Bob Cleek

Bottom line, there isn't anything that even comes close to the Byrnes saw and you do get what you pay for. With the "also-rans," you pay a little bit less and get a lot less for your money in quality and accuracy, not to mention resale value, if you ever want to sell it. They do cost money, but if you are cutting your own strip wood, it won't take too long to pay for itself, particularly the way pre-cut stock is starting to cost these days, when you can find it. Just throw your pocket change in a Mason jar and watch it add up. Save a buck here or there as you go along. You'll have enough saved up in short order. Particularly now, when we're all "locked down" and aren't spending any pocket money, anyhow.

Bottom line, there isn't anything that even comes close to the Byrnes saw and you do get what you pay for. With the "also-rans," you pay a little bit less and get a lot less for your money in quality and accuracy, not to mention resale value, if you ever want to sell it. They do cost money, but if you are cutting your own strip wood, it won't take too long to pay for itself, particularly the way pre-cut stock is starting to cost these days, when you can find it. Just throw your pocket change in a Mason jar and watch it add up. Save a buck here or there as you go along. You'll have enough saved up in short order. Particularly now, when we're all "locked down" and aren't spending any pocket money, anyhow.

Beautiful! 

Beautiful! 

The anchoring chains run aft to chain pipes in the deck aft of and to port and starboard of the mainmast, running into the chain locker below, as pictured in the bottom picture of a model below. (Chain, due to its weight, was commonly stowed amidships so it wouldn't negatively affect the vessel's trim.) I can't say offhand whether the anchor chains were left shackled to the anchors when at sea. It would seem to me that when "off soundings," they would have been stowed below entirely and not left on the windlass or run across the deck. Whalers were floating factories and it doesn't seem that they'd want a couple of  lengths of heavy chain running down the decks right across the working space where the whales were being butchered and the blubber cut up for the try works. They'd serve no purpose and just be underfoot. The Morgan would have had stud-link mooring chain, at least for most of her lifespan, not the plain link chain supplied with the kit.  (Date of the first below picture unknown.) You may want to replace the kit-supplied chain, if you can find stud-link chain in the proper scale. Making your own at 5/32" scale would be a bit tedious!



I've had the Marine Models Company Morgan kit now for over 45 years and I suppose I will get around to building it one of these days, sooner or later. A good practicum of sorts for the Morgan model can be found at https://www.charleswmorganmodel.com/ if you haven't found it already. That one is for the Model Shipways kit. There is also series of YouTube videos by a fellow chronicling his build of the Marine Models Company version we have. 
 
 
I haven't built the model as yet because 1) years ago, I realized I needed to develop my skills before tackling such a complex build and 2) when I developed my skills I realized along the way that this model was hopelessly dated and it would not be possible to build it to my then-established expectations except as a scratch-build, as is my current intention... one of these days. In the interim, I've continued to collect extensive photographic files and related written data on the Morgan, including visiting her and examining her with an eye to modeling her.
 
The Marine Models kit I have is somewhat rare at this point and there are many more common Morgan kits. It's scale at 5/32" to the foot, which is somewhat of an oddball scale that will occasion some inconvenient math to accommodate. That's not a problem once started, though, as my mind "gets in the groove" and I start thinking in that scale. Your post says it's 1/64" to the foot. I'm not familiar with that Marine Models Company version. Are you sure your model isn't 5/32" to the foot scale? Your pictures certainly appear to be that.
 
I'll share a few bits of information of which you may, or may not, be aware. 
 
This is an old kit. The plans were drawn in 1939, a couple of years before she came to Mystic Seaport. They were carefully researched and represent the vessel as launched, not as presently configured. Notably, the plans depict her with her original ship rig, not the bark rig she later came to carry. If I remember correctly, there was also an overhead built over the tryworks at some point later in her life. If you are building her to her original 1841 "as launched" configuration as in the Marine Model Co. plans, you'll find some discrepancies in the published Model Shipways practicum which I see from your photos that you are consulting. Whether the stern windows were present at launch and closed up later will require further research. (I think not.) They weren't there in 1901, at least.
 

 
As an old kit, the standards of quality and accuracy are far below what we aspire to today. Marine Models Co. put out some of the best kits in their day, but kits have come a long way since then. They went out of business in 1970 or so and this kit was last updated in 1957, as I recall from my plans set. Major problem number one: The metal fittings contain lead and will eventually corrode. There's really no cure for this. Paint won't stick to them worth a darn... or at least will be a crap shoot. At worst, they will turn to dust and crumble away to nothing. They all will have to be discarded to avoid the risk of this occurring. That, alone, brings you to "scratch-build level." Sometimes, if the phase of the moon is just right, these lead-based metal fittings do seem to survive to some extent and nobody really knows why, but it's just not worth bothering with them. Once they begin to turn to dust, replacing them is a nightmare because access becomes very difficult in many places on the model. These will have to be rebuilt from scratch or, perhaps, new pieces molded of epoxy or baked Fimo modeling clay, using the originals, if they are suitable, as patterns.
 
Some of the prefabricated parts are crudely fashioned. This is notably so with the rudder casting, which merely has pins cast in the edge and was intended to just be stuck into the stern post. Today, such a rudder on a model of this scale would be made of wood and copper or brass pintels and gudgeons fashioned for hanging it. The kit-provided whaleboats, of cast lead, are of a weight that probably would challenge the strength of the model. Securing the lead cast davits to hold them would be a challenge. Tedious as it may be, the whaleboats really should be made of wood or card stock with their interior details visible. It's details like this that really make the Morgan a special subject. Some research should be done to ensure the whaleboats are correct for the period of Morgan's service that is being depicted. Importantly, whaleboat designs changed over time and didn't last much more than a single voyage. Morgan was launched in 1841. Whaleboats didn't have centerboards until the mid- to late-1850's when the sperm whale was hunted. (The sperm whales were "spook-ier" and they had to be approached silently against the wind so they wouldn't hear or smell the whalers. The centerboard permitted better upwind sailing performance.) Earlier whaleboats were partially clinker-planked, as well.
 
What seems to be the biggest value of the Marine Models Company kit are the hull blank, which is by now well-seasoned and of good quality basswood, and the plans. The plans were drawn by somebody who really knew what they were doing at a time when there were still people alive who had sailed on the vessel and knew her history, perhaps even as far back as the Civil War period when most of the rest of the American whaling fleet was destroyed by the Confederate commerce raiders. Drawn for modeling purposes, they are highly detailed and presumably accurate. Not only is the Morgan still extant, but she's been extensively photographically documented throughout much of her long life and a lot of these photographs are conveniently available on the internet. Mystic Seaport even has "as built" construction plans for her available for purchase (for a price) if one were to want to build a plank on frame model of her.
 

 
I'm going to watch your build log with great interest. I expect it will be a very rewarding build and a learning experience for me.
 
 
 
 

Beautiful! 

Check here:   https://www.syrenshipmodelcompany.com/
 
You might consider a ropewalk if you'd like to make your ownl.

There are five items for each  yard that takes a stunsail, , the yard itself, the studdingsail boom port, studdingsail yard port, studdingsail boom starboard, and studdingsail yard starboard.  You can see these on the drawing on page 105 of your Diana book..  The booms slide outboard through guide rings attached to the yards.  The studdingsail yards "hang" free.  For the lower yards stunsails, the stunsail yard has a halyard seized around the stunsail yard and roves through a block seized to the outer boom iron on the foreyard.  There are also inner halyards and sheets for each stunsail.  There are very detailed drawings in Darcy Lever's Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor which is also reproduced in Lees'  Masting and Rigging on page 116.  In this case, the drawings truly are worth a thousand words, maybe more.
Allan

Without comment on whether the model (partially) in the photos is worthy of museum display, I'm surprised that a museum of Mystic Seaport's stature would display a model so obviously in need of conservation. Not only are the anchors corroding, but the copper bands on the stock are broken (perhaps by the expansion of the lead oxide beneath the stock halves,) but also there are rigging chains detached and hanging loose and staining on the base from apparent condensation. Not only have some copper plates come adrift, but the coppering and parts of the chains in the close-ups appears to have developed a green patina betraying that it has been stored in some time in an excessively humid environment.  Among curators, these are obvious problems that require prompt attention. Perhaps Mystic simply left it on display pending future-scheduled restoration.
 
If anyone is interested in what seems to be the "last word" on ship model lead corrosion, the USN NAVSEASYSCOM's research report is highly informative.  It can be found on line here: https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Carderock/Resources/Curator-of-Navy-Ship-Models/Lead-Corrosion-in-Exhibition-Ship-Models/
 
 
 

MicroMark has a large selection of Perma-Grit tools in their latest catalog. A bit pricey, but certainly a savings over ordinary abrasives. One important thing to note is that the grit numbers of this British (I think) product are different from the grit numbers used in the US. According to the MicroMark catalog, they are offered in two grits, coarse and fine. For American minds, the coarse grit is equivalent to our 80 grit and the fine is equivalent to 120 grit. As said, they have their uses, but in modeling work, I expect most would be looking for our 220 grit as the coarsest they'd be wanting and 300 or 400 for "fine."

MicroMark has a large selection of Perma-Grit tools in their latest catalog. A bit pricey, but certainly a savings over ordinary abrasives. One important thing to note is that the grit numbers of this British (I think) product are different from the grit numbers used in the US. According to the MicroMark catalog, they are offered in two grits, coarse and fine. For American minds, the coarse grit is equivalent to our 80 grit and the fine is equivalent to 120 grit. As said, they have their uses, but in modeling work, I expect most would be looking for our 220 grit as the coarsest they'd be wanting and 300 or 400 for "fine."

Read a lot of good things about them and took the opportunity to look at them at a stand during the model engineering exhibition in London in January. However, I found them far too coarse, at least for my purposes. For instance, the needle files could not be used on really small parts.

I am geochemist with many years of experience at the lab-bench ... on my work-bench there are no potentially corrosive chemicals, only paints and organic solvents (denatured alcohol, acetone, white spirit). When pickling or like processes are to be done, then away from the work-bench and near somewhere, where the parts can be thoroughly rinsed.
 
Never use any cleaning 'products' of unknown composition on a model itself. It will be very difficult to remove any residues and they may creep into joints etc., where they can create havoc over the years. On copper I only use fine steel-wool and acetone.
 
Don't use 'kitchen recipes' for patination etc. They may give more or less the desired effect, but it is important to create a stable patina that does not continue to eat into your metal or react with other components of your model. There are handbooks on patination/browning/blackening for metal workers, sculptors and the likes. Follow their procedures and recommended materials.
 
 

Beeswax, Beeswax, Beeswax!   
 
Conservator here, and without explaining in detail I’ll just say that Renaissance Wax has no business on rigging line of any kind.  It barely belongs on the type of finishes commonly found on ship models.  The quote from Don Pruel on their use of beeswax is the absolute best advice from a non-conservator on line/thread treatment. 
 
Personally, I’d “dress” the line by just running it through a wad of purified beeswax and make a loose coil and hit it with a blow dryer.   I’m not sure why anyone would need to dilute it, especially with turpentine, but I’m curious. 
 
This dressing is widely done by conservators who use cellulosic thread or line and has been done by craftspeople and tradesmen for hundreds if not thousands of years.  I cannot think of a reason to introduce any solvents.  There is almost no point in doing it for synthetics other then to give the line a little more bite when making knots.   

"Channel surfing" last night, I stumbled upon a gold mine of professionally produced instructional videos on a wide range of topics including woodworking and jewelry making. These are being offered on an apparently new "craft network" called Bluprint TV. Because of the Covid-19 "lockdowns," my cable provider (Comcast Xfinity X1) and probably others, are offering free premium pay channels for a limited time (at present, at least until 40-9-20. )(I found Bluprint by saying "free to me" into my voice-controlled remote control.)
 
On Bluprint, I found a "jewelry" subsection and in there I found two really good streaming video series on soldering jewelry. They are directly applicable to soldering ship model parts, of course. One, Solder Smarter: Strategies for Better Results featuring a jewelry maker named Joanna Gollberg, runs perhaps two hours (I didn't keep track) and begins with an complete instruction on the use of the Smith Little Torch and all the basic techniques of soldering. I'd considered myself a fairly competent solderer after doing it for well over fifty years, but I found myself continuously learning one new thing after another in this online course. 
 
These Bluprint instructional courses are head and shoulders above anything on YouTube, as far as "how-to-do-it" videos go. These are real professional level courses with competent teachers and high production values. Bluprint also has other more advanced courses on soldering, jewelers' metalworking, and even on the proper uses of flex-shaft tools.  I figure I'll be spending the next few evenings going through them while I "shelter in place."
 
They are also currently available free as streaming videos at https://shop.mybluprint.com/jewelry/classes/solder-smarter-strategies-for-better-results/40550 .
 
https://shop.mybluprint.com/jewelry/classes/soldering-success-in-every-scenario/58346
 
https://shop.mybluprint.com/jewelry/classes/metalsmithing-at-home/35434
 
https://shop.mybluprint.com/jewelry/classes/getting-started-with-the-flex-shaft/40629
 

Wahka
0.5mm would be about a 1 inch wide seam if 1:48 scale and 2 inch if 1:96 which would be way over scaled.  Even card stock (~0.3mm)  is too thick in most cases. Paper as PR suggests is better.  For smallest scales, marker or black tissue paper found in craft stores works very well.  Apply as described above.
Allan

Found it directly, about  five minutes later as I had other things going on at the same time..... there were quite an extensive collection of how-to's.
 
 

What Jaager said. Shellac works fine. You can add coats to develop the level of gloss required and if the gloss is too great, it can be toned down using a Scotch-brite pad or steel wool, or simply wiping with a fine cloth dampened with alcohol. Remember that gloss must be toned down on a model to properly depict brightwork to scale.

If you have Xfinity with the "talking" remote, just say "free to me" into the remote. That should bring up a menu. Go to "Bluprint" and then to "jewelry" and you'll find them. The woodworking tutorials are good, too.

I make strips by attaching he brass to thin plywwod with carpet tape and run that through my Byrnes saw.  No curl nice straight edge,  I-do have to remove the glue. and sand the edge but I get just the size I need.    Duff

A stain product is actually a semi transparent paint.  Cherry stain would be used on something like Yellow Poplar,  Using a dye on Cherry is gilding a Lilly.  Using a stain is turning a star into something mundane.
If you want a finish with a reverse gear, consider shellac.  Orange shellac will darken it now without obscuring it.  But, as Marks writes, Black Cherry darkens over time and in few years may be darker than you intended.  Super blonde will not darken it much.  There is a clearer version that is about twice as expensive.  The more layers, the more depth.  If it is too shiny a light buffing with very very fine steel wool with make it satin.   Just do not get it wet.  I am of a mind to use a final layer of Renaissance Wax Polish- but that is just a theory now.

If it's cherry, why not just varnish it?  Cherry does darken with age.  I've done that on two models and looks great to my eye.  But then, I might be prejudiced.

Interesting historical footnote. I'm no expert, either, but I can't seem to come up with a reason the Royal George's carpenter or bosun didn't simply didn't send somebody overboard to knock a temporary plug into the hole outboard. It was only three feet below the waterline on an even keel. That would have made it possible to accomplish the same thing as heeling the ship with far, far less work or risk. I ought to have been the first solution that occurred to any competent ship's carpenter or bosun's mate. 
 
Better yet, I'm wondering whether or not that fact ever occurred to the Board of Inquiry!

Just a thought: we all love the challenge of mastering a new technology, but it may be worthwhile to ask oneself, if this technology then provides really the advantages sought for. Most ships have at maximum two anchors of the same type and size. So, unless you are building a series of models, it is rather unlikely that you will ever need that anchor in exactly that size again in your lifetime. In order to replicate it by casting, you have to fabricate a master first. Fabricating another copy of the master is probably less work than taking a mold and then casting it ...
 
Incidentally, printing anchors could be one of the few useful application of filament-printers. The slightly rough surface of the prints might be well-suited to the quite rough forgings of the anchors.

Depending on the size of the anchors the low temp alloy my not flow into the mold. You may have to use some centrifugal force to fill the mold. Has to do with surface tension of the material I believe. 
Steve