Bob Cleek

Like Cliff above, I've been using a Paasche double-action airbrush I bought in the 'seventies and it's still going strong. I also lament the loss of the Floquill paints to what seems to me to be rather misguided and exaggerated environmental concerns. (No need to drift into an argument over VOC content, air quality, and climate change here. It's a matter of scale.)  I've had good results thinning some artists' acrylics with denatured alcohol. I just don't see how thinning with water makes much sense unless one is painting watercolors on paper. When the surface isn't absorbent, the water sits there too long, takes too long to dry, and tends to run excessively. Oil-based coatings, on the other hand, "stick" better because the solvent (alcohol with acrylics) dries very rapidly. I prefer the results with oil-based paints and so I've found using high quality artists' oils (in the toothpaste tubes) thinned with linseed oil and turpentine and with a touch of Japan dryer to be an excellent replacement for Floquill.  Artists' oils are also a whole lot less costly, ounce for ounce when applied, than the "bottled" stuff. They are charging an awfully lot for a little bit of pigment and a whole lot of thinner which is going to dry quickly and become useless once the bottle is opened.

As mentioned above, you get what you pay for in paint. "Craft" paints will simply not have the amount of pigment, ground finely enough, to really get the job done without many coats and this will tend to fill in the detail more than desired. Given that "artists' oils" or acrylics in tubes will last a very long time after opening (unlike jarred paints,) their use is actually more economical. I prefer oil paints to acrylics, particularly for airbrushing (acrylics can tend to "spit," especially when thinned with water. Acrylics that can be thinned with denatured alcohol are quite good, dry quickly, an advantage if spraying, and permit water clean-up, although I prefer solvent clean-up myself. Your mileage may vary.) The most expensive component of any coating is the pigment. The tubed oils and acrylics cost more because they have more pigment and less solvents (or water) in them. It's a lot cheaper to buy good paint and then thin it with much less expensive solvents. For oils, the standards are linseed oil (available in the health food stores as "flaxseed oil") and turpentine. If you try to buy these solvents in art stores, they often charge an arm and a leg for them. You can buy the same in a regular paint or hardware store in a quart or gallon can for a fraction of the cost. If you live somewhere that they've outlawed oil-based paints and solvents, you can still find what you need on line, or go to acrylics, if you wish. Considering the amount of time we invest in building a model, it's really foolish to cut costs on materials which cheapen the final results of our labors.
 
I've never found it necessary to use a spray booth for airbrushing. So little particulate and fumes are sprayed with an airbrush, it seems overkill, not to mention that the vacuum in the booth only draws ambient dust right into what you are painting. These boxes seem to have been a product designed for people who use "rattle cans" to spray model cars and the like. Aerosol paint cans put out relatively huge amounts of paint in a wide spray, unlike airbrushes.

And if you have the misfortune of spilling an alcoholic drink on it... big mess... big time. (Don't ask me how I know this!)

Shellac is about as close to "waterproof" as any finish coating can get. It is sometimes used in full-sized yacht construction as a sealer beneath finish coats of varnish or paint. I apply a liberal coating of shellac to wood on models, particularly solid hulls. It is a good sealer, fine sands easily, and stabilizes the wood, minimizing movement with changes in ambient humidity. As noted by others, it also adequately mimics a varnished brightwork finish on models.
 
Tung oil will take a considerable time to cure unless thinners (for brushing conditioning) and driers (to speed drying) are added, in which case, it becomes varnish. Unlike "spar" varnishes, however, it does not contain UV inhibitors and will degrade in sunlight.

And if you have the misfortune of spilling an alcoholic drink on it... big mess... big time. (Don't ask me how I know this!)

Shellac is about as close to "waterproof" as any finish coating can get. It is sometimes used in full-sized yacht construction as a sealer beneath finish coats of varnish or paint. I apply a liberal coating of shellac to wood on models, particularly solid hulls. It is a good sealer, fine sands easily, and stabilizes the wood, minimizing movement with changes in ambient humidity. As noted by others, it also adequately mimics a varnished brightwork finish on models.
 
Tung oil will take a considerable time to cure unless thinners (for brushing conditioning) and driers (to speed drying) are added, in which case, it becomes varnish. Unlike "spar" varnishes, however, it does not contain UV inhibitors and will degrade in sunlight.

In my years of "simply messing around in boats," I've seen a number of coppered bottoms on small yachts and one major sheathing job done on a large pilot vessel. I've also applied my share of gold leaf in the wind, doing names and hailing ports on transoms. I have used the various "leafs" of copper, aluminum ("silver") and the rest. I'll just respond to a few points raised in the discussion.
 
Copper sheathing comes in stock sheets, sized about 14"X24" or thereabouts. It's not particularly heavy. I've only encountered what seems to be the same gauge sheet, and I presume it doesn't get thicker to match the size of the vessel because all it has to do is prevent borer damage and they are all pretty much the same size. It is laid over Irish felt, a type of felt similar to roofing felt and made of flax and asphalt. As mentioned, on larger ships, there may be an additional sacrificial layer of softwood between the copper and felt and the structural planking. Copper tacks are used to fasten the copper sheathing, not "rivets." Seemingly, a lot of modelers try to portray iron rivets by dimpling their copper foil, but the fact is, a copper sheathed bottom should be as smooth as possible to reduce friction and not studded with large rivet heads. Viewed from any distance, the copper tacks will be barely visible and hammered as flush to the copper as possible. (The softer Irish felt underlayment makes this possible.) It takes a practiced eye and a hard look to notice that a hull is coppered from any distance (e.g. 50 yards) except for the run of the seams, if they stand a bit proud. (See the photos of the newly coppered Cutty Sark's in the post immediately above this one.)
 
The metallic foils pictured in the OP are thicker than real gold leaf and much easier to apply. They are, however, not always what they appear to be. Many types which are called "copper" or "silver" and so on, are actually something else again and simply copper or silver colored. This product is basically a craft material, such as might be used in making Christmas tree and table centerpiece decorations and the like and it cannot be expected to stand the test of time. If you try it, make sure it is really and truly solid copper. They do come in a variety of finishes, some mottled and patinated. Some may be suitable for depicting a newly coppered hull, but once a coppered hull hits salt water, it will be a uniform verdegris green color if it is clean, and a mottled greenish brown if fouled. In all but unusually large scales pasting copper foil on a model will be out of scale and decidedly so if one attempts to dimple "rivets" on the copper sheets. If one is compelled to depict the texture of coppering, appropriate to the scale, they would be well-advised to very lightly score the otherwise perfectly smooth area and then paint "copper green" over it. (Assuming one is using a fine model paint that will not unduly fill the light scratches of the scoring. The watchword here is "subtle." If overdone, if will be out of scale and distracting.
 
There are two types of real gold leaf. (and they come in a variety of carat grades as all gold.) One is "gold leaf," which is just very thin gold leaf bound in "books" of twenty-five 3 1/8" x 3 1/8" "leaves" laying loosely between the "pages" of the "books." (The faux gold and other metals leaf pictured above are "leaves" 5" square.) This is the gold leaf that is tricky to use. It cannot be handled except with a specially designed "gold leaf tipping brush" that picks up the leaves with a static charge. It is not intended for outdoor use! Forget about it. Gold leaf is too expensive to practice on.  The other type of gold leaf is called "patent gold leaf." Patent leaf is lightly stuck to a tissue paper backing and the edges of the tissue may be handled with the fingers. As with all leaf, "sizing" if first applied and allowed to dry to a tacky state and then the leaf is simply laid on the tacky sizing and the gold is lightly burnished with a cotton ball. The patent gold leaf can be applied something like a blotter to the size so that irregular surfaces, such as carvings, can be completely covered with repeated applications. Bits of flaking or torn leaf can be brushed off or pushed to another uncovered tacky area with a soft bristle paint brush. The burnishing blends all the pieces of leaf together. Using patent leaf isn't difficult at all. The real trick is to be sure to use proper sizing. There is special sizing for gold leaf which dries quickly and stays tacky for a good while, but one can get the job done just as well with thinned varnish, which takes a bit longer to dry to tacky, or shellac, which dries tack-free rather quickly and is suitable only for small pieces that you will have time to gild before the tack dries up. One can come close with many of the fine gold paints available today, and even closer using a dusting of ground brass powder over size on small pieces, but there is nothing that truly mimics real gold. 

Floquil were the very finest model paints known to mankind....then they screwed it all up. In England you could get them from Victors of Islington, dealers in all things American model railroad. They shut down.  So, next, I got my chum in Florida to buy and send me some. These, I noticed, had a different smell and didn't work so well. "Oh here we go", I thought, "unwelcome, unnecessary changes to formula".  Same as cellulose and now they're even trying to foul up our use of the only decent paint left, enamel.  I do use Vallejo for detailing figures as the pigmentation is denser than most and I can get it locally, but I hate acrylics generally.  The only thing that should be water based is orange squash.
 
I don't see why, when we have so much technology, we can't produce a "safe" replacement for the older paint media and damned water based muck is not it!  But of course it was always perfectly safe. My Grandfather made his own paints. He would grind white lead and mix with oils into a paint that he would guarantee for ten years when applied to a London house.  Try getting that these days.  He died of something completely unrelated at a goodly age.  My other grandfather, between cabinet making, restored old motorbikes and painted them with cellulose. He made his own wood stains and polishes. He too, died of an unrelated problem at a reasonable age.
I have used all the so-called "wrong" substances all my life and am also approaching a reasonable age.  I still spray cellulose from my dwindling supply and clean up all things with cellulose thinners, which, considering the lack of paint of that kind, is still freely available, oddly.
 
If we make the world any "safer", we'll all die of boredom as there'll be little to sniff with a satisfied grin, like cellulose, enamel oil paints, Castrol R, St. Bruno, Valor parrafin heaters, road tar,  etc. etc

In my years of "simply messing around in boats," I've seen a number of coppered bottoms on small yachts and one major sheathing job done on a large pilot vessel. I've also applied my share of gold leaf in the wind, doing names and hailing ports on transoms. I have used the various "leafs" of copper, aluminum ("silver") and the rest. I'll just respond to a few points raised in the discussion.
 
Copper sheathing comes in stock sheets, sized about 14"X24" or thereabouts. It's not particularly heavy. I've only encountered what seems to be the same gauge sheet, and I presume it doesn't get thicker to match the size of the vessel because all it has to do is prevent borer damage and they are all pretty much the same size. It is laid over Irish felt, a type of felt similar to roofing felt and made of flax and asphalt. As mentioned, on larger ships, there may be an additional sacrificial layer of softwood between the copper and felt and the structural planking. Copper tacks are used to fasten the copper sheathing, not "rivets." Seemingly, a lot of modelers try to portray iron rivets by dimpling their copper foil, but the fact is, a copper sheathed bottom should be as smooth as possible to reduce friction and not studded with large rivet heads. Viewed from any distance, the copper tacks will be barely visible and hammered as flush to the copper as possible. (The softer Irish felt underlayment makes this possible.) It takes a practiced eye and a hard look to notice that a hull is coppered from any distance (e.g. 50 yards) except for the run of the seams, if they stand a bit proud. (See the photos of the newly coppered Cutty Sark's in the post immediately above this one.)
 
The metallic foils pictured in the OP are thicker than real gold leaf and much easier to apply. They are, however, not always what they appear to be. Many types which are called "copper" or "silver" and so on, are actually something else again and simply copper or silver colored. This product is basically a craft material, such as might be used in making Christmas tree and table centerpiece decorations and the like and it cannot be expected to stand the test of time. If you try it, make sure it is really and truly solid copper. They do come in a variety of finishes, some mottled and patinated. Some may be suitable for depicting a newly coppered hull, but once a coppered hull hits salt water, it will be a uniform verdegris green color if it is clean, and a mottled greenish brown if fouled. In all but unusually large scales pasting copper foil on a model will be out of scale and decidedly so if one attempts to dimple "rivets" on the copper sheets. If one is compelled to depict the texture of coppering, appropriate to the scale, they would be well-advised to very lightly score the otherwise perfectly smooth area and then paint "copper green" over it. (Assuming one is using a fine model paint that will not unduly fill the light scratches of the scoring. The watchword here is "subtle." If overdone, if will be out of scale and distracting.
 
There are two types of real gold leaf. (and they come in a variety of carat grades as all gold.) One is "gold leaf," which is just very thin gold leaf bound in "books" of twenty-five 3 1/8" x 3 1/8" "leaves" laying loosely between the "pages" of the "books." (The faux gold and other metals leaf pictured above are "leaves" 5" square.) This is the gold leaf that is tricky to use. It cannot be handled except with a specially designed "gold leaf tipping brush" that picks up the leaves with a static charge. It is not intended for outdoor use! Forget about it. Gold leaf is too expensive to practice on.  The other type of gold leaf is called "patent gold leaf." Patent leaf is lightly stuck to a tissue paper backing and the edges of the tissue may be handled with the fingers. As with all leaf, "sizing" if first applied and allowed to dry to a tacky state and then the leaf is simply laid on the tacky sizing and the gold is lightly burnished with a cotton ball. The patent gold leaf can be applied something like a blotter to the size so that irregular surfaces, such as carvings, can be completely covered with repeated applications. Bits of flaking or torn leaf can be brushed off or pushed to another uncovered tacky area with a soft bristle paint brush. The burnishing blends all the pieces of leaf together. Using patent leaf isn't difficult at all. The real trick is to be sure to use proper sizing. There is special sizing for gold leaf which dries quickly and stays tacky for a good while, but one can get the job done just as well with thinned varnish, which takes a bit longer to dry to tacky, or shellac, which dries tack-free rather quickly and is suitable only for small pieces that you will have time to gild before the tack dries up. One can come close with many of the fine gold paints available today, and even closer using a dusting of ground brass powder over size on small pieces, but there is nothing that truly mimics real gold. 

I've agonized over coppering models for some time and have yet to see the point of trying to imitate the detail of copper sheathing on a model of scales normally seen. It seems that many modelers, perhaps led on by model kit manufacturers, are infatuated with applying copper foil to their models.  The problem is scale. Aside from color, a prototype properly coppered hull (now something of a rarity because antifouling coatings are more efficient and much less expensive) won't be all that apparent from any distance. It certainly won't be bright shiny copper-colored, either, unless it was very recently coppered.
 
Similarly, despite the obsession with "rivets," on model copper sheathing, no full-sized ship ever had its copper "riveted" to the hull. Copper sheathing is fastened with small copper tacks. So small, in fact, that they are virtually invisible at any distance.  They certainly aren't standing proud like rivet heads on a riveted iron hull, as most attempt to portray them, and grossly out of scale at that. The prototype copper tacks had flat heads that were perhaps a quarter inch in diameter and were driven with a flat-headed hammer to set them flush with the copper sheet to the greatest extent possible so as to produce as smooth a hull as possible.
 
Unless one is working to a scale in which a quarter-inch tack can be perceived from a distance which permits a view of the entire vessel at one time, I have, thus far at least, failed to see the point of attempting to accurately depict coppering with copper foil and "rivets" on models. I've found that a paint color approximating patinated copper (a dark "apple green") is much better suited and does not distract from the overall appearance of the model.
 
Even unpatinated new copper on ships doesn't look like what the great majority of coppered model hulls look like. Below is Cutty Sark's newly coppered hull.
 

This may have been addressed in this forum before, but I thought I'd offer my two cents' worth on the subject. To my eyes, despite the amount of tedious work many models with individual copper plates and "dimpled rivets" require, I'm led to conclude the modeler never actually had any hands-on familiarity with their subject. Your mileage may vary, of course.

I've agonized over coppering models for some time and have yet to see the point of trying to imitate the detail of copper sheathing on a model of scales normally seen. It seems that many modelers, perhaps led on by model kit manufacturers, are infatuated with applying copper foil to their models.  The problem is scale. Aside from color, a prototype properly coppered hull (now something of a rarity because antifouling coatings are more efficient and much less expensive) won't be all that apparent from any distance. It certainly won't be bright shiny copper-colored, either, unless it was very recently coppered.
 
Similarly, despite the obsession with "rivets," on model copper sheathing, no full-sized ship ever had its copper "riveted" to the hull. Copper sheathing is fastened with small copper tacks. So small, in fact, that they are virtually invisible at any distance.  They certainly aren't standing proud like rivet heads on a riveted iron hull, as most attempt to portray them, and grossly out of scale at that. The prototype copper tacks had flat heads that were perhaps a quarter inch in diameter and were driven with a flat-headed hammer to set them flush with the copper sheet to the greatest extent possible so as to produce as smooth a hull as possible.
 
Unless one is working to a scale in which a quarter-inch tack can be perceived from a distance which permits a view of the entire vessel at one time, I have, thus far at least, failed to see the point of attempting to accurately depict coppering with copper foil and "rivets" on models. I've found that a paint color approximating patinated copper (a dark "apple green") is much better suited and does not distract from the overall appearance of the model.
 
Even unpatinated new copper on ships doesn't look like what the great majority of coppered model hulls look like. Below is Cutty Sark's newly coppered hull.
 

This may have been addressed in this forum before, but I thought I'd offer my two cents' worth on the subject. To my eyes, despite the amount of tedious work many models with individual copper plates and "dimpled rivets" require, I'm led to conclude the modeler never actually had any hands-on familiarity with their subject. Your mileage may vary, of course.

I've agonized over coppering models for some time and have yet to see the point of trying to imitate the detail of copper sheathing on a model of scales normally seen. It seems that many modelers, perhaps led on by model kit manufacturers, are infatuated with applying copper foil to their models.  The problem is scale. Aside from color, a prototype properly coppered hull (now something of a rarity because antifouling coatings are more efficient and much less expensive) won't be all that apparent from any distance. It certainly won't be bright shiny copper-colored, either, unless it was very recently coppered.
 
Similarly, despite the obsession with "rivets," on model copper sheathing, no full-sized ship ever had its copper "riveted" to the hull. Copper sheathing is fastened with small copper tacks. So small, in fact, that they are virtually invisible at any distance.  They certainly aren't standing proud like rivet heads on a riveted iron hull, as most attempt to portray them, and grossly out of scale at that. The prototype copper tacks had flat heads that were perhaps a quarter inch in diameter and were driven with a flat-headed hammer to set them flush with the copper sheet to the greatest extent possible so as to produce as smooth a hull as possible.
 
Unless one is working to a scale in which a quarter-inch tack can be perceived from a distance which permits a view of the entire vessel at one time, I have, thus far at least, failed to see the point of attempting to accurately depict coppering with copper foil and "rivets" on models. I've found that a paint color approximating patinated copper (a dark "apple green") is much better suited and does not distract from the overall appearance of the model.
 
Even unpatinated new copper on ships doesn't look like what the great majority of coppered model hulls look like. Below is Cutty Sark's newly coppered hull.
 

This may have been addressed in this forum before, but I thought I'd offer my two cents' worth on the subject. To my eyes, despite the amount of tedious work many models with individual copper plates and "dimpled rivets" require, I'm led to conclude the modeler never actually had any hands-on familiarity with their subject. Your mileage may vary, of course.

I've agonized over coppering models for some time and have yet to see the point of trying to imitate the detail of copper sheathing on a model of scales normally seen. It seems that many modelers, perhaps led on by model kit manufacturers, are infatuated with applying copper foil to their models.  The problem is scale. Aside from color, a prototype properly coppered hull (now something of a rarity because antifouling coatings are more efficient and much less expensive) won't be all that apparent from any distance. It certainly won't be bright shiny copper-colored, either, unless it was very recently coppered.
 
Similarly, despite the obsession with "rivets," on model copper sheathing, no full-sized ship ever had its copper "riveted" to the hull. Copper sheathing is fastened with small copper tacks. So small, in fact, that they are virtually invisible at any distance.  They certainly aren't standing proud like rivet heads on a riveted iron hull, as most attempt to portray them, and grossly out of scale at that. The prototype copper tacks had flat heads that were perhaps a quarter inch in diameter and were driven with a flat-headed hammer to set them flush with the copper sheet to the greatest extent possible so as to produce as smooth a hull as possible.
 
Unless one is working to a scale in which a quarter-inch tack can be perceived from a distance which permits a view of the entire vessel at one time, I have, thus far at least, failed to see the point of attempting to accurately depict coppering with copper foil and "rivets" on models. I've found that a paint color approximating patinated copper (a dark "apple green") is much better suited and does not distract from the overall appearance of the model.
 
Even unpatinated new copper on ships doesn't look like what the great majority of coppered model hulls look like. Below is Cutty Sark's newly coppered hull.
 

This may have been addressed in this forum before, but I thought I'd offer my two cents' worth on the subject. To my eyes, despite the amount of tedious work many models with individual copper plates and "dimpled rivets" require, I'm led to conclude the modeler never actually had any hands-on familiarity with their subject. Your mileage may vary, of course.

I've agonized over coppering models for some time and have yet to see the point of trying to imitate the detail of copper sheathing on a model of scales normally seen. It seems that many modelers, perhaps led on by model kit manufacturers, are infatuated with applying copper foil to their models.  The problem is scale. Aside from color, a prototype properly coppered hull (now something of a rarity because antifouling coatings are more efficient and much less expensive) won't be all that apparent from any distance. It certainly won't be bright shiny copper-colored, either, unless it was very recently coppered.
 
Similarly, despite the obsession with "rivets," on model copper sheathing, no full-sized ship ever had its copper "riveted" to the hull. Copper sheathing is fastened with small copper tacks. So small, in fact, that they are virtually invisible at any distance.  They certainly aren't standing proud like rivet heads on a riveted iron hull, as most attempt to portray them, and grossly out of scale at that. The prototype copper tacks had flat heads that were perhaps a quarter inch in diameter and were driven with a flat-headed hammer to set them flush with the copper sheet to the greatest extent possible so as to produce as smooth a hull as possible.
 
Unless one is working to a scale in which a quarter-inch tack can be perceived from a distance which permits a view of the entire vessel at one time, I have, thus far at least, failed to see the point of attempting to accurately depict coppering with copper foil and "rivets" on models. I've found that a paint color approximating patinated copper (a dark "apple green") is much better suited and does not distract from the overall appearance of the model.
 
Even unpatinated new copper on ships doesn't look like what the great majority of coppered model hulls look like. Below is Cutty Sark's newly coppered hull.
 

This may have been addressed in this forum before, but I thought I'd offer my two cents' worth on the subject. To my eyes, despite the amount of tedious work many models with individual copper plates and "dimpled rivets" require, I'm led to conclude the modeler never actually had any hands-on familiarity with their subject. Your mileage may vary, of course.

I've agonized over coppering models for some time and have yet to see the point of trying to imitate the detail of copper sheathing on a model of scales normally seen. It seems that many modelers, perhaps led on by model kit manufacturers, are infatuated with applying copper foil to their models.  The problem is scale. Aside from color, a prototype properly coppered hull (now something of a rarity because antifouling coatings are more efficient and much less expensive) won't be all that apparent from any distance. It certainly won't be bright shiny copper-colored, either, unless it was very recently coppered.
 
Similarly, despite the obsession with "rivets," on model copper sheathing, no full-sized ship ever had its copper "riveted" to the hull. Copper sheathing is fastened with small copper tacks. So small, in fact, that they are virtually invisible at any distance.  They certainly aren't standing proud like rivet heads on a riveted iron hull, as most attempt to portray them, and grossly out of scale at that. The prototype copper tacks had flat heads that were perhaps a quarter inch in diameter and were driven with a flat-headed hammer to set them flush with the copper sheet to the greatest extent possible so as to produce as smooth a hull as possible.
 
Unless one is working to a scale in which a quarter-inch tack can be perceived from a distance which permits a view of the entire vessel at one time, I have, thus far at least, failed to see the point of attempting to accurately depict coppering with copper foil and "rivets" on models. I've found that a paint color approximating patinated copper (a dark "apple green") is much better suited and does not distract from the overall appearance of the model.
 
Even unpatinated new copper on ships doesn't look like what the great majority of coppered model hulls look like. Below is Cutty Sark's newly coppered hull.
 

This may have been addressed in this forum before, but I thought I'd offer my two cents' worth on the subject. To my eyes, despite the amount of tedious work many models with individual copper plates and "dimpled rivets" require, I'm led to conclude the modeler never actually had any hands-on familiarity with their subject. Your mileage may vary, of course.

I've agonized over coppering models for some time and have yet to see the point of trying to imitate the detail of copper sheathing on a model of scales normally seen. It seems that many modelers, perhaps led on by model kit manufacturers, are infatuated with applying copper foil to their models.  The problem is scale. Aside from color, a prototype properly coppered hull (now something of a rarity because antifouling coatings are more efficient and much less expensive) won't be all that apparent from any distance. It certainly won't be bright shiny copper-colored, either, unless it was very recently coppered.
 
Similarly, despite the obsession with "rivets," on model copper sheathing, no full-sized ship ever had its copper "riveted" to the hull. Copper sheathing is fastened with small copper tacks. So small, in fact, that they are virtually invisible at any distance.  They certainly aren't standing proud like rivet heads on a riveted iron hull, as most attempt to portray them, and grossly out of scale at that. The prototype copper tacks had flat heads that were perhaps a quarter inch in diameter and were driven with a flat-headed hammer to set them flush with the copper sheet to the greatest extent possible so as to produce as smooth a hull as possible.
 
Unless one is working to a scale in which a quarter-inch tack can be perceived from a distance which permits a view of the entire vessel at one time, I have, thus far at least, failed to see the point of attempting to accurately depict coppering with copper foil and "rivets" on models. I've found that a paint color approximating patinated copper (a dark "apple green") is much better suited and does not distract from the overall appearance of the model.
 
Even unpatinated new copper on ships doesn't look like what the great majority of coppered model hulls look like. Below is Cutty Sark's newly coppered hull.
 

This may have been addressed in this forum before, but I thought I'd offer my two cents' worth on the subject. To my eyes, despite the amount of tedious work many models with individual copper plates and "dimpled rivets" require, I'm led to conclude the modeler never actually had any hands-on familiarity with their subject. Your mileage may vary, of course.

In the picture of the prototype, note that the line is led in the wrong direction (angle,) causing the serious chafe pictured.

Holy Smoke! I'd sure like to see a tutorial by whoever made those sails.

Holy Smoke! I'd sure like to see a tutorial by whoever made those sails.

Holy Smoke! I'd sure like to see a tutorial by whoever made those sails.

Holy Smoke! I'd sure like to see a tutorial by whoever made those sails.

Wefalck makes an important point: It's not just crating and securing the cased model properly that is important. (Hopefully, every model is properly cased... we won't even begin to talk about cleaning ladies with feather dusters...) Jarring shocks can damage even well-secured models, particularly their rigging. Hitting a pothole can often pop a shroud or a brace or the like pretty easily.
 
It even happens to the pros: http://minneys.blogspot.com/2016/06/blow-out-one-hundred-damaged-ship-models.html
 

Wefalck makes an important point: It's not just crating and securing the cased model properly that is important. (Hopefully, every model is properly cased... we won't even begin to talk about cleaning ladies with feather dusters...) Jarring shocks can damage even well-secured models, particularly their rigging. Hitting a pothole can often pop a shroud or a brace or the like pretty easily.
 
It even happens to the pros: http://minneys.blogspot.com/2016/06/blow-out-one-hundred-damaged-ship-models.html
 

Wefalck makes an important point: It's not just crating and securing the cased model properly that is important. (Hopefully, every model is properly cased... we won't even begin to talk about cleaning ladies with feather dusters...) Jarring shocks can damage even well-secured models, particularly their rigging. Hitting a pothole can often pop a shroud or a brace or the like pretty easily.
 
It even happens to the pros: http://minneys.blogspot.com/2016/06/blow-out-one-hundred-damaged-ship-models.html
 

Wefalck makes an important point: It's not just crating and securing the cased model properly that is important. (Hopefully, every model is properly cased... we won't even begin to talk about cleaning ladies with feather dusters...) Jarring shocks can damage even well-secured models, particularly their rigging. Hitting a pothole can often pop a shroud or a brace or the like pretty easily.
 
It even happens to the pros: http://minneys.blogspot.com/2016/06/blow-out-one-hundred-damaged-ship-models.html