Bob Cleek

I've read that they used but it was never defined as to era, ship class, or nation.  British seemed to mentioned as I recall more than any other country.  I suspect that we modelers just ignore them as they would be hidden.

It's six of one and a half-dozen of the other. I understood that you were referring to deck planking, but I wasn't able to locate a diagram of a deck planking seam, so I used the hull planking seam diagram to show how the plank seam is beveled. In fact, there's no difference in the caulking seams between a traditionally caulked plank deck and a carvel planked hull. Exactly the same procedure is used, although deck planking can be thicker than hull planking in some cases. Similarly, the seam width at the outboard surface of the plank, be it a hull or a deck plank is the same or nearly so, depending upon the thickness of the planking. I'm not sure if you are aware, but some may not be, that the "stopping" or seam compound, traditionally pitch or tar and later "marine glue" (which isn't a glue but a patent compound of tar and rubber) isn't intended to keep the hull or deck from leaking. That is the driven caulking material's job. The stopping's job is to keep caulking material from getting wet and rotting. The caulking material serves a dual purpose, firstly, to force the planks hard against each other so when they get wet and swell the structure becomes watertight, as with a barrel, and secondly to increase the rigidity of the entire hull structure which results in a great deal stronger the hull and deck structure.
 
As a practical matter, caulked carvel planked deck seams on the outboard face of the planking (the top of decks being outboard as well) will generally be a bit wider than hull seams because deck seams are stopped by paying heated pitch or other stopping material from a paying ladle into the caulked open seam, and so they make deck seams a bit wider to make it easier to pay the stopping. Hull planks, on the other hand, have no need to accommodate paid stopping and can't because they are horizontally oriented rather than vertically oriented like deck planking and so hull seams are puttied, rather than payed and a narrower seam is preferred.
 
Modernly, deck planking is often payed with polysulfide "goop" and so a quarter-inch seam is preferred to permit the cured polysulfide to stretch when the planks dry out and not pull away from the sides of the seam. The rubbery polysulfide needs some "meat" to stretch without pulling away and when it does stretch, the center of the polysulfide in the seam will "narrow" in the same way a rubber band will get thinner when it's stretched. 
 
Narrow modern yacht planking seams paid with polysulfide showing teak wood grain for scale:
 
 
 
Deck seams on HMS Victory:
 
     
 

 
 
 
Deck seams on USS Constitution:
 

 

 
So, the short answer is that deck seams are between a quarter and three-eighths of an inch wide at the outboard ("sided") face of the plank, so they should be scaled accordingly on a model, but with one exception. If the ship is old and her decks have been recalked or, as happened more frequently, repaid, the seam width at the outboard face of the plank may be a bit wider than as built and perhaps unfair along the edges because some wood was removed along with the stopping when the seam was reefed (the old stopping removed.) Reefing irons have sharp edges so that they scrape the seam edges clean to ensure the new stopping sticks well and they have a tendency to "erode" the seam sides if used too aggressively or too many times over a long time. 
 
BELOW: Three different sizes of "store boughten" reefing irons for planks up to about 2.5" thick from a catalog. (Caulking Irons | Ship's Coy. Forge (shipscoyforge.com) Note that the difference in the three reefing irons (AKA: "reefing hooks") is in the thickness of the hook edge which here is probably a selection between a quarter inch and 3/8" inch. Smaller reefing irons for thinner seams are customarily shop-made by heating and bending the tang of an old dull bastard file and grinding the shape of the tang to suit the desired seam width.
 

Caulking Irons | Ship's Coy. Forge (shipscoyforge.com)

You are correct. I've read the same thing. However, being the cheapskate I am, I've always used Zinsser Clear Shellac (containing some natural waxes) because it's s two-thirds the price of Zinsser Seal Coat which is their dewaxed shellac. Ten bucks a quart is a fairly big difference. I've never noticed any problem with waxed shellac at all, even with acrylic paints. I don't use a lot of acrylic paint though and stick to enamels and artists' oils for brush and spray painting. Maybe I've just been lucky. Who knows?

I suspect "MGUS" is a sub-diagnosis for the wider, but less frequently publicized, diagnosis, "HIIK," which stands for "Hell if I know." There's a lot of that going around. I fortunately do not have any significant "foot drop" (knock on wood,) but I did develop a pronounced "shuffle," mainly because my numb feet impaired my balance, a function I never realized they performed until the didn't.  My "foredeck ape" days are over also, but I long ago became unable to afford to keep up with the old yachtsman's rule of thumb that your boat should be as long in feet as your age in years anyway.

Same here. I think the fingers and toes, hands and feet, usually come as a package. Mine in my fingers doesn't bother me as much as it used to as well. I never figured out whether it was my  nerves finding other circuits to use or just my imagination! As we know, once the damage is done, it's irreversible. Mine was my own damn fault. I just ignored symptoms I should have recognized and done something about until I ended up on a gurney in the ER with a blood glucose level in excess of 500 that they picked up on a blood test taken for a long overdue routine physical. Dodged a diabetic coma in the nick of time. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt! Fortunately, there was no other permanent damage! A word to the wise: We're all supermen until we're not!

David, I was under the impression that such restrictions only applied to sales and implied provenance, as described on this Department of the Interior site:
 
 
The wording here seems to clearly refer to arts and crafts for sale that are representing themselves as Indian-made, rather than broader artistic themes that simply incorporate Indian imagery as a natural part of the art. For example, under your description, a historical painter couldn't include any imagery of Indian jewelry, basketry, or clothing if they are not themselves native; same for a museum diorama builder; and that hardly seems to be the legal situation. To me, it seems that a representative scale model of a vessel of native design is quite different from a model actually built or carved in a specific native style and being passed off as native-made. And even then it appears to be primarily a question of marketing, not production. When I was in college (post-1990, so post- Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990), I took a course in Navajo weaving as a balance to my heavier double-major coursework in science and foreign language. Navajo tribal rules at that time (as they were presented to us students) were that you couldn't teach their weaving unless you had been trained directly by a Navajo, but that there was nothing wrong with making your own Navajo-style weavings for your own use as long as you didn't try to sell them or otherwise pass them off as authentic. It seems to me that the same sensible approach would apply to model building. 
 
Can you provide further insights into your belief that native designs or imagery can't be legally used in any context at all?
 

Same here. I think the fingers and toes, hands and feet, usually come as a package. Mine in my fingers doesn't bother me as much as it used to as well. I never figured out whether it was my  nerves finding other circuits to use or just my imagination! As we know, once the damage is done, it's irreversible. Mine was my own damn fault. I just ignored symptoms I should have recognized and done something about until I ended up on a gurney in the ER with a blood glucose level in excess of 500 that they picked up on a blood test taken for a long overdue routine physical. Dodged a diabetic coma in the nick of time. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt! Fortunately, there was no other permanent damage! A word to the wise: We're all supermen until we're not!

Double ditto to Jaager's recommendation. There are a wealth of small craft designs available. Many plans are available in book form, such as Howard I. Chapelle's American Sailing Craft and Small American Sailing Craft and Basil Greenhill and Julian Mannering's Inshore Craft: Traditional Working Vessels of the British Isles. These small vessels are generally in the under-50' range, some even in the 10' or 15' range. They can be built to larger scales, 1/2" or even 1" to the foot are not uncommon for small craft models. They do not have a lot of complex small-scale rigging details. As they tend to be somewhat primitive types, their fittings and rigging blocks are easily fabricated. Assuming you get yourself one of Jim Byrnes' mini table saws, a Syren Ship Models "Rope Rocket," and perhaps a scroll saw, you'd be set up for the rest of your days to mill your own modeling wood from that really great Alaska Yellow Cedar you've got growing up there, spin your own scale rigging line, and be entirely free to build anything you wanted at virtually no cost.
 
Working in larger scales can be very satisfying. Smaller boats have fewer and less complex details and when modeled at larger scales little detail need be sacrificed as is otherwise the case with larger vessels at smaller scales. Another advantage of small craft modeling is that the models are generally smaller and easier to display, and you can build more of them in a shorter period of time, which avoids the inevitable boredom in the middle of a large model project that may take years to complete with a lot of repetitive tasks along the way. 
 
With no malice intended to plastic ship modelers (of which in my misspent youth I was one,) assembling plastic sailing ship models can be every bit as tedious as building wooden models (and yield a finished model of far less archival value.) There is relatively little difference in difficulty between rigging a plastic square-rigger and a wooden one. It would not appear that you would be gaining much in terms of compensating for your physical challenges by building in plastic rather than wood. I do admire your dedication in staying at modeling despite the "ravages of age." You certainly are among good company in this forum! I'm guessing a large majority of this forum's members have reached retirement age and by the time we get there, most have "old war wounds" with which to contend. My particular modeling challenge is the loss of feeling in a number of my fingertips due to peripheral neuropathy. Others, I believe, are wheelchair users and, of course, most of us have progressive deteriorating close-up visual acuity. Nevertheless, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers," soldier on.
 
Additionally, small craft models are sadly overlooked by many. While I risk stepping on a toe or two here, I will say that in my opinion there is much  well-deserved accomplishment to be had by any ship modeler in doing a good job assembling yet another Victory or Constitution kit, but, at the end of the day, beyond that the result of all that work is no more than addition of another kit model added to the hundreds, if not thousands of models of these same ships built before. On the other hand, scratch building small craft offers the opportunity to create a unique model of a vessel which will have been rarely, if ever, modeled by anyone before and, if well researched and documented, it can be appreciated not only as a satisfying accomplishment of the modeler's skill, but also as a valuable addition to the historical record. 
 
Up in your neck of the woods, the Pacific Northwest canoes of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian tribes raised dugout canoe building to perhaps its highest level of development. They carved thin-hulled canoes out of cedar and Douglas fir logs and then filled them with water and hot rocks to steam the wood which was then spread to increase the beam and thereby yield a graceful and seaworthy hull. These canoes were then colorfully painted in shamanistic themes. The construction method of these canoes perhaps explains the fact that they don't seem to be frequently modeled. That said, a clever modeler could perhaps take on the challenge and, if successful, really produce a fascinating and academically valuable set of models of these indigenous watercrafts.
 

 

 
BELOW: NOOTKA CARVED CEDAR DUGOUT CANOE MODEL Late 19th/Early 20th Century
Bow and stern with vertical incised carving. Length 30".
Auction catalog estimate $400 - $500.
 

Most will. Many will even replace parts you've botched up yourself! It would be good to do a search on this forum to see the policy of any particular kit manufacturer regarding parts availability. The second consideration after you confirm that they do have a part replacement policy is to confirm that they are able to provide parts for the model kit you have. Sometimes, a run of kits are manufactured and stocked by the manufacturer but spare parts are no longer available. Sometimes parts are generic and used for several different models in the manufacturer's line. (Which is why you will find out-of-scale or out of period fittings on the models sold by some manufacturers. E.g., an 19th Century anchor in a 18th Century model kit!) or some parts for a specific model kit are left over after the kit production run. Other times, Spare parts have been sold or are otherwise no longer in stock and you will probably be out of luck even it the company would have been happy to send you a replacement part if they still had any in stock.
 
Regarding purchasing kits in current production, I think that most experienced modelers would strongly advise you to start your wooden model building learning curve with the Model Shipways Shipwright Series of kits. See: Model Shipways Shipwright Series (modelexpo-online.com) Few kit manufacturers are as forthright as Model Shipways is in telling beginning wooden ship modelers the realities of the hobby's learning curve and the fact that there is no point in wasting a large amount of money and effort trying to build a square-rigged ship-of-the line bristling with cannon as your first attempted kit build!
 
 
 
 
 

Most will. Many will even replace parts you've botched up yourself! It would be good to do a search on this forum to see the policy of any particular kit manufacturer regarding parts availability. The second consideration after you confirm that they do have a part replacement policy is to confirm that they are able to provide parts for the model kit you have. Sometimes, a run of kits are manufactured and stocked by the manufacturer but spare parts are no longer available. Sometimes parts are generic and used for several different models in the manufacturer's line. (Which is why you will find out-of-scale or out of period fittings on the models sold by some manufacturers. E.g., an 19th Century anchor in a 18th Century model kit!) or some parts for a specific model kit are left over after the kit production run. Other times, Spare parts have been sold or are otherwise no longer in stock and you will probably be out of luck even it the company would have been happy to send you a replacement part if they still had any in stock.
 
Regarding purchasing kits in current production, I think that most experienced modelers would strongly advise you to start your wooden model building learning curve with the Model Shipways Shipwright Series of kits. See: Model Shipways Shipwright Series (modelexpo-online.com) Few kit manufacturers are as forthright as Model Shipways is in telling beginning wooden ship modelers the realities of the hobby's learning curve and the fact that there is no point in wasting a large amount of money and effort trying to build a square-rigged ship-of-the line bristling with cannon as your first attempted kit build!
 
 
 
 
 

I would caution you to steer clear of older second-hand wooden kits unless you are thoroughly familiar with a given kit. There have been tremendous advances in kit "technology" in recent years, notably, CNC laser cutting has made the newer kits less challenging to assemble. You will find that many of the kits sold forty, or perhaps even thirty years ago, especially solid hull kits, will demand as much scratch-building as an actual scratch build you do yourself, exclusive of the plans development and that what plans there are will often be simply a lines drawing, a spar schedule, and a rigging outline.  Make sure you are familiar with any used kit you contemplate buying. Checking the building log section for kit reviews will alert you to any potential problems with any given kit.  As you probably know, there is a huge difference between assembling a plastic kit and building a wooden kit that will require a considerable amount of cutting, shaping, turning and even carving.

Same here. I think the fingers and toes, hands and feet, usually come as a package. Mine in my fingers doesn't bother me as much as it used to as well. I never figured out whether it was my  nerves finding other circuits to use or just my imagination! As we know, once the damage is done, it's irreversible. Mine was my own damn fault. I just ignored symptoms I should have recognized and done something about until I ended up on a gurney in the ER with a blood glucose level in excess of 500 that they picked up on a blood test taken for a long overdue routine physical. Dodged a diabetic coma in the nick of time. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt! Fortunately, there was no other permanent damage! A word to the wise: We're all supermen until we're not!

Same here. I think the fingers and toes, hands and feet, usually come as a package. Mine in my fingers doesn't bother me as much as it used to as well. I never figured out whether it was my  nerves finding other circuits to use or just my imagination! As we know, once the damage is done, it's irreversible. Mine was my own damn fault. I just ignored symptoms I should have recognized and done something about until I ended up on a gurney in the ER with a blood glucose level in excess of 500 that they picked up on a blood test taken for a long overdue routine physical. Dodged a diabetic coma in the nick of time. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt! Fortunately, there was no other permanent damage! A word to the wise: We're all supermen until we're not!

Double ditto to Jaager's recommendation. There are a wealth of small craft designs available. Many plans are available in book form, such as Howard I. Chapelle's American Sailing Craft and Small American Sailing Craft and Basil Greenhill and Julian Mannering's Inshore Craft: Traditional Working Vessels of the British Isles. These small vessels are generally in the under-50' range, some even in the 10' or 15' range. They can be built to larger scales, 1/2" or even 1" to the foot are not uncommon for small craft models. They do not have a lot of complex small-scale rigging details. As they tend to be somewhat primitive types, their fittings and rigging blocks are easily fabricated. Assuming you get yourself one of Jim Byrnes' mini table saws, a Syren Ship Models "Rope Rocket," and perhaps a scroll saw, you'd be set up for the rest of your days to mill your own modeling wood from that really great Alaska Yellow Cedar you've got growing up there, spin your own scale rigging line, and be entirely free to build anything you wanted at virtually no cost.
 
Working in larger scales can be very satisfying. Smaller boats have fewer and less complex details and when modeled at larger scales little detail need be sacrificed as is otherwise the case with larger vessels at smaller scales. Another advantage of small craft modeling is that the models are generally smaller and easier to display, and you can build more of them in a shorter period of time, which avoids the inevitable boredom in the middle of a large model project that may take years to complete with a lot of repetitive tasks along the way. 
 
With no malice intended to plastic ship modelers (of which in my misspent youth I was one,) assembling plastic sailing ship models can be every bit as tedious as building wooden models (and yield a finished model of far less archival value.) There is relatively little difference in difficulty between rigging a plastic square-rigger and a wooden one. It would not appear that you would be gaining much in terms of compensating for your physical challenges by building in plastic rather than wood. I do admire your dedication in staying at modeling despite the "ravages of age." You certainly are among good company in this forum! I'm guessing a large majority of this forum's members have reached retirement age and by the time we get there, most have "old war wounds" with which to contend. My particular modeling challenge is the loss of feeling in a number of my fingertips due to peripheral neuropathy. Others, I believe, are wheelchair users and, of course, most of us have progressive deteriorating close-up visual acuity. Nevertheless, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers," soldier on.
 
Additionally, small craft models are sadly overlooked by many. While I risk stepping on a toe or two here, I will say that in my opinion there is much  well-deserved accomplishment to be had by any ship modeler in doing a good job assembling yet another Victory or Constitution kit, but, at the end of the day, beyond that the result of all that work is no more than addition of another kit model added to the hundreds, if not thousands of models of these same ships built before. On the other hand, scratch building small craft offers the opportunity to create a unique model of a vessel which will have been rarely, if ever, modeled by anyone before and, if well researched and documented, it can be appreciated not only as a satisfying accomplishment of the modeler's skill, but also as a valuable addition to the historical record. 
 
Up in your neck of the woods, the Pacific Northwest canoes of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian tribes raised dugout canoe building to perhaps its highest level of development. They carved thin-hulled canoes out of cedar and Douglas fir logs and then filled them with water and hot rocks to steam the wood which was then spread to increase the beam and thereby yield a graceful and seaworthy hull. These canoes were then colorfully painted in shamanistic themes. The construction method of these canoes perhaps explains the fact that they don't seem to be frequently modeled. That said, a clever modeler could perhaps take on the challenge and, if successful, really produce a fascinating and academically valuable set of models of these indigenous watercrafts.
 

 

 
BELOW: NOOTKA CARVED CEDAR DUGOUT CANOE MODEL Late 19th/Early 20th Century
Bow and stern with vertical incised carving. Length 30".
Auction catalog estimate $400 - $500.
 

Dean,
You make a great point.   I just went through my photos of contemporary models at Preble Hall.  I found only one model that had deck planks that look to have caulking lines.   None of the others appear to have been treated to the application of darkened lines or the use of trunnels.  Going further, I do not recall ever seeing a contemporary or modern model where the hull planks are caulked.  Makes me wonder why this treatment of only deck planks on models ever got started.  
 
Regarding trunnels I can find only find two of the many models at Preble Hall  where the use of trunnels in the hull is obvious, and none of the models have trunnels in the deck planks.   So far I cannot find any pictures of a contemporary model where there are obvious trunnels in the deck planks.  
 
Allan
 
 

Bob,  Welcome to the club.  I have peripheral neuropathy in both my hands and feet.  I have had it for some degree for almost 20 years.  Oddly enough, I believe that ship modeling is actually helpful.  My brain seems to keep rewiring itself as I use my hands going forward.
 
David,  I agree that building larger scale small craft might be a good choice for you.  Chapelle’ History of American small craft provides a wealth of ideas.  I have long been interested in building a series of related small craft to a standard scale of 1:32.  I chose Warship Boats.  I have finished three examples: a 1900 40ft Standard Steam Cutter, a 26 ft motor whaleboat, and a 32ft Early Eighteenth Royal Navy Longboat.  
 
A caveat;  Small Craft have thin planking and very small scantlings.  This sort of defeats the idea.  My three models are not POF they have hulls carved on the outside and hollowed out on the inside with frames added. IMHO they are still quite convincing. So, I second Bob’s idea of building “dugouts.”  The NOOTA with its bold colors is a great idea.  Or, if you want to build a model with some rigging how about a Chesapeake Log Canoe?
 
Roger
 

How do you fix/hide/address glue marks from wood glue or CA glue when planking decks or hull? Or any other part of the ship. I do woodworking and I find that it can be very difficult to eliminate glue marks, especially from CA. They become even more visible when finish is applied. 

Actually I find chopsticks or pieces from bamboo in my sister and brother-in- law's yard to work really well.  The former is easier to find for most people😀

@Bob Cleek  interesting essay, thanks,
 
Using a hardwood instead of a grass to make chop sticks is foolish.  While it is essentially trash as far as a forest product is concerned, the whole Cottonwood family is plenty useful while it is still on the hoof.
 
If the whole equation for the effect of using Cottonwood instead of a grass for something this frivolous was run, the result would without doubt find that Cottonwood is by far the more expensive option.  It is just that the planet on the whole is subsidizing the difference.   Actually, a chop stick is not complex in shape and is easy to clean for reuse  if the starting material is quality.
 

Double ditto to Jaager's recommendation. There are a wealth of small craft designs available. Many plans are available in book form, such as Howard I. Chapelle's American Sailing Craft and Small American Sailing Craft and Basil Greenhill and Julian Mannering's Inshore Craft: Traditional Working Vessels of the British Isles. These small vessels are generally in the under-50' range, some even in the 10' or 15' range. They can be built to larger scales, 1/2" or even 1" to the foot are not uncommon for small craft models. They do not have a lot of complex small-scale rigging details. As they tend to be somewhat primitive types, their fittings and rigging blocks are easily fabricated. Assuming you get yourself one of Jim Byrnes' mini table saws, a Syren Ship Models "Rope Rocket," and perhaps a scroll saw, you'd be set up for the rest of your days to mill your own modeling wood from that really great Alaska Yellow Cedar you've got growing up there, spin your own scale rigging line, and be entirely free to build anything you wanted at virtually no cost.
 
Working in larger scales can be very satisfying. Smaller boats have fewer and less complex details and when modeled at larger scales little detail need be sacrificed as is otherwise the case with larger vessels at smaller scales. Another advantage of small craft modeling is that the models are generally smaller and easier to display, and you can build more of them in a shorter period of time, which avoids the inevitable boredom in the middle of a large model project that may take years to complete with a lot of repetitive tasks along the way. 
 
With no malice intended to plastic ship modelers (of which in my misspent youth I was one,) assembling plastic sailing ship models can be every bit as tedious as building wooden models (and yield a finished model of far less archival value.) There is relatively little difference in difficulty between rigging a plastic square-rigger and a wooden one. It would not appear that you would be gaining much in terms of compensating for your physical challenges by building in plastic rather than wood. I do admire your dedication in staying at modeling despite the "ravages of age." You certainly are among good company in this forum! I'm guessing a large majority of this forum's members have reached retirement age and by the time we get there, most have "old war wounds" with which to contend. My particular modeling challenge is the loss of feeling in a number of my fingertips due to peripheral neuropathy. Others, I believe, are wheelchair users and, of course, most of us have progressive deteriorating close-up visual acuity. Nevertheless, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers," soldier on.
 
Additionally, small craft models are sadly overlooked by many. While I risk stepping on a toe or two here, I will say that in my opinion there is much  well-deserved accomplishment to be had by any ship modeler in doing a good job assembling yet another Victory or Constitution kit, but, at the end of the day, beyond that the result of all that work is no more than addition of another kit model added to the hundreds, if not thousands of models of these same ships built before. On the other hand, scratch building small craft offers the opportunity to create a unique model of a vessel which will have been rarely, if ever, modeled by anyone before and, if well researched and documented, it can be appreciated not only as a satisfying accomplishment of the modeler's skill, but also as a valuable addition to the historical record. 
 
Up in your neck of the woods, the Pacific Northwest canoes of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian tribes raised dugout canoe building to perhaps its highest level of development. They carved thin-hulled canoes out of cedar and Douglas fir logs and then filled them with water and hot rocks to steam the wood which was then spread to increase the beam and thereby yield a graceful and seaworthy hull. These canoes were then colorfully painted in shamanistic themes. The construction method of these canoes perhaps explains the fact that they don't seem to be frequently modeled. That said, a clever modeler could perhaps take on the challenge and, if successful, really produce a fascinating and academically valuable set of models of these indigenous watercrafts.
 

 

 
BELOW: NOOTKA CARVED CEDAR DUGOUT CANOE MODEL Late 19th/Early 20th Century
Bow and stern with vertical incised carving. Length 30".
Auction catalog estimate $400 - $500.
 

Double ditto to Jaager's recommendation. There are a wealth of small craft designs available. Many plans are available in book form, such as Howard I. Chapelle's American Sailing Craft and Small American Sailing Craft and Basil Greenhill and Julian Mannering's Inshore Craft: Traditional Working Vessels of the British Isles. These small vessels are generally in the under-50' range, some even in the 10' or 15' range. They can be built to larger scales, 1/2" or even 1" to the foot are not uncommon for small craft models. They do not have a lot of complex small-scale rigging details. As they tend to be somewhat primitive types, their fittings and rigging blocks are easily fabricated. Assuming you get yourself one of Jim Byrnes' mini table saws, a Syren Ship Models "Rope Rocket," and perhaps a scroll saw, you'd be set up for the rest of your days to mill your own modeling wood from that really great Alaska Yellow Cedar you've got growing up there, spin your own scale rigging line, and be entirely free to build anything you wanted at virtually no cost.
 
Working in larger scales can be very satisfying. Smaller boats have fewer and less complex details and when modeled at larger scales little detail need be sacrificed as is otherwise the case with larger vessels at smaller scales. Another advantage of small craft modeling is that the models are generally smaller and easier to display, and you can build more of them in a shorter period of time, which avoids the inevitable boredom in the middle of a large model project that may take years to complete with a lot of repetitive tasks along the way. 
 
With no malice intended to plastic ship modelers (of which in my misspent youth I was one,) assembling plastic sailing ship models can be every bit as tedious as building wooden models (and yield a finished model of far less archival value.) There is relatively little difference in difficulty between rigging a plastic square-rigger and a wooden one. It would not appear that you would be gaining much in terms of compensating for your physical challenges by building in plastic rather than wood. I do admire your dedication in staying at modeling despite the "ravages of age." You certainly are among good company in this forum! I'm guessing a large majority of this forum's members have reached retirement age and by the time we get there, most have "old war wounds" with which to contend. My particular modeling challenge is the loss of feeling in a number of my fingertips due to peripheral neuropathy. Others, I believe, are wheelchair users and, of course, most of us have progressive deteriorating close-up visual acuity. Nevertheless, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers," soldier on.
 
Additionally, small craft models are sadly overlooked by many. While I risk stepping on a toe or two here, I will say that in my opinion there is much  well-deserved accomplishment to be had by any ship modeler in doing a good job assembling yet another Victory or Constitution kit, but, at the end of the day, beyond that the result of all that work is no more than addition of another kit model added to the hundreds, if not thousands of models of these same ships built before. On the other hand, scratch building small craft offers the opportunity to create a unique model of a vessel which will have been rarely, if ever, modeled by anyone before and, if well researched and documented, it can be appreciated not only as a satisfying accomplishment of the modeler's skill, but also as a valuable addition to the historical record. 
 
Up in your neck of the woods, the Pacific Northwest canoes of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian tribes raised dugout canoe building to perhaps its highest level of development. They carved thin-hulled canoes out of cedar and Douglas fir logs and then filled them with water and hot rocks to steam the wood which was then spread to increase the beam and thereby yield a graceful and seaworthy hull. These canoes were then colorfully painted in shamanistic themes. The construction method of these canoes perhaps explains the fact that they don't seem to be frequently modeled. That said, a clever modeler could perhaps take on the challenge and, if successful, really produce a fascinating and academically valuable set of models of these indigenous watercrafts.
 

 

 
BELOW: NOOTKA CARVED CEDAR DUGOUT CANOE MODEL Late 19th/Early 20th Century
Bow and stern with vertical incised carving. Length 30".
Auction catalog estimate $400 - $500.
 

It will depend upon the thickness of the plank. Carvel plank should be 3/4" thick at a minimum, although an experienced caulker may be able to caulk 1/2" carvel plank. Carvel planks are hung flushly butted edge to edge with the inboard two-thirds to one-half of the plank thickness fully against the adjacent plank or rabbet edge. The outboard two-thirds to one-half half of the plank thickness is slightly beveled so that a narrow "vee" is produced in the plank seam when the two adjacent planks are hung butted against each other. The caulking material is hammered into the "vee" seam sufficiently deep to create a space for the stopping (traditionally pitch or "marine glue") to be poured into the seam. The width of the "vee" at the outboard faces of the planks will vary depending upon the depth of the "vee," but in most cases will be between 1/4" and 3/8" as may be consistent with the thickness of the plank. Stopping was faired to the level of the deck and so would show a black or very dark brown seam of that width. However, if the stopping was poured and stopping standing proud not faired, or repairs were made roughly, a considerable overlap of the "vee" seam edges could occur, leaving a wider dark line of stopping visible with a width of as much as 3/4" to 1". However, this would not be the case on naval vessels and sharp packets which were maintained "Bristol fashion" and had their decks regularly holystoned. 
 
The below is for illustrative purposes only. It depicts "yacht construction" of a small vessel with approximately 3/4" thick planking. The caulking seams on a ship-of-the-line would be correspondingly larger due to the man-o-war's thicker planking, but not in direct proportion. The thicker planking might just as easily be caulked with a "vee" chamfer that was not much deeper than a much less thick plank. The depth of the "vee" need be no more than that required to hold the caulking material to be hammered in and leave a trough for the stopping putty or pitch on top of it. There is little to be gained by a larger "vee" and oversized "vees" would waste caulking material and be more work to caulk.
 

 

I'm sorry I don't have any more specific information on this, but I recall once reading somewhere that of the several species of bamboo, some are better suited structurally for use as trunnels because they draw to size more cooperatively than others. Somebody reading this may know more and share with us the right species of bamboo to use and where it might be sourced.
 

If one is intending to accurately depict the prototype in miniature, I believe Jaager's answer is the only correct one. it's not a matter of personal opinion if the object of the exercise is to build a model that looks like the real thing. If metal fastenings were used, as was the case in later times, these would be countersunk and plugged as Jaager describes in order to minimize rusting of the iron fastenings. Depicting fastening locations in an unpainted fully framed model ("Admiralty Board style") can be nicely done by gluing black fishing line of the proper scale diameter into drilled holes, but such fastening "locaters" would never be visible in an actual full-scale vessel. However, if the black fishing line holes are not drilled precisely where the fastenings on the prototype vessel would have to have been placed, the job will result in a worse effect than if the fastenings were left unindicated. 
 
I mention this because the original poster asked, "I have fishing line at 0.23, 0.32 and 0.5mm, color black.  Is it appropriate color for hull and Deck treenails or is it too dark?  what size best (1/64 scale)?" I suppose we just have different definitions of the word "appropriate" in this context. Obviously, a model builder is always free to paint their model any color they wish. 

Most will. Many will even replace parts you've botched up yourself! It would be good to do a search on this forum to see the policy of any particular kit manufacturer regarding parts availability. The second consideration after you confirm that they do have a part replacement policy is to confirm that they are able to provide parts for the model kit you have. Sometimes, a run of kits are manufactured and stocked by the manufacturer but spare parts are no longer available. Sometimes parts are generic and used for several different models in the manufacturer's line. (Which is why you will find out-of-scale or out of period fittings on the models sold by some manufacturers. E.g., an 19th Century anchor in a 18th Century model kit!) or some parts for a specific model kit are left over after the kit production run. Other times, Spare parts have been sold or are otherwise no longer in stock and you will probably be out of luck even it the company would have been happy to send you a replacement part if they still had any in stock.
 
Regarding purchasing kits in current production, I think that most experienced modelers would strongly advise you to start your wooden model building learning curve with the Model Shipways Shipwright Series of kits. See: Model Shipways Shipwright Series (modelexpo-online.com) Few kit manufacturers are as forthright as Model Shipways is in telling beginning wooden ship modelers the realities of the hobby's learning curve and the fact that there is no point in wasting a large amount of money and effort trying to build a square-rigged ship-of-the line bristling with cannon as your first attempted kit build!