Bob Cleek

I would question whether in most smaller scales (1:24 and below) carvel plank seams should be visible at all. In most all instances, they certainly would not be visible at scale viewing distances on a prototype. There seems to be a determined fetish of showing exaggerated plank seams these days (and its corollary, "riveted" copper sheathing,) even when they are wildly out of scale. Perhaps after modelers go to the trouble of hanging plank to form a hull. they feel the need to make it clear that they did. I dunno, but it doesn't make sense to me.

When you reach a time where all your processes are perfected to the point that no further improvements can be made, you're no longer learning anything and it becomes just execution. That's where I start getting bored
 

Need to finish up the foot ropes and stirrups after I added the gin block and all the eye bolts needed for blocks and sheet control eyes.

Spent some time working on the GR today.  Trying to finish up the Mizzen.  I worked on the royal and topgallant earlier and I finished up the basics of the topsail yard...now working on the topsail yard with its gin block lift rig.
 
Here are a few images.

Nicely put Bob, couldn't agree more

I have had this discussion briefly with a few gallery owners in the past. One of the benefits to not painting your art work is to appeal to buyers who want to see the joinery of the planking.  This, as mentioned above, is far more difficult to do correctly since you will not have the luxury of hiding any defects with filler or paint. Having said this, the majority of the galleries customers like to see the art work in period colors. Keep in mind most of the paints back then were not purchased from your locale giant retail box stores that we have today, but were mixed on site or locale paint store provider. The shades of color can very each time depending on the amount of the pigments being used. This can lead to a part of the ship being a shade different from the rest if not developed in the proper quantity requiring additional paint mixing at a later time.   If your going to use various expensive woods to show a color tone to accent the detail, then it would be best not to use paint. American Linden (basswood) would be a better alternative to use when painting. Keeping in mind not to sand the planking down to fine so as not to prevent the individual planks from being seen.   Ed Tosti's excellent building of the Young America is great example of blending both painting and leaving parts unpainted to show additional detail.      Scott

Interesting question, really. It's just a matter of opinion, but I'd say "to paint or not to paint," or somewhere in between, is a matter of the modeler's artistic prerogative. Making the right choice often makes the difference between a great model and a pedestrian one, notwithstanding the level of technical skill involved. It's been a while, but when I visited the Admiralty model collection at the NMM twenty-five years ago, I recall that most models were indeed painted where paint would have been visible in the prototype, save for where they intended the construction to show (often where the below the waterline planking or decking was omitted,) their convention was to leave the wood "bright" (i.e., oiled or varnished, not painted.) That was their builder's choice. Your mileage may vary.
 
There are those who are capable of near-perfection in construction and who use precious wood species most of us would be loath to paint or even stain. Other's do miniature masterpieces of the carver's art that, if painted or gilded, might as well be mass-produced plastic kit parts. If the modeler's intention is to portray the actual construction details, fastenings and all, and they leave their wood bright, the effect can be very impressive. That said, it is my personal opinion that there's little point in the work such "open construction detail" models require unless the research is available to ensure reasonable accuracy in the depiction. Such a model which is based upon the modeler's understanding of generic construction practices of the period and type of vessel may be a tour d' force of modeling skill from a technical perspective and a true work of art that provides pleasure to those who view it, but, in almost all instances, the construction details are the modeler's or the plans author's own interpretation, not an accurate model of the actual vessel's construction, and so of limited value as an historical record. It's a work of fiction, regardless of how good a read it may be. 
 
Another consideration is the modeler's strengths and weaknesses. If one doesn't paint, they have to be really, really good at modeling. There's no option to slap on some fairing putty and sand a planked hull fair and paint over it to achieve a perfect result. Again, it's just my opinion, but I really think that a lot of the so-called planked hull kits that suggest they be left unpainted don't provide wood that even comes close to being suitable for that purpose and the results often appear crude as a result. They'd produce better models if they were painted. Conversely, if one's paintwork looks like it was laid on with an old toothbrush, perhaps they'd best stick with Minwax wipe-on stains.
 
On the other hand, if one builds for their own satisfaction, "for the mantle" as one might say, then it is really purely a matter of taste. If it satisfies the modeler, who cares what anybody else thinks of it? Bottom line, for what it's worth, my rule is "If it looks right, it is right." and if it satisfies me, it's served it's purpose as far as that goes.

Interesting question, really. It's just a matter of opinion, but I'd say "to paint or not to paint," or somewhere in between, is a matter of the modeler's artistic prerogative. Making the right choice often makes the difference between a great model and a pedestrian one, notwithstanding the level of technical skill involved. It's been a while, but when I visited the Admiralty model collection at the NMM twenty-five years ago, I recall that most models were indeed painted where paint would have been visible in the prototype, save for where they intended the construction to show (often where the below the waterline planking or decking was omitted,) their convention was to leave the wood "bright" (i.e., oiled or varnished, not painted.) That was their builder's choice. Your mileage may vary.
 
There are those who are capable of near-perfection in construction and who use precious wood species most of us would be loath to paint or even stain. Other's do miniature masterpieces of the carver's art that, if painted or gilded, might as well be mass-produced plastic kit parts. If the modeler's intention is to portray the actual construction details, fastenings and all, and they leave their wood bright, the effect can be very impressive. That said, it is my personal opinion that there's little point in the work such "open construction detail" models require unless the research is available to ensure reasonable accuracy in the depiction. Such a model which is based upon the modeler's understanding of generic construction practices of the period and type of vessel may be a tour d' force of modeling skill from a technical perspective and a true work of art that provides pleasure to those who view it, but, in almost all instances, the construction details are the modeler's or the plans author's own interpretation, not an accurate model of the actual vessel's construction, and so of limited value as an historical record. It's a work of fiction, regardless of how good a read it may be. 
 
Another consideration is the modeler's strengths and weaknesses. If one doesn't paint, they have to be really, really good at modeling. There's no option to slap on some fairing putty and sand a planked hull fair and paint over it to achieve a perfect result. Again, it's just my opinion, but I really think that a lot of the so-called planked hull kits that suggest they be left unpainted don't provide wood that even comes close to being suitable for that purpose and the results often appear crude as a result. They'd produce better models if they were painted. Conversely, if one's paintwork looks like it was laid on with an old toothbrush, perhaps they'd best stick with Minwax wipe-on stains.
 
On the other hand, if one builds for their own satisfaction, "for the mantle" as one might say, then it is really purely a matter of taste. If it satisfies the modeler, who cares what anybody else thinks of it? Bottom line, for what it's worth, my rule is "If it looks right, it is right." and if it satisfies me, it's served it's purpose as far as that goes.

Interesting question, really. It's just a matter of opinion, but I'd say "to paint or not to paint," or somewhere in between, is a matter of the modeler's artistic prerogative. Making the right choice often makes the difference between a great model and a pedestrian one, notwithstanding the level of technical skill involved. It's been a while, but when I visited the Admiralty model collection at the NMM twenty-five years ago, I recall that most models were indeed painted where paint would have been visible in the prototype, save for where they intended the construction to show (often where the below the waterline planking or decking was omitted,) their convention was to leave the wood "bright" (i.e., oiled or varnished, not painted.) That was their builder's choice. Your mileage may vary.
 
There are those who are capable of near-perfection in construction and who use precious wood species most of us would be loath to paint or even stain. Other's do miniature masterpieces of the carver's art that, if painted or gilded, might as well be mass-produced plastic kit parts. If the modeler's intention is to portray the actual construction details, fastenings and all, and they leave their wood bright, the effect can be very impressive. That said, it is my personal opinion that there's little point in the work such "open construction detail" models require unless the research is available to ensure reasonable accuracy in the depiction. Such a model which is based upon the modeler's understanding of generic construction practices of the period and type of vessel may be a tour d' force of modeling skill from a technical perspective and a true work of art that provides pleasure to those who view it, but, in almost all instances, the construction details are the modeler's or the plans author's own interpretation, not an accurate model of the actual vessel's construction, and so of limited value as an historical record. It's a work of fiction, regardless of how good a read it may be. 
 
Another consideration is the modeler's strengths and weaknesses. If one doesn't paint, they have to be really, really good at modeling. There's no option to slap on some fairing putty and sand a planked hull fair and paint over it to achieve a perfect result. Again, it's just my opinion, but I really think that a lot of the so-called planked hull kits that suggest they be left unpainted don't provide wood that even comes close to being suitable for that purpose and the results often appear crude as a result. They'd produce better models if they were painted. Conversely, if one's paintwork looks like it was laid on with an old toothbrush, perhaps they'd best stick with Minwax wipe-on stains.
 
On the other hand, if one builds for their own satisfaction, "for the mantle" as one might say, then it is really purely a matter of taste. If it satisfies the modeler, who cares what anybody else thinks of it? Bottom line, for what it's worth, my rule is "If it looks right, it is right." and if it satisfies me, it's served it's purpose as far as that goes.

Paul
 The only reason I see for not painting a model is to showcase the modelers skills. If it's a great build then a natural finish by all means, people should be able to see the intricate details of the build.
 A shipwright once told me "caulk and paint are a shipwright's best friend"  Paint will hide a multitude of sins and in most cases a paint job is historically correct. I'm somewhat skeptical about being able to recreate an exact shade today as was used on a ship 200 years ago unless you have an actual paint chip and even then it's iffy.
 I'm a paint it kinda guy, part of it comes from my mother and part from my military experience "if it doesn't move, paint it" Having said that, there are current builds going on in here where if painted, however historically correct, would be heartbreaking.
 Keith

I believe this is what Paul is referring to:

Hi Roger, Bob - 
 
From careful analysis of the photos, it looks like most of the conversions took place from the Vaterland to the troop ship.  This included closing off the openings in the third funnel and adding a number of new blowers around the top deck.  There was also a very large ventilation unit built on top of the bridge.   Lookout posts and a rangefinder platform were built on top of that. 

Bob is right that the troop ship needed lots of additional air movement.  On one trip she carried over 14,000 people at once.   After the war the conversion actually reduced the number and size of the vents, as well as modernizing some of the rest.  At least that is how I interpret the images.
 
Dan
 

I was watching a British-made television documentary about the development of naval ships last night. ("Heavy Metal" it was called.) They were interviewing the curator of Victory aboard the vessel right next to a gun and carriage. The gun had a hammered lead cover on the flint lock, exactly as do yours! I expect you may know that, but I was very impressed with your eye for detail. If it weren't for this thread, I'd still be wondering what that "lead patch" was on top of the gun.
 

If those blowers were added for passenger liner use after she was a troopship, just imagine what the ventilation situation must have been below decks when she was packed solid with troops who hadn't showered for the duration of the voyage, not to mention the seasickness issue!

Sort of. I set the depth of the plug cutter on the drill press so that it is slightly short of punching through the block of wood. When the quill is raised after a cut, the plug stays attached to the bottom of the block, preventing clogging the cutter bore. When I'm through cutting the plugs, I cut or sand off the bottom of the block through to the depth of the plugs I've cut and poke the plugs out of the holes.
 
With large plugs (full-size) I lay the plug bores in straight lines on a grid pattern, overlapping the cuts at the edges of the adjacent plugs, I then saw the rows of plugs apart, leaving them attached to the resulting strips of wood beneath the bores. These strips make it easy to handle the plugs. They can be broken off the strip individually and driven into their counterbores, leaving  the unbored strip at the bottom attached. The plug is then cut fair to the surface of the work. This saves time and energy.
 
Plugs for counterbores are cut so that the grain runs parallel to the grain of the counterbore and the grain is aligned to match the direction of the counterbored piece. (Drilled across the grain.)  Plugs are always cut from  the same species as the counterbored piece, and from offcuts of the same stock, where possible. This prevents the plug from coming loose from differing rates and directions of wood movement between the plug and the counterbored wood.
 
When cutting trunnels, the grain direction is parallel to the length of the trunnel. (Cut with the grain.) A trunnel cut across the grain won't hold diddly squat. It will break at the grain segments. (Full-sized trunnels are turned on a lathe or got out of billets driven through dies.) Trunnels are often cut of different species (e.g. locust) for strength and dried as much as possible (often stored next to the shop stove) to promote a tighter fit when they swell up after being driven. I mention this in the modeling context because a plug over a metal fastener is always nearly invisible in real life and certainly so at scale, while trunnels may be darker (e.g. locust trunnels in oak or larch planks.) Where planking was fastened with spikes and nails, the plugs aren't going to be a different color in real life. This is particularly so with decks,  where harder trunnels would wear less that the surrounding softer plank and result in a "bumpy" deck surface. Some modelers use contrasting colored wood or plastic line for plugs and trunnels to show where the fastenings are in their unpainted models, which can produce a nice effect in a model built to show the various members of the hull in their original construction configuration. Real ships don't always look like that, though.

Sort of. I set the depth of the plug cutter on the drill press so that it is slightly short of punching through the block of wood. When the quill is raised after a cut, the plug stays attached to the bottom of the block, preventing clogging the cutter bore. When I'm through cutting the plugs, I cut or sand off the bottom of the block through to the depth of the plugs I've cut and poke the plugs out of the holes.
 
With large plugs (full-size) I lay the plug bores in straight lines on a grid pattern, overlapping the cuts at the edges of the adjacent plugs, I then saw the rows of plugs apart, leaving them attached to the resulting strips of wood beneath the bores. These strips make it easy to handle the plugs. They can be broken off the strip individually and driven into their counterbores, leaving  the unbored strip at the bottom attached. The plug is then cut fair to the surface of the work. This saves time and energy.
 
Plugs for counterbores are cut so that the grain runs parallel to the grain of the counterbore and the grain is aligned to match the direction of the counterbored piece. (Drilled across the grain.)  Plugs are always cut from  the same species as the counterbored piece, and from offcuts of the same stock, where possible. This prevents the plug from coming loose from differing rates and directions of wood movement between the plug and the counterbored wood.
 
When cutting trunnels, the grain direction is parallel to the length of the trunnel. (Cut with the grain.) A trunnel cut across the grain won't hold diddly squat. It will break at the grain segments. (Full-sized trunnels are turned on a lathe or got out of billets driven through dies.) Trunnels are often cut of different species (e.g. locust) for strength and dried as much as possible (often stored next to the shop stove) to promote a tighter fit when they swell up after being driven. I mention this in the modeling context because a plug over a metal fastener is always nearly invisible in real life and certainly so at scale, while trunnels may be darker (e.g. locust trunnels in oak or larch planks.) Where planking was fastened with spikes and nails, the plugs aren't going to be a different color in real life. This is particularly so with decks,  where harder trunnels would wear less that the surrounding softer plank and result in a "bumpy" deck surface. Some modelers use contrasting colored wood or plastic line for plugs and trunnels to show where the fastenings are in their unpainted models, which can produce a nice effect in a model built to show the various members of the hull in their original construction configuration. Real ships don't always look like that, though.

Sort of. I set the depth of the plug cutter on the drill press so that it is slightly short of punching through the block of wood. When the quill is raised after a cut, the plug stays attached to the bottom of the block, preventing clogging the cutter bore. When I'm through cutting the plugs, I cut or sand off the bottom of the block through to the depth of the plugs I've cut and poke the plugs out of the holes.
 
With large plugs (full-size) I lay the plug bores in straight lines on a grid pattern, overlapping the cuts at the edges of the adjacent plugs, I then saw the rows of plugs apart, leaving them attached to the resulting strips of wood beneath the bores. These strips make it easy to handle the plugs. They can be broken off the strip individually and driven into their counterbores, leaving  the unbored strip at the bottom attached. The plug is then cut fair to the surface of the work. This saves time and energy.
 
Plugs for counterbores are cut so that the grain runs parallel to the grain of the counterbore and the grain is aligned to match the direction of the counterbored piece. (Drilled across the grain.)  Plugs are always cut from  the same species as the counterbored piece, and from offcuts of the same stock, where possible. This prevents the plug from coming loose from differing rates and directions of wood movement between the plug and the counterbored wood.
 
When cutting trunnels, the grain direction is parallel to the length of the trunnel. (Cut with the grain.) A trunnel cut across the grain won't hold diddly squat. It will break at the grain segments. (Full-sized trunnels are turned on a lathe or got out of billets driven through dies.) Trunnels are often cut of different species (e.g. locust) for strength and dried as much as possible (often stored next to the shop stove) to promote a tighter fit when they swell up after being driven. I mention this in the modeling context because a plug over a metal fastener is always nearly invisible in real life and certainly so at scale, while trunnels may be darker (e.g. locust trunnels in oak or larch planks.) Where planking was fastened with spikes and nails, the plugs aren't going to be a different color in real life. This is particularly so with decks,  where harder trunnels would wear less that the surrounding softer plank and result in a "bumpy" deck surface. Some modelers use contrasting colored wood or plastic line for plugs and trunnels to show where the fastenings are in their unpainted models, which can produce a nice effect in a model built to show the various members of the hull in their original construction configuration. Real ships don't always look like that, though.

This bit of flotsam came adrif from
 
in a discussion about making working turnbuckles, which require reversed threading and washed up here.
 
I've also encountered the "turnbuckle problem" and "solved" it using the method Kurt describes (non-reversed threads, with one fork set a bit longer, and then just that fork alone tightened as required so both fork shafts appear about equal) , but I was frustrated by not having a reverse thread tap and die, anyway. I once encountered scratch-built quarter-inch scale working turnbuckles on a hundred year old model I restored and they were a joy to deal with. I went searching for micro taps and dies, and reverse threads and got a big case of "sticker shock!"
 
There are the ubiquitous drawplate and tap sets manufactured by the People's Patriotic Jewelers' Tap and Die Manufacturing Collective available for less than $25 on eBay and elsewhere. I tend not to buy such tools, but they were the first I'd found and I figured, "How much more can the decent quality ones be?" Whoo boy! Eight taps and a drawplate in a mid-range priced set was $175 at Otto Frei, the jeweler's tools supply house, and that was their bottom-of-the-line "utility" grade offering.
 
Newman Tools, a tap and die specialty house (http://www.newmantools.com/taps/micro.htm) had even more expensive offerings, but no doubt of acceptable quality. Their prices gave me visions of calling the Suicide Prevention Hotline the first time I broke a tap. Their webpage did have some interesting, if even more unsettling information. They explain that as of 1958, there is a "Unified National Miniature Thread Series" ("UNM") that replaced what was a hodge-podge of threads previously used. I also learned that there are "watchmaker's threads" and "jeweler's threads," although I'm not sure if these are superseded by the UNM standard thread sizes. The watchmaker's threads used to be finer than the jeweler's threads. Newman recommends that: "Because these small taps are fragile, it is recommended that 75% thread be adopted only for soft materials and short threaded holes. As the length of the hole increases, the percentage of thread should be decreased. The depth of the hole to be threaded (*) as a function of the major diameter is provided in three groups and each group has a minimum and maximum for tap drill size. The minimum diameter should be used for soft and ductile materials and the maximum drill diameter for harder and more difficult materials. In many cases the hole diameter does not correspond to a numbered drill, so the closest millimeter drill should be selected."
 
Okay, I get that. Watchmaker's fine threads for brass and stainless and jeweler's coarser threads for copper and softer metals. (I think... assuming there's still a difference under the UNM standards.) But Newman Tools' final disclaimer wasn't particularly reassuring: "The tap drill sizes shown for form taps are only a recommendation as a starting point. Depending on the material being tapped and the depth of the tapped hole, the hole size may have to be slightly increased or decreased to obtain good thread form and good tap life." In other words, "If the tap breaks, the hole's too small and if the hole is too big, you've ruined the workpiece and have to start over." At forty or fifty bucks a tap, no less! (This will have more meaning for anyone who has experienced firsthand how easy it is to break a small tap.) 
 
I have yet to find any source at all for reverse thread micro taps and dies. (Big ones exist, of course.)
 
So... I'm thinking that the only option until I win the lottery is one of those cheapo Asian sets.
 
Does anybody have any experience or recommendations regarding the Asian micro tap and die plate sets? Do they work at all? Are they suitable for modeling purposes, if not for watchmaking? (I'm not expecting to use them on a Rolex anytime soon.) 
　

Model Shipways sells plans for their Charles W. Morgan model for forty bucks. https://modelexpo-online.com/charles-morgan-plans (Yours does not appear to be the current Model Shipways model.)  The Model Shipways instruction manual (not the plans, but it may be of help to you) is available on line here: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1087510/Model-Shipways-Charles-W-Morgan.html?page=33#manual Mystic Seaport sells the "official" plans, although for considerably more. You will find a lot of information on building and rigging the Morgan model here: https://www.charleswmorganmodel.com/
 
Your model portrays Morgan as she was launched, with her ship rig (square sails on the mizzen mast.) She was later "cut down" to a brig rig (fore and aft sails only on the mizzen.) The current Model Shipways model is of the brig rig. I don't know if they provide plans for the option of building her with her original ship rig.
 
 

Model Shipways sells plans for their Charles W. Morgan model for forty bucks. https://modelexpo-online.com/charles-morgan-plans (Yours does not appear to be the current Model Shipways model.)  The Model Shipways instruction manual (not the plans, but it may be of help to you) is available on line here: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1087510/Model-Shipways-Charles-W-Morgan.html?page=33#manual Mystic Seaport sells the "official" plans, although for considerably more. You will find a lot of information on building and rigging the Morgan model here: https://www.charleswmorganmodel.com/
 
Your model portrays Morgan as she was launched, with her ship rig (square sails on the mizzen mast.) She was later "cut down" to a brig rig (fore and aft sails only on the mizzen.) The current Model Shipways model is of the brig rig. I don't know if they provide plans for the option of building her with her original ship rig.
 
 

Frank said: "Thanks everyone for your comments on turnbuckles and taps.  I think any further discussion would be better on the Modeling Tools and Workshop Equipment forum, rather than this Skipjack Kathryn build log."
 
Good Point! I was thinking the same thing myself, a second after I hit "save." I've moved it over there.
 
Lovely build, by the way. HAER is a great resource for modeling plans. I wish they'd set up an index for them, though. It does take a bit of hunting to find them. I'm glad to see somebody building to them.

If those blowers were added for passenger liner use after she was a troopship, just imagine what the ventilation situation must have been below decks when she was packed solid with troops who hadn't showered for the duration of the voyage, not to mention the seasickness issue!

If those blowers were added for passenger liner use after she was a troopship, just imagine what the ventilation situation must have been below decks when she was packed solid with troops who hadn't showered for the duration of the voyage, not to mention the seasickness issue!

Improperly kiln-dried wood (lumber yards will dry boards too fast) is the type of wood most likely to have stored internal stresses that will manifest as reaction wood, i.e. wood that visibly bends as it is ripped, frequently binding the saw blade being used. The other source of reaction wood are trees that grew on steep slopes, so one side of the trunk is under significant tension while the other side is under compression. That kind of reaction wood can have boards hugely sweeping as they are ripped.
 
If you've never had the wonderful opportunity to rip some reaction wood on a 5HP table saw, you've missed a chance to be at least scared to death, if not had that fear justified by having the whole board thrown back at you at high velocity. I had a case of the latter and have a nice scar on my hip as a result.

If those blowers were added for passenger liner use after she was a troopship, just imagine what the ventilation situation must have been below decks when she was packed solid with troops who hadn't showered for the duration of the voyage, not to mention the seasickness issue!