Bob Cleek

White drafting striping tape would work if you can find it in the right width and not so thick as to leave an out-of-scale edge. Otherwise, paint works fine, so long as you use 3M Fine Line tape to ensure a crisp neat separation line. I'd suggest you look at some similar boats and get a feel for the actual color of the stopping (it's "stopping," not "caulking." "Caulking" is what you do when oakum or cotton is hammered between carvel seams... or goop is squeezed out of a tube on your leaking bathtub enclosure.) Stopping is essentially putty or tar that is placed on top of oakum or cotton caulking material to protect it from the elements.
 
The white stopping was traditionally white lead putty, which sometimes has an off-white cast and will yellow with age, although modern stopping compounds are sometimes more pure white and stay that way. In any event, when the foredecks are covered in eight or twelve coats of varnish, the "white" is going to show the color of the varnish on top of it and be more of a rather light tan than a "white." You should experiment with your "varnish" gloss finish and see if you can replicate the "look." The stopping is varnished over on the full-sized boats. They don't try to cut in the varnish around the stopping. They go for a smooth gloss finish over both the wood and the stopping.
 
Here are a few examples. (Uncredited photos from Google images.)
 

 

As I certainly stated here repeatedly, I never use CA glues for anything else, but proper joints. I certainly do not use it to re-enforce any rigging. The lacquer or varnish I use is called (in German) zapon-varnish. It cellulose-based and contains also components that keep it slightly elastic. It's main traditional use is to protect silverware and brass (instruments) from tarnishing.
 
The very varnish also keeps rope coils in place. Of course, one can use a lacquer or varnish as glue too.
 
Below a couple of pictures of various types of coils, all coerced in place with varnish. The first picture shows how the coils are shaped and kept in their place, while the solvent evaporates - usually in a few minutes.
 

 

At the end of his spectacular build log on the cutter Cheerful, I asked Chuck Passaro a similar question the other day about the anchor buoys on his model being stowed well above deck lashed to the forward shrouds with the buoys' pendants and tag lines, rolled up in a "circular" fashion ("like a cowboy's lariat.") https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/8131-hm-cutter-cheerful-1806-148-scale-by-chuck/&page=36 It didn't look shipshape to this sailor's eye. Why would they go to the trouble to lash them so high? Why weren't the coiled pendants and tag lines hanging straight down like a coil on a pinrail? Why would they not stow them below unless they were to be deployed presently, in which case why wouldn't they simply be laying on deck? (This wasn't intended as a criticism of Chuck's great work, mind you, I just couldn't figure it out and presumed he knew the answer because he did it that way.)
 
Chuck answered that he'd noticed the same thing and had the same questions, but had no answer for me, explaining that his model was based on two contemporary models in the NMM, one recognized for the accuracy of its rigging, so he opted not to deviate from the prototype model which, arguably, is the more prudent course.  That said, however, I think we should always be suspicious of questionable details in plans and contemporary models because the degree of their accuracy can always vary a bit, if not a lot in some instances. One of the attractive features of modeling ships is that we can produce something which is not only beautiful, but also of some historical value to future generations if we do the job well. That job includes the historical background research, as such may be possible, as well as the modeling techniques. While I don't stay awake nights worrying about it, I have this recurring thought that in some dystopian future, an archaeologist is going to find the last extant Santa Maria model, built from a kit pirated by some Chinese copyright violator, and it will end up in a museum, exhibited as "an accurate contemporary model of the ship Columbus sailed to discover the Americas."
 
I'm reminded of David MacAulay's classic Motel of the Mysteries (1979,) a great piece of illustrated satirical fiction set in the year 4022. It seems that back in 1985 "an accidental reduction in postal rates" quickly buried most of a country known as Usa under several feet of junk mail. Then a daring explorer named Howard Carson, who in the illustrations looks like someone from the 1930s, falls down a hole and thereby discovers something called a motel. In one of its rooms he finds two skeletons, one on a bed and the other in a bathtub, except that Carson thinks he has discovered an ancient crypt and that one body lies on the Ceremonial Platform and the other in a "highly polished white sarcophagus." To him, the toilet is the Sacred Urn, the television is the Great Altar, the remote control is the Sacred Communicator and a bra strewn across a piece of furniture is a "ceremonial chest plate." https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=motel+of+mysteries&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=78615135635402&hvqmt=b&hvbmt=bb&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6wy3pngoct_b
 
"Contemporary" models and other sources are sometimes similarly inaccurate and more often so the farther back we reach in history. The more a modeler knows about actual naval architecture, shipbuilding and seamanship, with particular attention to the period with which they are working, the better their model will be. While model kits and internet practicums serve a valuable purpose and bring more immediate joy to many initially lacking in such background, the models they yield are sometimes consequently unreliable as historical records. Also, some modern modeling conventions in McLuhanesque fashion validate repeated inaccuracies, a few examples being out-out-of-scale copper hull sheathing plates with monster "rivets," hull and deck trunnels and plugs depicting a but a single fastening each frame, plank ends butted on frames instead with butt blocks, and, of course, the lack of spiling, unfair runs, and excess stealers in planking. Perhaps these inaccuracies may be excused as "artistic license" intended to merely "suggest" the prototype and no doubt are valuable for the satisfaction and enjoyment they provide, but that utility notwithstanding, they fall short as reliable historic records of a particular vessel or vessel type.
 
I commend the original poster's intellectual curiosity about rigging details and nautical nomenclature and his courageous admission that he "isn't fluent in the language.". That is what makes great models! I urge him to continue in his pursuit of accuracy. I'm also impressed, and educated, by those who are able to provide valuable criticism of certain contemporary published authorities. Not every modeler is an experienced traditional shipwright, rigger, or seaman. All of us must rely on academic research to address vessels which became extinct centuries before we were born and the sort of "peer review" here provided is invaluable. Just because a book was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's contents are particularly reliable.
 
When faced with the questions posed in this thread, it is good to remember the nautical maxim, "Different ships, different long splices." I'd hazard to guess that the vessels built to every Admiralty dockyard model and every builder's draught were modified many times over in the translation from the model or draught to the lofting floor to the stocks and finally at every change of command and certainly every refit. The British captains, if the literature is any indication, were famous for bringing their own idiosyncratic rigging arrangements aboard with them when they took command. It's hard to contemplate that a model built two or three hundred years ago hasn't over time been damaged, repaired, and rerigged a time or three, perhaps centuries after it was built. Just because a model is old doesn't mean it's accurate, either. When faced with "the lesser of two weevils," as Jack Aubrey might say, the present day modeler should know his subject well enough to resolve the ambiguities of detail they encounter with confidence in their command of their subject matter. None of us know it all and it is always best to ask when we don't instead of just "faking it." Well done, Bluto!  Your question has given us all the opportunity to learned a bit more, even if it is "all Greek" to most mere mortals.

At the end of his spectacular build log on the cutter Cheerful, I asked Chuck Passaro a similar question the other day about the anchor buoys on his model being stowed well above deck lashed to the forward shrouds with the buoys' pendants and tag lines, rolled up in a "circular" fashion ("like a cowboy's lariat.") https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/8131-hm-cutter-cheerful-1806-148-scale-by-chuck/&page=36 It didn't look shipshape to this sailor's eye. Why would they go to the trouble to lash them so high? Why weren't the coiled pendants and tag lines hanging straight down like a coil on a pinrail? Why would they not stow them below unless they were to be deployed presently, in which case why wouldn't they simply be laying on deck? (This wasn't intended as a criticism of Chuck's great work, mind you, I just couldn't figure it out and presumed he knew the answer because he did it that way.)
 
Chuck answered that he'd noticed the same thing and had the same questions, but had no answer for me, explaining that his model was based on two contemporary models in the NMM, one recognized for the accuracy of its rigging, so he opted not to deviate from the prototype model which, arguably, is the more prudent course.  That said, however, I think we should always be suspicious of questionable details in plans and contemporary models because the degree of their accuracy can always vary a bit, if not a lot in some instances. One of the attractive features of modeling ships is that we can produce something which is not only beautiful, but also of some historical value to future generations if we do the job well. That job includes the historical background research, as such may be possible, as well as the modeling techniques. While I don't stay awake nights worrying about it, I have this recurring thought that in some dystopian future, an archaeologist is going to find the last extant Santa Maria model, built from a kit pirated by some Chinese copyright violator, and it will end up in a museum, exhibited as "an accurate contemporary model of the ship Columbus sailed to discover the Americas."
 
I'm reminded of David MacAulay's classic Motel of the Mysteries (1979,) a great piece of illustrated satirical fiction set in the year 4022. It seems that back in 1985 "an accidental reduction in postal rates" quickly buried most of a country known as Usa under several feet of junk mail. Then a daring explorer named Howard Carson, who in the illustrations looks like someone from the 1930s, falls down a hole and thereby discovers something called a motel. In one of its rooms he finds two skeletons, one on a bed and the other in a bathtub, except that Carson thinks he has discovered an ancient crypt and that one body lies on the Ceremonial Platform and the other in a "highly polished white sarcophagus." To him, the toilet is the Sacred Urn, the television is the Great Altar, the remote control is the Sacred Communicator and a bra strewn across a piece of furniture is a "ceremonial chest plate." https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=motel+of+mysteries&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=78615135635402&hvqmt=b&hvbmt=bb&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6wy3pngoct_b
 
"Contemporary" models and other sources are sometimes similarly inaccurate and more often so the farther back we reach in history. The more a modeler knows about actual naval architecture, shipbuilding and seamanship, with particular attention to the period with which they are working, the better their model will be. While model kits and internet practicums serve a valuable purpose and bring more immediate joy to many initially lacking in such background, the models they yield are sometimes consequently unreliable as historical records. Also, some modern modeling conventions in McLuhanesque fashion validate repeated inaccuracies, a few examples being out-out-of-scale copper hull sheathing plates with monster "rivets," hull and deck trunnels and plugs depicting a but a single fastening each frame, plank ends butted on frames instead with butt blocks, and, of course, the lack of spiling, unfair runs, and excess stealers in planking. Perhaps these inaccuracies may be excused as "artistic license" intended to merely "suggest" the prototype and no doubt are valuable for the satisfaction and enjoyment they provide, but that utility notwithstanding, they fall short as reliable historic records of a particular vessel or vessel type.
 
I commend the original poster's intellectual curiosity about rigging details and nautical nomenclature and his courageous admission that he "isn't fluent in the language.". That is what makes great models! I urge him to continue in his pursuit of accuracy. I'm also impressed, and educated, by those who are able to provide valuable criticism of certain contemporary published authorities. Not every modeler is an experienced traditional shipwright, rigger, or seaman. All of us must rely on academic research to address vessels which became extinct centuries before we were born and the sort of "peer review" here provided is invaluable. Just because a book was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's contents are particularly reliable.
 
When faced with the questions posed in this thread, it is good to remember the nautical maxim, "Different ships, different long splices." I'd hazard to guess that the vessels built to every Admiralty dockyard model and every builder's draught were modified many times over in the translation from the model or draught to the lofting floor to the stocks and finally at every change of command and certainly every refit. The British captains, if the literature is any indication, were famous for bringing their own idiosyncratic rigging arrangements aboard with them when they took command. It's hard to contemplate that a model built two or three hundred years ago hasn't over time been damaged, repaired, and rerigged a time or three, perhaps centuries after it was built. Just because a model is old doesn't mean it's accurate, either. When faced with "the lesser of two weevils," as Jack Aubrey might say, the present day modeler should know his subject well enough to resolve the ambiguities of detail they encounter with confidence in their command of their subject matter. None of us know it all and it is always best to ask when we don't instead of just "faking it." Well done, Bluto!  Your question has given us all the opportunity to learned a bit more, even if it is "all Greek" to most mere mortals.

At the end of his spectacular build log on the cutter Cheerful, I asked Chuck Passaro a similar question the other day about the anchor buoys on his model being stowed well above deck lashed to the forward shrouds with the buoys' pendants and tag lines, rolled up in a "circular" fashion ("like a cowboy's lariat.") https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/8131-hm-cutter-cheerful-1806-148-scale-by-chuck/&page=36 It didn't look shipshape to this sailor's eye. Why would they go to the trouble to lash them so high? Why weren't the coiled pendants and tag lines hanging straight down like a coil on a pinrail? Why would they not stow them below unless they were to be deployed presently, in which case why wouldn't they simply be laying on deck? (This wasn't intended as a criticism of Chuck's great work, mind you, I just couldn't figure it out and presumed he knew the answer because he did it that way.)
 
Chuck answered that he'd noticed the same thing and had the same questions, but had no answer for me, explaining that his model was based on two contemporary models in the NMM, one recognized for the accuracy of its rigging, so he opted not to deviate from the prototype model which, arguably, is the more prudent course.  That said, however, I think we should always be suspicious of questionable details in plans and contemporary models because the degree of their accuracy can always vary a bit, if not a lot in some instances. One of the attractive features of modeling ships is that we can produce something which is not only beautiful, but also of some historical value to future generations if we do the job well. That job includes the historical background research, as such may be possible, as well as the modeling techniques. While I don't stay awake nights worrying about it, I have this recurring thought that in some dystopian future, an archaeologist is going to find the last extant Santa Maria model, built from a kit pirated by some Chinese copyright violator, and it will end up in a museum, exhibited as "an accurate contemporary model of the ship Columbus sailed to discover the Americas."
 
I'm reminded of David MacAulay's classic Motel of the Mysteries (1979,) a great piece of illustrated satirical fiction set in the year 4022. It seems that back in 1985 "an accidental reduction in postal rates" quickly buried most of a country known as Usa under several feet of junk mail. Then a daring explorer named Howard Carson, who in the illustrations looks like someone from the 1930s, falls down a hole and thereby discovers something called a motel. In one of its rooms he finds two skeletons, one on a bed and the other in a bathtub, except that Carson thinks he has discovered an ancient crypt and that one body lies on the Ceremonial Platform and the other in a "highly polished white sarcophagus." To him, the toilet is the Sacred Urn, the television is the Great Altar, the remote control is the Sacred Communicator and a bra strewn across a piece of furniture is a "ceremonial chest plate." https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=motel+of+mysteries&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=78615135635402&hvqmt=b&hvbmt=bb&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6wy3pngoct_b
 
"Contemporary" models and other sources are sometimes similarly inaccurate and more often so the farther back we reach in history. The more a modeler knows about actual naval architecture, shipbuilding and seamanship, with particular attention to the period with which they are working, the better their model will be. While model kits and internet practicums serve a valuable purpose and bring more immediate joy to many initially lacking in such background, the models they yield are sometimes consequently unreliable as historical records. Also, some modern modeling conventions in McLuhanesque fashion validate repeated inaccuracies, a few examples being out-out-of-scale copper hull sheathing plates with monster "rivets," hull and deck trunnels and plugs depicting a but a single fastening each frame, plank ends butted on frames instead with butt blocks, and, of course, the lack of spiling, unfair runs, and excess stealers in planking. Perhaps these inaccuracies may be excused as "artistic license" intended to merely "suggest" the prototype and no doubt are valuable for the satisfaction and enjoyment they provide, but that utility notwithstanding, they fall short as reliable historic records of a particular vessel or vessel type.
 
I commend the original poster's intellectual curiosity about rigging details and nautical nomenclature and his courageous admission that he "isn't fluent in the language.". That is what makes great models! I urge him to continue in his pursuit of accuracy. I'm also impressed, and educated, by those who are able to provide valuable criticism of certain contemporary published authorities. Not every modeler is an experienced traditional shipwright, rigger, or seaman. All of us must rely on academic research to address vessels which became extinct centuries before we were born and the sort of "peer review" here provided is invaluable. Just because a book was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's contents are particularly reliable.
 
When faced with the questions posed in this thread, it is good to remember the nautical maxim, "Different ships, different long splices." I'd hazard to guess that the vessels built to every Admiralty dockyard model and every builder's draught were modified many times over in the translation from the model or draught to the lofting floor to the stocks and finally at every change of command and certainly every refit. The British captains, if the literature is any indication, were famous for bringing their own idiosyncratic rigging arrangements aboard with them when they took command. It's hard to contemplate that a model built two or three hundred years ago hasn't over time been damaged, repaired, and rerigged a time or three, perhaps centuries after it was built. Just because a model is old doesn't mean it's accurate, either. When faced with "the lesser of two weevils," as Jack Aubrey might say, the present day modeler should know his subject well enough to resolve the ambiguities of detail they encounter with confidence in their command of their subject matter. None of us know it all and it is always best to ask when we don't instead of just "faking it." Well done, Bluto!  Your question has given us all the opportunity to learned a bit more, even if it is "all Greek" to most mere mortals.

At the end of his spectacular build log on the cutter Cheerful, I asked Chuck Passaro a similar question the other day about the anchor buoys on his model being stowed well above deck lashed to the forward shrouds with the buoys' pendants and tag lines, rolled up in a "circular" fashion ("like a cowboy's lariat.") https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/8131-hm-cutter-cheerful-1806-148-scale-by-chuck/&page=36 It didn't look shipshape to this sailor's eye. Why would they go to the trouble to lash them so high? Why weren't the coiled pendants and tag lines hanging straight down like a coil on a pinrail? Why would they not stow them below unless they were to be deployed presently, in which case why wouldn't they simply be laying on deck? (This wasn't intended as a criticism of Chuck's great work, mind you, I just couldn't figure it out and presumed he knew the answer because he did it that way.)
 
Chuck answered that he'd noticed the same thing and had the same questions, but had no answer for me, explaining that his model was based on two contemporary models in the NMM, one recognized for the accuracy of its rigging, so he opted not to deviate from the prototype model which, arguably, is the more prudent course.  That said, however, I think we should always be suspicious of questionable details in plans and contemporary models because the degree of their accuracy can always vary a bit, if not a lot in some instances. One of the attractive features of modeling ships is that we can produce something which is not only beautiful, but also of some historical value to future generations if we do the job well. That job includes the historical background research, as such may be possible, as well as the modeling techniques. While I don't stay awake nights worrying about it, I have this recurring thought that in some dystopian future, an archaeologist is going to find the last extant Santa Maria model, built from a kit pirated by some Chinese copyright violator, and it will end up in a museum, exhibited as "an accurate contemporary model of the ship Columbus sailed to discover the Americas."
 
I'm reminded of David MacAulay's classic Motel of the Mysteries (1979,) a great piece of illustrated satirical fiction set in the year 4022. It seems that back in 1985 "an accidental reduction in postal rates" quickly buried most of a country known as Usa under several feet of junk mail. Then a daring explorer named Howard Carson, who in the illustrations looks like someone from the 1930s, falls down a hole and thereby discovers something called a motel. In one of its rooms he finds two skeletons, one on a bed and the other in a bathtub, except that Carson thinks he has discovered an ancient crypt and that one body lies on the Ceremonial Platform and the other in a "highly polished white sarcophagus." To him, the toilet is the Sacred Urn, the television is the Great Altar, the remote control is the Sacred Communicator and a bra strewn across a piece of furniture is a "ceremonial chest plate." https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=motel+of+mysteries&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=78615135635402&hvqmt=b&hvbmt=bb&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6wy3pngoct_b
 
"Contemporary" models and other sources are sometimes similarly inaccurate and more often so the farther back we reach in history. The more a modeler knows about actual naval architecture, shipbuilding and seamanship, with particular attention to the period with which they are working, the better their model will be. While model kits and internet practicums serve a valuable purpose and bring more immediate joy to many initially lacking in such background, the models they yield are sometimes consequently unreliable as historical records. Also, some modern modeling conventions in McLuhanesque fashion validate repeated inaccuracies, a few examples being out-out-of-scale copper hull sheathing plates with monster "rivets," hull and deck trunnels and plugs depicting a but a single fastening each frame, plank ends butted on frames instead with butt blocks, and, of course, the lack of spiling, unfair runs, and excess stealers in planking. Perhaps these inaccuracies may be excused as "artistic license" intended to merely "suggest" the prototype and no doubt are valuable for the satisfaction and enjoyment they provide, but that utility notwithstanding, they fall short as reliable historic records of a particular vessel or vessel type.
 
I commend the original poster's intellectual curiosity about rigging details and nautical nomenclature and his courageous admission that he "isn't fluent in the language.". That is what makes great models! I urge him to continue in his pursuit of accuracy. I'm also impressed, and educated, by those who are able to provide valuable criticism of certain contemporary published authorities. Not every modeler is an experienced traditional shipwright, rigger, or seaman. All of us must rely on academic research to address vessels which became extinct centuries before we were born and the sort of "peer review" here provided is invaluable. Just because a book was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's contents are particularly reliable.
 
When faced with the questions posed in this thread, it is good to remember the nautical maxim, "Different ships, different long splices." I'd hazard to guess that the vessels built to every Admiralty dockyard model and every builder's draught were modified many times over in the translation from the model or draught to the lofting floor to the stocks and finally at every change of command and certainly every refit. The British captains, if the literature is any indication, were famous for bringing their own idiosyncratic rigging arrangements aboard with them when they took command. It's hard to contemplate that a model built two or three hundred years ago hasn't over time been damaged, repaired, and rerigged a time or three, perhaps centuries after it was built. Just because a model is old doesn't mean it's accurate, either. When faced with "the lesser of two weevils," as Jack Aubrey might say, the present day modeler should know his subject well enough to resolve the ambiguities of detail they encounter with confidence in their command of their subject matter. None of us know it all and it is always best to ask when we don't instead of just "faking it." Well done, Bluto!  Your question has given us all the opportunity to learned a bit more, even if it is "all Greek" to most mere mortals.

At the end of his spectacular build log on the cutter Cheerful, I asked Chuck Passaro a similar question the other day about the anchor buoys on his model being stowed well above deck lashed to the forward shrouds with the buoys' pendants and tag lines, rolled up in a "circular" fashion ("like a cowboy's lariat.") https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/8131-hm-cutter-cheerful-1806-148-scale-by-chuck/&page=36 It didn't look shipshape to this sailor's eye. Why would they go to the trouble to lash them so high? Why weren't the coiled pendants and tag lines hanging straight down like a coil on a pinrail? Why would they not stow them below unless they were to be deployed presently, in which case why wouldn't they simply be laying on deck? (This wasn't intended as a criticism of Chuck's great work, mind you, I just couldn't figure it out and presumed he knew the answer because he did it that way.)
 
Chuck answered that he'd noticed the same thing and had the same questions, but had no answer for me, explaining that his model was based on two contemporary models in the NMM, one recognized for the accuracy of its rigging, so he opted not to deviate from the prototype model which, arguably, is the more prudent course.  That said, however, I think we should always be suspicious of questionable details in plans and contemporary models because the degree of their accuracy can always vary a bit, if not a lot in some instances. One of the attractive features of modeling ships is that we can produce something which is not only beautiful, but also of some historical value to future generations if we do the job well. That job includes the historical background research, as such may be possible, as well as the modeling techniques. While I don't stay awake nights worrying about it, I have this recurring thought that in some dystopian future, an archaeologist is going to find the last extant Santa Maria model, built from a kit pirated by some Chinese copyright violator, and it will end up in a museum, exhibited as "an accurate contemporary model of the ship Columbus sailed to discover the Americas."
 
I'm reminded of David MacAulay's classic Motel of the Mysteries (1979,) a great piece of illustrated satirical fiction set in the year 4022. It seems that back in 1985 "an accidental reduction in postal rates" quickly buried most of a country known as Usa under several feet of junk mail. Then a daring explorer named Howard Carson, who in the illustrations looks like someone from the 1930s, falls down a hole and thereby discovers something called a motel. In one of its rooms he finds two skeletons, one on a bed and the other in a bathtub, except that Carson thinks he has discovered an ancient crypt and that one body lies on the Ceremonial Platform and the other in a "highly polished white sarcophagus." To him, the toilet is the Sacred Urn, the television is the Great Altar, the remote control is the Sacred Communicator and a bra strewn across a piece of furniture is a "ceremonial chest plate." https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=motel+of+mysteries&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=78615135635402&hvqmt=b&hvbmt=bb&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6wy3pngoct_b
 
"Contemporary" models and other sources are sometimes similarly inaccurate and more often so the farther back we reach in history. The more a modeler knows about actual naval architecture, shipbuilding and seamanship, with particular attention to the period with which they are working, the better their model will be. While model kits and internet practicums serve a valuable purpose and bring more immediate joy to many initially lacking in such background, the models they yield are sometimes consequently unreliable as historical records. Also, some modern modeling conventions in McLuhanesque fashion validate repeated inaccuracies, a few examples being out-out-of-scale copper hull sheathing plates with monster "rivets," hull and deck trunnels and plugs depicting a but a single fastening each frame, plank ends butted on frames instead with butt blocks, and, of course, the lack of spiling, unfair runs, and excess stealers in planking. Perhaps these inaccuracies may be excused as "artistic license" intended to merely "suggest" the prototype and no doubt are valuable for the satisfaction and enjoyment they provide, but that utility notwithstanding, they fall short as reliable historic records of a particular vessel or vessel type.
 
I commend the original poster's intellectual curiosity about rigging details and nautical nomenclature and his courageous admission that he "isn't fluent in the language.". That is what makes great models! I urge him to continue in his pursuit of accuracy. I'm also impressed, and educated, by those who are able to provide valuable criticism of certain contemporary published authorities. Not every modeler is an experienced traditional shipwright, rigger, or seaman. All of us must rely on academic research to address vessels which became extinct centuries before we were born and the sort of "peer review" here provided is invaluable. Just because a book was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's contents are particularly reliable.
 
When faced with the questions posed in this thread, it is good to remember the nautical maxim, "Different ships, different long splices." I'd hazard to guess that the vessels built to every Admiralty dockyard model and every builder's draught were modified many times over in the translation from the model or draught to the lofting floor to the stocks and finally at every change of command and certainly every refit. The British captains, if the literature is any indication, were famous for bringing their own idiosyncratic rigging arrangements aboard with them when they took command. It's hard to contemplate that a model built two or three hundred years ago hasn't over time been damaged, repaired, and rerigged a time or three, perhaps centuries after it was built. Just because a model is old doesn't mean it's accurate, either. When faced with "the lesser of two weevils," as Jack Aubrey might say, the present day modeler should know his subject well enough to resolve the ambiguities of detail they encounter with confidence in their command of their subject matter. None of us know it all and it is always best to ask when we don't instead of just "faking it." Well done, Bluto!  Your question has given us all the opportunity to learned a bit more, even if it is "all Greek" to most mere mortals.

At the end of his spectacular build log on the cutter Cheerful, I asked Chuck Passaro a similar question the other day about the anchor buoys on his model being stowed well above deck lashed to the forward shrouds with the buoys' pendants and tag lines, rolled up in a "circular" fashion ("like a cowboy's lariat.") https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/8131-hm-cutter-cheerful-1806-148-scale-by-chuck/&page=36 It didn't look shipshape to this sailor's eye. Why would they go to the trouble to lash them so high? Why weren't the coiled pendants and tag lines hanging straight down like a coil on a pinrail? Why would they not stow them below unless they were to be deployed presently, in which case why wouldn't they simply be laying on deck? (This wasn't intended as a criticism of Chuck's great work, mind you, I just couldn't figure it out and presumed he knew the answer because he did it that way.)
 
Chuck answered that he'd noticed the same thing and had the same questions, but had no answer for me, explaining that his model was based on two contemporary models in the NMM, one recognized for the accuracy of its rigging, so he opted not to deviate from the prototype model which, arguably, is the more prudent course.  That said, however, I think we should always be suspicious of questionable details in plans and contemporary models because the degree of their accuracy can always vary a bit, if not a lot in some instances. One of the attractive features of modeling ships is that we can produce something which is not only beautiful, but also of some historical value to future generations if we do the job well. That job includes the historical background research, as such may be possible, as well as the modeling techniques. While I don't stay awake nights worrying about it, I have this recurring thought that in some dystopian future, an archaeologist is going to find the last extant Santa Maria model, built from a kit pirated by some Chinese copyright violator, and it will end up in a museum, exhibited as "an accurate contemporary model of the ship Columbus sailed to discover the Americas."
 
I'm reminded of David MacAulay's classic Motel of the Mysteries (1979,) a great piece of illustrated satirical fiction set in the year 4022. It seems that back in 1985 "an accidental reduction in postal rates" quickly buried most of a country known as Usa under several feet of junk mail. Then a daring explorer named Howard Carson, who in the illustrations looks like someone from the 1930s, falls down a hole and thereby discovers something called a motel. In one of its rooms he finds two skeletons, one on a bed and the other in a bathtub, except that Carson thinks he has discovered an ancient crypt and that one body lies on the Ceremonial Platform and the other in a "highly polished white sarcophagus." To him, the toilet is the Sacred Urn, the television is the Great Altar, the remote control is the Sacred Communicator and a bra strewn across a piece of furniture is a "ceremonial chest plate." https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=motel+of+mysteries&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=78615135635402&hvqmt=b&hvbmt=bb&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6wy3pngoct_b
 
"Contemporary" models and other sources are sometimes similarly inaccurate and more often so the farther back we reach in history. The more a modeler knows about actual naval architecture, shipbuilding and seamanship, with particular attention to the period with which they are working, the better their model will be. While model kits and internet practicums serve a valuable purpose and bring more immediate joy to many initially lacking in such background, the models they yield are sometimes consequently unreliable as historical records. Also, some modern modeling conventions in McLuhanesque fashion validate repeated inaccuracies, a few examples being out-out-of-scale copper hull sheathing plates with monster "rivets," hull and deck trunnels and plugs depicting a but a single fastening each frame, plank ends butted on frames instead with butt blocks, and, of course, the lack of spiling, unfair runs, and excess stealers in planking. Perhaps these inaccuracies may be excused as "artistic license" intended to merely "suggest" the prototype and no doubt are valuable for the satisfaction and enjoyment they provide, but that utility notwithstanding, they fall short as reliable historic records of a particular vessel or vessel type.
 
I commend the original poster's intellectual curiosity about rigging details and nautical nomenclature and his courageous admission that he "isn't fluent in the language.". That is what makes great models! I urge him to continue in his pursuit of accuracy. I'm also impressed, and educated, by those who are able to provide valuable criticism of certain contemporary published authorities. Not every modeler is an experienced traditional shipwright, rigger, or seaman. All of us must rely on academic research to address vessels which became extinct centuries before we were born and the sort of "peer review" here provided is invaluable. Just because a book was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's contents are particularly reliable.
 
When faced with the questions posed in this thread, it is good to remember the nautical maxim, "Different ships, different long splices." I'd hazard to guess that the vessels built to every Admiralty dockyard model and every builder's draught were modified many times over in the translation from the model or draught to the lofting floor to the stocks and finally at every change of command and certainly every refit. The British captains, if the literature is any indication, were famous for bringing their own idiosyncratic rigging arrangements aboard with them when they took command. It's hard to contemplate that a model built two or three hundred years ago hasn't over time been damaged, repaired, and rerigged a time or three, perhaps centuries after it was built. Just because a model is old doesn't mean it's accurate, either. When faced with "the lesser of two weevils," as Jack Aubrey might say, the present day modeler should know his subject well enough to resolve the ambiguities of detail they encounter with confidence in their command of their subject matter. None of us know it all and it is always best to ask when we don't instead of just "faking it." Well done, Bluto!  Your question has given us all the opportunity to learned a bit more, even if it is "all Greek" to most mere mortals.

Good sources of quality tools are medical and dental supply houses. Many jeweler's supply houses do carry good stuff, as well, but at a seriously high price. eBay can also be a promising hunting ground, if you know what to look for. Outfits like Micro-Mark have many hard-to-find tools, but sometimes at hugely inflated prices (wait for their sales) and often at a much lower quality. For example, MicroMark sells a cheaply made pair of 6" proportional dividers made by Tasco for around $100, or as low as around $60 on sale, but you can often find a cased 10" German silver Keuffel and Esser "Paragon" model with rack and pinion adjustment (their top of the line) on eBay for the same price, and seven and a half inch dividers of similar professional quality for much less. Notably, the K&E Paragon model 10" dividers have "universal decimal scaling," accurate to, IIRC, .005 using its Vernier scale adjustment.
 
Micro Mark 6" chromed steel:
 

 
Keuffel and Esser "Paragon" 10" proportional dividers:
 

 
 

Aha! Well, if the intent was to replicate an historic contemporary model, then it's all as it should be.  We are between the devil and the deep blue sea when it comes to deciding whether to go our own way or not in such instances. It calls to mind a retrospectively humorous dust-up (one of many) between a well-known historian and curator of a certain maritime museum and its government administrators who, knew little or nothing about ships and the sea, their last job having been cataloging Indian pottery shards in the Southwest or some such. The administration decided to exhibit a certain very old and highly detailed model over the curator's strenuous objection that there were numerous errors in the model which rendered it historically inaccurate. The administrators overruled his objections, finding that "Even the errors, if such they be, are part of the historic fabric of the artifact and it will therefore be exhibited in its original state." Of course, few who saw the model really would have ever known the difference.
 
I recently saw a beautifully executed HO scale layout of an historic railroad yard and rail-ferry dock in a museum exhibit. It portrayed the area in the town where the museum was as of 1889.  There were, however, three or four small boats in the waters off the piers depicting some people fishing. Each had a nicely modeled outboard motor on the stern!
 
It may have been Howard Chapelle... I can't be sure, but it sounds like something he'd say... who cautioned against less that the highest standards of research in modeling known vessels and vessel types, noting that we never know if our model might, by chance if nothing else, survive for a few hundred years and then be the only existing historical record of its type. For that reason, we owe it to future generations to do our best.
 
Nobody can argue with a fine model of a fine model, though!

Aha! Well, if the intent was to replicate an historic contemporary model, then it's all as it should be.  We are between the devil and the deep blue sea when it comes to deciding whether to go our own way or not in such instances. It calls to mind a retrospectively humorous dust-up (one of many) between a well-known historian and curator of a certain maritime museum and its government administrators who, knew little or nothing about ships and the sea, their last job having been cataloging Indian pottery shards in the Southwest or some such. The administration decided to exhibit a certain very old and highly detailed model over the curator's strenuous objection that there were numerous errors in the model which rendered it historically inaccurate. The administrators overruled his objections, finding that "Even the errors, if such they be, are part of the historic fabric of the artifact and it will therefore be exhibited in its original state." Of course, few who saw the model really would have ever known the difference.
 
I recently saw a beautifully executed HO scale layout of an historic railroad yard and rail-ferry dock in a museum exhibit. It portrayed the area in the town where the museum was as of 1889.  There were, however, three or four small boats in the waters off the piers depicting some people fishing. Each had a nicely modeled outboard motor on the stern!
 
It may have been Howard Chapelle... I can't be sure, but it sounds like something he'd say... who cautioned against less that the highest standards of research in modeling known vessels and vessel types, noting that we never know if our model might, by chance if nothing else, survive for a few hundred years and then be the only existing historical record of its type. For that reason, we owe it to future generations to do our best.
 
Nobody can argue with a fine model of a fine model, though!

Aha! Well, if the intent was to replicate an historic contemporary model, then it's all as it should be.  We are between the devil and the deep blue sea when it comes to deciding whether to go our own way or not in such instances. It calls to mind a retrospectively humorous dust-up (one of many) between a well-known historian and curator of a certain maritime museum and its government administrators who, knew little or nothing about ships and the sea, their last job having been cataloging Indian pottery shards in the Southwest or some such. The administration decided to exhibit a certain very old and highly detailed model over the curator's strenuous objection that there were numerous errors in the model which rendered it historically inaccurate. The administrators overruled his objections, finding that "Even the errors, if such they be, are part of the historic fabric of the artifact and it will therefore be exhibited in its original state." Of course, few who saw the model really would have ever known the difference.
 
I recently saw a beautifully executed HO scale layout of an historic railroad yard and rail-ferry dock in a museum exhibit. It portrayed the area in the town where the museum was as of 1889.  There were, however, three or four small boats in the waters off the piers depicting some people fishing. Each had a nicely modeled outboard motor on the stern!
 
It may have been Howard Chapelle... I can't be sure, but it sounds like something he'd say... who cautioned against less that the highest standards of research in modeling known vessels and vessel types, noting that we never know if our model might, by chance if nothing else, survive for a few hundred years and then be the only existing historical record of its type. For that reason, we owe it to future generations to do our best.
 
Nobody can argue with a fine model of a fine model, though!

Strikingly impeccable workmanship! It's a joy to behold. People seem to be effusive in their praise on this forum, which is nice, but not always as deserved as the praise for this masterpiece. Well played, Sir!
 
May I ask a question about the anchor buoys. I can understand that they might be stowed temporarily on the shrouds when jilling about the harbor to deliver messages, personnel, and the like, because the anchors were weighed and will soon be set again, but why so high up on the shrouds? Why didn't they simply tie them off at deck level? When at sea, I'd think they'd send them below to minimize windage aloft and do the same in action to reduce the amount of potential shrapnel that might result if struck.
 
Similarly, why are the buoy rodes and pendants so far up on the shrouds and not stowed separately to be lashed on when the buoy is used? Why did they carry them way the heck up there so somebody would have to climb the ratlines and carry them up and down? I'm also curious as to why the buoy rodes and pendants are depicted as coiled in a circle like a cowboy's lariat, one much higher than the other, which would indicate extremely hard-laid line. Why did the line not simply lay as do softer laid falls on a pinrail?
 
I've done some time sailing in vessels with similar rigs and my share of full-size traditional rigging, so I'm looking at it with a "sailor's eye." I'm sure you've researched it fully, so I expect it's correct, but it's new to me and I'm curious about what seems to be a convention in modeling vessels of this period with which I have no experience and don't understand.

Strikingly impeccable workmanship! It's a joy to behold. People seem to be effusive in their praise on this forum, which is nice, but not always as deserved as the praise for this masterpiece. Well played, Sir!
 
May I ask a question about the anchor buoys. I can understand that they might be stowed temporarily on the shrouds when jilling about the harbor to deliver messages, personnel, and the like, because the anchors were weighed and will soon be set again, but why so high up on the shrouds? Why didn't they simply tie them off at deck level? When at sea, I'd think they'd send them below to minimize windage aloft and do the same in action to reduce the amount of potential shrapnel that might result if struck.
 
Similarly, why are the buoy rodes and pendants so far up on the shrouds and not stowed separately to be lashed on when the buoy is used? Why did they carry them way the heck up there so somebody would have to climb the ratlines and carry them up and down? I'm also curious as to why the buoy rodes and pendants are depicted as coiled in a circle like a cowboy's lariat, one much higher than the other, which would indicate extremely hard-laid line. Why did the line not simply lay as do softer laid falls on a pinrail?
 
I've done some time sailing in vessels with similar rigs and my share of full-size traditional rigging, so I'm looking at it with a "sailor's eye." I'm sure you've researched it fully, so I expect it's correct, but it's new to me and I'm curious about what seems to be a convention in modeling vessels of this period with which I have no experience and don't understand.

There aren't too many tools you can enjoy without even using them, are there?

I am coming into this discussion a little late, but I thought I would throw my two cents into the pot.  While I agree with many that sails on square rigged models can detract, the Bluenose schooner almost screams for its full dress of sails.  Or at least that was my conclusion as I came to the question in my Bluenose build.  For what it is worth, here is a picture of my Bluenose completed and mounted under an acrylic display case.
Jim

Hi all, my name is Jacques and i'm from NYC (originally the Netherlands). 
 
I'm not fully new to modelling i've been doing this pretty much since the age of 7 (which was a very long time ago) anyway mostly plastic ships and planes for the most part. My dad build the wooden models. He even ran a modelling club at the school he taught at. He doesn't do that anymore as interest went to other things and he retired a few years ago. Anyway he certainly gave me the itch to do these myself.  Back in the day when I lived at home he frequently had me work with him so not fully devoid of skills. 
 
I started 10 years ago on wooden models. The 1st was abandoned as i realized i had not aligned the bulk heads well and i could not figure out how to fix.  The 2nd and 3rd i was able to finish. Currently about half way building the HMS President. Which is probably the biggest i've build so far. I certainly hope one day to be confident enough to build some of the bigger models but I think that's a few decades in the future. 
 
Biggest issue is that i'm in NYC and therefor have next to no space. No dedicated space anyway so i set up over the weekend and clean up again same day. I'll run afoul of the Missus if i didn't. Not to mention my cats who frequently eyeball me when i'm busy. Nothing i funner to them then trying to swipe a pair of tweezers or a file or a mast or spar on the floor. Admittedly the lack of space keeps me to smaller / less involved models as well. So for me it is a slow pace but I do enjoy thinking what next step to take and how. 
 
Anyway reason for being here is that i'm trying to take this hobby a bit more serious. I'm trying to find books and what not to read over best ways of doing certain things and what not. I enjoy greatly the logs and see what other people have done and overcome certain issues. 
 
Thanks
Jacques

There aren't too many tools you can enjoy without even using them, are there?

There aren't too many tools you can enjoy without even using them, are there?

There aren't too many tools you can enjoy without even using them, are there?

There aren't too many tools you can enjoy without even using them, are there?

There aren't too many tools you can enjoy without even using them, are there?

Definitely "cut as you go." A bandsaw with a decent re-sawing blade will save an awful lot of what would otherwise be turned into sawdust on a table saw unless you are using an expensive veneer blade, and even then, you will be able to cut much wider stock on the bandsaw. It may be obvious to many, I'm not sure, but the grain needs to be taken into consideration when milling stock. There's a lot of difference between a vertical grain plank and a flat-sawn plank in terms of how each bends, tends to split, and so on.

Interlux and probably other marine paint manufacturers make "surfacing putty" or "glazing putty" (not for window panes!) used to fair surfaces when finishing topsides and other gloss surfaces. It's much like drywall plaster, but is oil based (thins with acetone) and dries hard rather quickly. It is made to sand easily, but has a very fine grain. It's softer than the wood, so you don't get an uneven surface when sanding. It will go off in the can (keep the top on at all times except when taking some out,) but is easily "rejuvenated" by simply putting a small bit of acetone on top of the thickened putty and storing the can "top down." (The acetone evaporates very quickly.) Overnight, the putty will evenly reabsorb the acetone solvent and return to a thinner consistency. A pint can will last you practically forever. It's an industry standard. I use it on full sized and model boats alike.
 

As for what you stock dimensions should be,  for scratch POF, you need to get works with
the scantlings as close as possible to the age of your project.
If Swan is your subject:
SCANTLINGS OF THE ROYAL NAVY 1719-1805
by Allan Yedlinsky
 
For 19th c. I use Meade, and Rules from ASA.
For 17th c Deans.
 
 
Bob is center target as far as the proper tool for resawing is concerned.
You may get 8/4 on one pass, but likely will take at least two, on a 10" tablesaw.
 
As for getting the saw thickness setting that minimizes the number of passes
thru a sander necessary to get a 220 grit finish with no blade scars, I use
2x4 framing lumber - Home Depot had it at $3.30 each - they cut it into 2 foot sections
for me - my Z can't carry anything much longer.
 
Let us know where you find 8/4 and 12/4 Boxwood - the Pear will be
easier to find at 4/4 too.  Holly is a small tree to begin with.
 
You may wish to investigate what the result will be at 1/4" as far as the size of the model.
I have opted for hulls that are 1/2 the volume of 1/4" scale = 1:60.  The hull of the brig
USS Porpoise  1836 is about right and USS Flying Fish 1838  also.  The hull of the 118 gun
liner Commerce de Marseilles is almost overwhelming though.  I would not want to deal with
the size that the published 1/4" produced.
It is impressive - just how much stock is needed for the framing timbers - lots of BF - and the
yield - at least 50% will end up as sawdust. 
 
Going for a Swan as a first POF,  and asking what you are asking - I recommend that you consider
framing and planking with Black Cherry-  being as how you are a Tarheel, that species should be
a reasonable cost and easy to find.