-8 plane. (They also sell a stainless and titanium "commemorative model" for $300.) The Bridge City catalog is very entertaining. They seem to be the Tiffany's of tools and priced similarly as well! Real jewelry for tool nuts. See: Planes – Bridge City Tool Works (bridgecitytools.com) 
 
Bridge City offers a chopstick tapered planing jig that uses the HP-8 plane called the "Chopstick Master." It seems that with a little bit of re-engineering, it could be a really neat tool for making tapered scale masts, spars, and dowels. The catch, of course, is that this jig system would probably cost you more than a Proxxon wood lathe! It's worth taking a look at it if anybody is considering building a jig for planing "sticks." Bridge City makes theirs fancy, of course, but the principles of their jig may be adaptable for modeling use. See: Mini Workshop – Bridge City Tool Works (bridgecitytools.com)

I've heard good things about that HP-8 plane. (They also sell a stainless and titanium "commemorative model" for $300.) The Bridge City catalog is very entertaining. They seem to be the Tiffany's of tools and priced similarly as well! Real jewelry for tool nuts. See: Planes – Bridge City Tool Works (bridgecitytools.com) 
 
Bridge City offers a chopstick tapered planing jig that uses the HP-8 plane called the "Chopstick Master." It seems that with a little bit of re-engineering, it could be a really neat tool for making tapered scale masts, spars, and dowels. The catch, of course, is that this jig system would probably cost you more than a Proxxon wood lathe! It's worth taking a look at it if anybody is considering building a jig for planing "sticks." Bridge City makes theirs fancy, of course, but the principles of their jig may be adaptable for modeling use. See: Mini Workshop – Bridge City Tool Works (bridgecitytools.com)

As this is only your second kit, the suggestions above about getting a high quality kit are spot on.   Maybe try a kit or two that will teach proper build techniques including planking. The 3 model beginner series from Model Shipways or the Syren Medway longboat kit along with spending time studying the tutorials here at MSW in the articles database will make your journey a pleasant one.
Allan

@giampieroricci
Many thanks vor your nice comment, and also thanks to the others for the LIKES.
 
Continuation: Equipment of the main topsail yard – eye splices for sheets
If I remember correctly, some time ago a dear fellow model maker once described weaving linen as a “complementary meditation”.
I discovered another passion by making eye splices... 😊.
But seriously, making splices is really relaxing. The feeling of looking at the result also conveys a certain fulfillment, at least for me.
After many attempts, I am now more or less able to make usable eye splices in almost any rope thickness.
In the meantime I have formed the ends of the main topsail sheets and main topgallant sheets with eye splices so that I can later create the connection already described using a toggle on the clewline blocks or on the clewlines.

 

Up soon …

Continued: Equipping the main topsail yard - footropes and stirrups - Marchepieds et étriers etc.
The garden has been "tidied up" and made ready for the winter. Everything has also been done in the house. The days have become shorter and motivation is at a high level again. 
So I'm continuing where I left off a good 2 months ago, with the footropes in the main topsail yard.
In the meantime, I have carried out further research into the design of the footropes and stirrups for this yard and have therefore decided, contrary to my previous assumptions (see sketch in previous reports), to attach two stirrups to each half of the yard. I will therefore move the outer attachment points of the footropes further inwards. 
What seems important to me in this context is the fact that even with such inconspicuous details as the footropes, the following principle must be observed: the higher up in the rigging, the more delicate the rigging elements, such as ropes, thimbles and blocks, become.
This is why the following picture shows the difference between the stirrups of the main yard (top left in the picture) and the main topsail yard, which is quite recognizable.

On the next picture you can see the finished footropes with the stirrups of the main yard and one or the other detail in an enlargement. The footropes have a diameter of 0.54 mm for the model (original size ø 26 mm), the stirrups ø 0.48 mm (ø 23 mm).
After attaching the footropes with the stirrups and the rest of the equipment, such as the brace blocks and the lifts, I also attached the sheets, clewlines and the ropes for the reef tackle. 
The length of the clewline blocks for the main topsail yard for the model is 4 mm, as can be seen in the next picture. The block strops are already lying next to it, ready to be tied in.
Since I do not attach sails to my model, I connect the sheet ends (eye splices) to lower clewline blocks with toggle, as seen on the Paris model and various contemporary models. Apparently the French preferred to use toggles (cabillot d'armarrage) to connect the clews to the sheets.
On the other hand, the stopper knot was obviously widespread among the English, at least that was my observation. Unfortunately I can't prove that.

I made these little toggles from dogwood, one of the hardest native woods, which is very suitable for turning and polishing, so ideal for this purpose.
The following illustration shows the eye splice of a sheet for the main topgallant sail (0.40 mm), which will later be connected to the clewlines of the main royal sail using a toggle.
At the moment I'm still working on the main topsail yard, as you can see in the following picture.
The last picture shows the back part of my “rigging workshop”. On the one hand, you can see the yards and spars that have not yet been equipped, and on the other hand, various rigging thread and a few rigging utensils, always ready to hand.
By attaching the studding sail booms, the main topsail yard will ultimately be fully equipped.

Sequel follows …

Making a dust cover
Since the last post, very little has happened in my model building yard.
If you are not working on the model, you don't have it in view all the time, so to speak, and therefore the first dust build-up cannot be counteracted, then it is advisable to place it under a protective cover.
Since I will certainly be busy equipping the yards for some time, I have been thinking about protecting the model against dust for some time.
A display case would be too impractical because you have to work on the model from time to time. In this respect, I thought about building a cheap dust cover that makes it possible to open the front in order to be able to remove the model or work on it.
The frame was made with 20/20 mm spruce strips and metal angles and was covered with Molton fabric on the back. This ensures a neutral background and, if necessary, possible detailed shots. The remaining areas were covered with a crystal-clear PVC film. The front can be braced downwards using a longitudinal strip or rolled up at the top.


 
     
Hopefully soon I will be able to pick up where I left off almost 2 months ago.
So until then…

@druxey
Many thanks for the lovely comment and the reply.
I would also like to thank everyone for the many LIKES.
 
Continuation: Equipment of the main topsail yard - Jackstag, blocks for leech lines and bunt lines / Filière d`envergure, poulies de cargue de fond et poulies de boulin
The topsail yards on the La Créole were also already equipped with jackstays. The two-piece and fully served jackstay for the main topsail yard was made in the same way as shown in the main yard and fore yard. The following picture shows part of the jackstay with the lanyard.

 
On the next picture I show the blocks for the topsail yards again in size comparison (tye block of the main topsail yard, tye block of the fore topsail yard a bit smaller). Contrary to my sketch shown, the blocks for the braces are 4 mm long.

In the meantime I have installed and lashed the jackstay on the main topsail yard and also lashed the blocks for the leech lines to it.


So the lifts, the blocks for the braces and the footropes are still missing. I will also pull in the sheets and the clew lines as far as that.
Sequel follows …

Continuation: Equipment of the topsail yards – blocks for bunt lines / poulies de cargue de fond
Also mounted at the topsail yards were a number of blocks for the braces, leech lines and bunt lines. Due to the diameter of these ropes, the block sizes are 3,4 mm long. In order to be able to file the notches for the block strops better into the wood, I invested in a new needle file and equipped it with a nice handle made of service tree.
Admittedly not exactly cheap, but this file has a diameter of only 1.0 mm at the top of the handle and tapers to 0.5 mm at the tip.

Of course, there are other uses for this filigree tool. However, extremely careful handling of this filigree tool is required, as it can be damaged very easily.
 
I equip the topsail yards according to the sketch below.

 
In the meantime, further blocks for the topsail yards have been made. Among other things, the blocks for the bunt lines, which were already rigged to the main yard on the strop of the tye block, as can be seen in the next two pictures.
 
Sequel follows …

Yep, what Jaager said. Twenty years old isn't as old as I had in mind when I started reading this thread. I was thinking more like maybe fifty or sixty years old, back to the old Model Shipways "yellow box" kits. Still and all, unless you are prepared to do a complete build from scratch, using nothing but the old kit plans (which are easy to come by without buying the kit,) and the price for the plans is not too dear or the plans not too inaccurate, old kits are almost certain to disappoint a modeler today. There has been a tremendous increase in the quality and sophistication of ship model kits in recent times.  Even the difference between kits sold just twenty years ago (and which may have been designed twenty or thirty years before that!) and today's CAD-designed, and CNC-manufactured laser cut models is much the same as comparing the Academy Award winning quality of Ray Harryhausen's "stop-motion" model animation movie special effects of fifty years ago with the computer-generated imagery common in today's movies. 
 
The problem isn't just the quality of the wood. Even today's lower-quality kits are full of poor-quality wood. The older kits are nowhere near as well designed for ease of assembly, nor are their instructions, such as they may be in any event, anywhere near the quality of today's state-of-the-art kits. The fittings should be much better in modern kits. Older model kits frequently used lead-based cast parts which are prone to corrosion and turning to dust before your eyes in a few years. Older kits were notorious for period-inappropriate and/or out of scale fittings, as well and this is a problem that continues in lower-quality kits today. The old kit rigging blocks and thread will nearly always be so far beneath current expectations of quality and accuracy of appearance as to mandate their complete replacement. This isn't to say that a competent modeler can't turn out a rather nice model from an old kit, taking into account their ability to upgrade the kit from scratch as they go along, but at the end of the day, any modeler is going to have a much more pleasurable experience and a much better looking result assembling one of the higher-end American- or British-made kits which have been designed and produced within the last several years.
 
As Jaager sagely observed, it's all about the investment in time. Even the cheaper cost of an old kit considered, I'd say anybody who is going to spend any money on a model ship kit will find both their money and their time better spent on a modern kit. In any event, do be sure to check the forum's model kit database for reliable reviews of any kit you might consider acquiring. REVIEWS: Model kits - Model Ship World™

Yep, what Jaager said. Twenty years old isn't as old as I had in mind when I started reading this thread. I was thinking more like maybe fifty or sixty years old, back to the old Model Shipways "yellow box" kits. Still and all, unless you are prepared to do a complete build from scratch, using nothing but the old kit plans (which are easy to come by without buying the kit,) and the price for the plans is not too dear or the plans not too inaccurate, old kits are almost certain to disappoint a modeler today. There has been a tremendous increase in the quality and sophistication of ship model kits in recent times.  Even the difference between kits sold just twenty years ago (and which may have been designed twenty or thirty years before that!) and today's CAD-designed, and CNC-manufactured laser cut models is much the same as comparing the Academy Award winning quality of Ray Harryhausen's "stop-motion" model animation movie special effects of fifty years ago with the computer-generated imagery common in today's movies. 
 
The problem isn't just the quality of the wood. Even today's lower-quality kits are full of poor-quality wood. The older kits are nowhere near as well designed for ease of assembly, nor are their instructions, such as they may be in any event, anywhere near the quality of today's state-of-the-art kits. The fittings should be much better in modern kits. Older model kits frequently used lead-based cast parts which are prone to corrosion and turning to dust before your eyes in a few years. Older kits were notorious for period-inappropriate and/or out of scale fittings, as well and this is a problem that continues in lower-quality kits today. The old kit rigging blocks and thread will nearly always be so far beneath current expectations of quality and accuracy of appearance as to mandate their complete replacement. This isn't to say that a competent modeler can't turn out a rather nice model from an old kit, taking into account their ability to upgrade the kit from scratch as they go along, but at the end of the day, any modeler is going to have a much more pleasurable experience and a much better looking result assembling one of the higher-end American- or British-made kits which have been designed and produced within the last several years.
 
As Jaager sagely observed, it's all about the investment in time. Even the cheaper cost of an old kit considered, I'd say anybody who is going to spend any money on a model ship kit will find both their money and their time better spent on a modern kit. In any event, do be sure to check the forum's model kit database for reliable reviews of any kit you might consider acquiring. REVIEWS: Model kits - Model Ship World™

Yep, what Jaager said. Twenty years old isn't as old as I had in mind when I started reading this thread. I was thinking more like maybe fifty or sixty years old, back to the old Model Shipways "yellow box" kits. Still and all, unless you are prepared to do a complete build from scratch, using nothing but the old kit plans (which are easy to come by without buying the kit,) and the price for the plans is not too dear or the plans not too inaccurate, old kits are almost certain to disappoint a modeler today. There has been a tremendous increase in the quality and sophistication of ship model kits in recent times.  Even the difference between kits sold just twenty years ago (and which may have been designed twenty or thirty years before that!) and today's CAD-designed, and CNC-manufactured laser cut models is much the same as comparing the Academy Award winning quality of Ray Harryhausen's "stop-motion" model animation movie special effects of fifty years ago with the computer-generated imagery common in today's movies. 
 
The problem isn't just the quality of the wood. Even today's lower-quality kits are full of poor-quality wood. The older kits are nowhere near as well designed for ease of assembly, nor are their instructions, such as they may be in any event, anywhere near the quality of today's state-of-the-art kits. The fittings should be much better in modern kits. Older model kits frequently used lead-based cast parts which are prone to corrosion and turning to dust before your eyes in a few years. Older kits were notorious for period-inappropriate and/or out of scale fittings, as well and this is a problem that continues in lower-quality kits today. The old kit rigging blocks and thread will nearly always be so far beneath current expectations of quality and accuracy of appearance as to mandate their complete replacement. This isn't to say that a competent modeler can't turn out a rather nice model from an old kit, taking into account their ability to upgrade the kit from scratch as they go along, but at the end of the day, any modeler is going to have a much more pleasurable experience and a much better looking result assembling one of the higher-end American- or British-made kits which have been designed and produced within the last several years.
 
As Jaager sagely observed, it's all about the investment in time. Even the cheaper cost of an old kit considered, I'd say anybody who is going to spend any money on a model ship kit will find both their money and their time better spent on a modern kit. In any event, do be sure to check the forum's model kit database for reliable reviews of any kit you might consider acquiring. REVIEWS: Model kits - Model Ship World™

To designate a vessel for National Historic Landmark status it is Necessary to prepare and file a Historic Structures Report (HSR) with the US National Park Service, an arm of the US Federal Government.  The process can be quite complicated and HSR’s can vary in quality.  HSRs are supposed to include Measured Drawings of the vessel in question.
 
The National Park Service has posted a number of these HSR’s on line and I believe that includes one for Hercules.  The drawings in the Hercules HSR should be helpful in adding details to this kit.
 
Roger

I have no doubt that this is a frequent occurrence with the older POB kits from some companies.
I do question the explanation.  Wood is fairly to significantly old before it is even harvested.
Once felled, the wood will then have its original water content reduced to ambient humidity (seasoning).
How long this takes involves a number of factors - thickness being a major one.  From then on wood will
change its concentration of water to be in balance with the humidity of its surrounding air.
 
I propose that the major problem with these older kits lies with the choice of wood species selected for inclusion in the kit.
From day one with these kits it is GIGO as far as how the wood behaves.  Using glue, finishing agents, paint, etc.  will alter how it responds over time.
 
However you factor this out,  our dominant investment by far is: TIME.
We never get it back. 
We will never be compensated at any hourly rate commensurate with that of professionals doing similar skill level jobs.
Quality wood does not fight you at ever step.  Its presentation is more appropriate.
 
Your time would be better spent building quality kits.  The intangible feeling is more pleasurable.
If you are determined to proceed with this,  your experience will be more rewarding if you were to replace every wooden part with a quality wood.  Use the original wood as patterns where this is worth doing.  If the cost of the second hand kit does not make this economical to do, you would be spending too much.

The colorized photo appears to be extensively "photoshopped." Note the addition of the ship, warehouse, and hills in the distance, the two men and a woman standing in the center foreground, the fellow carrying a timber halfway up the ramp, the absence of the jackstaff and the supporting pole on the port bow by the anchor. How many differences can you spot? 
 
I guest the colorist took some artistic license with the original photo.
 
 

 

The short answer is yes thin them, but not having used AL paints I can’t exactly tell you how much, but better to ere on too thin than too thick. Cheap brushes from walmart will work fine if you are just trying to base coat the model. I use cheap brushes for this sort of work all the time and only break out my good ones for the detail work.
 
The longer answer:
 
Acrylic paints are made up of three components: pigment, binder and solvent. The solvent in this case is water so you can thin your paints by adding more up to a point. If you thin them past that point, there won’t be enough binder in the solution to hold the pigment together. This is where acrylic medium comes in. You can buy this at any art store and you can use it if you want to thin the paint even more without losing its properties.
 
For just painting coats on a model you will not however need to thin the paint this much. My suggestion is to test it on your palm. If the paint fills in the cracks (ie you can’t see the lines on your palm anymore) then it is too thick. It will not completely cover on the first coat (especially for colour such as white or yellow). You want two to three thin smooth coats. Make sure they are completely dry and sand off any imperfections between coats. What I will say is that if your paint is too thin you only loose time. If it is too thick you will ruin the model. For model paints such as vellejo or citadel, my rule of thumb is one part paint to one part water, but this will vary depending on the thickness of the paint.
 
Make sure you have used a primer or a sanding sealer first and you have a smooth surface to work on. A good paint job can’t fix a poorly prepared surface.
 
If you are painting both dark and light colours (for example black and white) paint the lighter one first. It will be much easier to paint the black over white than the other way round. Also if you are having trouble with a lighter colour covering you can build up to it by say for example painting on a light grey and then painting white over top.
 
For brushes (I assume you are just painting the hull), I would recommend just pick up a pack of brushes from somewhere like walmart. That will give you a few sizes to work with and since you will inevitably ruin them anyways (I am assuming you are not familiar with painting since you asked the question), at least you haven't ruined expensive ones. In the future you can look into more expensive ones if you want to explore painting a bit more. 

Nice work! Your edges are crisp and your finishing is excellent. It appears that you are simply pushing up against the limits of what can be done with your kit at its scale. In real life, a shackle would slide on the sheet horse (metal bar) and the shackle would hold the block which would have an internal metal strop with a tab with a hole through which the shackle pin would run. In this case, the kit manufacturer has anachronistically "mixed apples and oranges." There would not have been rope-stropped blocks on a Banks schooner of Bluenose's period. You'll just have to dance with the gal ya' brought and "fake it." 
 
Perhaps the easiest way to accomplish the task is to take a length of thread and tie it first around the block, forming the strop on the block. Tie off the "strop" with two or three half-hitches going in the same direction at the bottom of the block. (If your "one-holed" blocks are like most kit blocks, the hole will be at one end of the block. Tie your "strop knots" at the end of the block which is farthest away from the end closest to the hole so that the run of the line through the block will look correct.)  Leave the bitter end of the knotted thread free for the moment.  You will now have a block which is "stropped" by the knotted thread.
 
Now the other end of the thread with the block attached and tie that end closely around the sheet horse with two or three half-hitches just as you did the "strop loop" previously. You will want to tie the stropped block as closely as possible to the sheet horse in order to simulate a block fastened closely to the sheet horse with a seizing. The block should not appear as if it is on a pendant attached to the block. When you tie the half hitches for the knots holding the stropped block to the sheet horse, tie as many half hitches as you need (It shouldn't be more than two or three) around the standing part of the line until they fetch up against the side of the last half hitch tied on the block strop end.  The appearance, if done correctly, will be of the stropped block attached to the sheet horse with a short series of half hitch knots spiraling up between the block and the sheet horse. The shorter this distance, the more realistic it all will appear. Use as fine a thread as you can manage, as the half hitch knots will increase the diameter of the knotted rope between the block and the sheet horse. You may wish to experiment and use two turns of your thread around the block and around the sheet horse before tying the respective half hitches. This may mimic the appearance of a single thicker strop around the block and sheet horse with the half hitches around the connection between them appearing closer to the diameter of the doubled thread visible around the block and sheet horse. Some thickened paint, shellac, or surfacing putty can be applied between the doubled thread around the block and sheet horse to mimic the appearance of a single piece of rope.  When you have fastened the block to the sheet horse in this fashion, without cutting the two bitter ends of the thread, secure the knots, and the turns around the sheet horse and the block, for that matter, with a touch of thin shellac (two pound cut, i.e., "out of the can" if using prepared canned shellac) or thinned PVA glue and allow it to dry. When the shellac or glue has dried, cut off the two bitter ends of the thread as closely to the knots as possible with a sharp scissors or hobby knife. If the shellac or glue is dry, the knots will hold. If not, you run the risk of having one of your half hitches pop loose when the thread is cut and you won't have enough free thread at the end to tie it again, with will require you to start from scratch and do it over again. 
 
This is the technique that appears to have been used in the photo above. Note that the thickness of the thread used has created a thicker "seizing" around the throat of the "strop" between the block and the sheet horse than appears realistic. Use of a thinner thread, perhaps using the "double turn" method mentioned above, would have perhaps resulted in a thinner "throat" between the block and the sheet horse. Because the object of this exercise is to "fool the eye," the less prominent this attachment method can be, the better. What is wanted is that a viewer's eye will not be drawn to it and it will not get noticed, in which case, the viewer's brain will simply "fill in the blanks" with a correct assumption of what it thinks should be there. 
 
If that approach isn't challenging enough at 1:100 scale, another comes to mind which, although requiring a bit more work and perhaps skill, would produce a more period-correct appearing un-stropped block. You could make up an "eye bolt" out of suitably-sized wire, drill a hole in the end of your block closest to the "sheave hole," but not so deep that it runs through the "sheave hole," (or drill the hole at an angle so you miss the "sheave hole") and cement the shank of the bent wire "eye bolt" into the wooden block body. This will simulate a period correct wooden-shelled iron-framed block. Use something that holds well, like cyanoacrylate or epoxy to glue the shank in the hole.  A faux "eye bolt" shank is best made by twisting the two ends of a length of wire tightly around a drill bit shank of the desired size and then removing the bit and cutting off the shank of twisted wire at the desired length. This results in a "spiraled" shank which will hold better than a smooth piece of wire when glued in the hole and provides an "eye" that will not bend open or need to be soldered to prevent its doing so. The drawback, however, is that the twisted shank requires drilling a larger hole to accommodate it, which may or may not be possible in a small block. Care should be taken to ensure that the eye is correctly oriented when glued into the block so that the when the block is attached to the sheet horse with a ring between them, the lead of the sheet running through the block's "sheave hole" will be fair. Once the eyebolt is firmly set into the block, its neck can be bent so that it appears to lead fair from the block, if necessary.
 
You now have a block with an "eye" at its "top end" (closest to the drilled "sheave hole." and it is then easy to make a small ring of suitably-sized wire which will fit through the "eye" on the block and around the sheet horse bar, just as the shackle does in the prototype and the drawings.  You can then "blacken" the "iron work" with a "blackening" agent (for copper or brass wire, liver of sulphur or the equivalent proprietary product) or with black paint. This method doesn't require that it be made as unobtrusive as possible because it is more realistically detailed than the knotted method described previously. 
 
One last point to mention is that, from an engineering standpoint, perhaps you may want to give a bit of thought to how strongly built you might want this (these?) block to sheet horse connection(s) to be. The sheet horse should be well-glued in place and, if a bent copper or brass ring is used to hold the block onto the sheet horse, that ring will be the "weak link in the chain." One of the most frequent catastrophic injuries ship models suffer is some sort of impact on the extremities of the rigging which is mechanically transferred to some structural attachment point which then breaks. You might question whether the ring connecting the block to the horse should be strong enough to handle the stress load of sudden tension from an impact that causes the sheet to yank hard on the block.  A strong connection would usually mean soldering the ends of the ring together, which would be difficult to do if the sheet horse were already installed on the model. On the other hand, if the ring's ends aren't soldered, any pulling force on the block coming from the sheet is probably going to bend the ring's ends apart and pull the ring off the sheet horse. While "all the books" say such rings should be soldered for strength and appearance, leaving the ring's ends unsoldered would actually serve to prevent greater damage to the rigging structure in the event of a mishap. Reattaching the block to the sheet horse by bending a ring back into alignment is certainly a much easier than to broken sparts and rigging line elsewhere.

Allan Yedlinsky - SCANTLINGS OF THE ROYAL NAVY 1719-1805
Seawatch Books 
is much easier to use and has much more data.  I have a
reprint of Steel by Sim Comfort but the Yedlinsky volume is 
easier to use -