Bob Cleek

I probably should have put "collection" in quotation marks. It's not like "my collection" is all that impressive from any historical standpoint. It's just that after a lifetime of sailing, I've got a lot of "artifacts" in my shop and around the house. Whenever my wife starts grousing about my "old stuff you're never going to use again," I always tell her it's part of  one of "my collections."    Indeed, I do have real collections, and then there's just "stuff that I don't want to part with."
 
Forty years ago, I lived like an Ewok in a California coast redwood forest and we'd lose our power a half dozen times a winter, sometimes for a few days, so we'd always have oil lamps throughout the house, most not being nautical and what my ex-wife didn't take with her are still around. My marine oil lamp "collection" presently serves as bookends on my library shelves and at my age isn't likely to ever see sea duty again. 
 
I acquired the running lights back in the 1970's when I worked as a salesman for the premier classic yacht brokerage on San Francisco Bay. We brokered the sale of an Alden schooner and they were at the bottom of a pile of junk in the lazarette. The buyer didn't want them and they were on their way to the boatyard dumpster, so... Thank you very much! Picking up goodies like these was one of the perks of the job.
 
A few years back, I was puttering around and had a batch of "CLR" (Calcium-Lime-Rust remover - good stuff!) mixed up to clean out some showerheads, I impulsively tossed the starboard light into the bucket to see how it would do removing the rough copper patina built up on it. Obviously, it worked, but I never got around to doing the port one because I couldn't make up my mind whether I wanted to put the starboard one out to weather to a more even verdigris patina, or clean it up to match the "old penny" finish of the starboard light. The lamp bodies are made of copper. The bails, the "port" and "starboard" badges, and the lamp are made of brass.
 
Tung Woo - Hong Kong running lights:

 

The chimney tops open to access the oil lamp:  

The reflector slides off the lamp burner for ease of polishing:

Below is my anchor lamp made in the US by Perkins Lamp Co. (Later "Perko.") It has a Wedge burner, which was a common off-the-self wick burner. These were manufactured and sold by Perko, (which is still in business,) until, I believe, around 1975 or so. There's one on eBay at the moment that they want $300 bucks for. Some idiot drilled a hole through the oil font in order to electrify it, which ruined it for use as an oil lamp unless the font is patched. Unfortunately, a lot of nice brass and bronze marine lamps were turned into decorator table lamps over the years and you'll pay hell to find the right ones for a classic yacht restoration job these days. https://www.ebay.com/itm/374442771684?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&campid=5338678874&toolid=20006%26customid%3Ds%3AGS%3Bgc%3A81e12fb7ba20160d1a064b8bd197e985%3Bpt%3A1%3Bchoc%3A1&customid=s%3AGS%3Bgc%3A81e12fb7ba20160d1a064b8bd197e985%3Bpt%3A1%3Bchoc%3A2&msclkid=81e12fb7ba20160d1a064b8bd197e985 There's no doubt that an LED lamp will put out more light than a oil lamp and you don't have to fiddle with cleaning, filling, and trimming the wicks, but it's quite remarkable how much light a correctly trimmed oil lamp can put out and I believe they still meet current navigational signal regulations. I always enjoyed the ritual of lighting my oil anchor lamp as the sun went down when I was spending the night "on the hook." I bought this lamp in the early seventies from a now-long gone chandlery that had then been in business on San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf (before the wharf became a total tourist trap) for over a hundred years. A friend was the manager there and it was "new old stock" they wanted to get rid of. I think he gave it to me for around fifty bucks, which was at a good discount, but that was still real money in those days, for a kid like me, at least. I kept it and the saloon overhead trawler lamp when I passed my Giles Vertue to a new owner after having her for over 40 years. It's more of a "memento," than part of a "collection."
 
This is a 360 degree light hung in the forward rigging. On the bottom edge (clearly seen in the lower picture) were two bails for attaching a downhaul line. This lamp would be run up on the forestay with the headsail halyard. The downhaul line would be secured so that the lamp would remain vertical and not swing in the wind and also be used to pull the lamp and attached halyard back down to the deck when removing the lamp. The oil font holds enough oil to feed the flame for a night's worth of light while the boat was at anchor. It's about eight or nine inches tall and made entirely of brass. It's quite stunning when polished up, which I haven't done in years, obviously. It was always my practice to remove any lacquer that was applied to quality marine yellow metal to keep it bright and then to polish it regularly. There's quite a difference in appearance and the lacquer degrades after a time and tarnished spots and scratches appear all of the piece. A regular quick rubbing with Nev-R-Dull or Brasso keeps bare brass looking sharp.

 
 

I concur with the above posters. It's a particularly charming "decorator" model that may have some nominal value as an antique at this point, assuming someone has a place for it in their interior decoration scheme. It's probably of German or Spanish origin from the first quarter of the 20th dentury and made for the export market. It is decidedly not an "ex-voto," "church ship," or "votive model."  The very few authenticated votive models contemporary to the period of your model are much more simply crafted, if not downright crude when compared to than your model. Additionally, your model exhibits a significant number of obviously mass-produced parts made with tooling that would not have been available to the average sea-going builder-donor of an actual votive model. Note particularly the many accurately turned pieces that indicate the use of a lathe, metal castings, especially the anchors and figurehead that are of cast metal, and (brass?) nails and escutcheon pins. It's highly unkikely that a 15th century European seaman giving thanks for a safe voyage would have access to such tools and materials.
 
  The 15th century "Mataro" votive model in the Maritime Museum in Rotterdam, Holland. See: Model Making History; Matar� - the Oldest Museum Model (lifeinscale.net)

I concur with the above posters. It's a particularly charming "decorator" model that may have some nominal value as an antique at this point, assuming someone has a place for it in their interior decoration scheme. It's probably of German or Spanish origin from the first quarter of the 20th dentury and made for the export market. It is decidedly not an "ex-voto," "church ship," or "votive model."  The very few authenticated votive models contemporary to the period of your model are much more simply crafted, if not downright crude when compared to than your model. Additionally, your model exhibits a significant number of obviously mass-produced parts made with tooling that would not have been available to the average sea-going builder-donor of an actual votive model. Note particularly the many accurately turned pieces that indicate the use of a lathe, metal castings, especially the anchors and figurehead that are of cast metal, and (brass?) nails and escutcheon pins. It's highly unkikely that a 15th century European seaman giving thanks for a safe voyage would have access to such tools and materials.
 
  The 15th century "Mataro" votive model in the Maritime Museum in Rotterdam, Holland. See: Model Making History; Matar� - the Oldest Museum Model (lifeinscale.net)

I concur with the above posters. It's a particularly charming "decorator" model that may have some nominal value as an antique at this point, assuming someone has a place for it in their interior decoration scheme. It's probably of German or Spanish origin from the first quarter of the 20th dentury and made for the export market. It is decidedly not an "ex-voto," "church ship," or "votive model."  The very few authenticated votive models contemporary to the period of your model are much more simply crafted, if not downright crude when compared to than your model. Additionally, your model exhibits a significant number of obviously mass-produced parts made with tooling that would not have been available to the average sea-going builder-donor of an actual votive model. Note particularly the many accurately turned pieces that indicate the use of a lathe, metal castings, especially the anchors and figurehead that are of cast metal, and (brass?) nails and escutcheon pins. It's highly unkikely that a 15th century European seaman giving thanks for a safe voyage would have access to such tools and materials.
 
  The 15th century "Mataro" votive model in the Maritime Museum in Rotterdam, Holland. See: Model Making History; Matar� - the Oldest Museum Model (lifeinscale.net)

If a votive model, on would usually find hooks or rings for suspending it from in a church. Allan's assessment is, I think, correct. However, it is more charmingly done than most of the examples of decorative models that we see on this site.

Votive models were built, usually by one of a crew from a real ship, and hung in churches to give luck to their ship whilst at sea. They are not usually accurate as more symbolic.

If you do a search here at MSW you will see a lot of these old decorator models which have virtually no monetary value.  They are interesting as they are approaching 100 years old and if you like it, that is the most important thing.  It is not an accurate model of any real ship but the value is whatever owning it means to you, so enjoy it.
Allan

From Wiki:  http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Cunt_splice
**** splice
  A '**** splice', often softened to 'cut splice' or 'bight splice' for publication and in genteel conversation, is formed by eye splicing two different pieces of line into each other the same distance from the bitter end of each piece, forming "a Collar or Eye...in the Bight of the Rope. It is used for Pendents, Jib-Guys, &c."[1] Because the Eye is in the middle of the resultant rope, tension in the rope will tighten the eye around a wooden collar or fairlead. In Master and Commander, the bosun, Mr. Watt, personally works a **** splice into the breeching for the twelve-pounder bow-chaser that Aubrey mounts in HMS Sophie.[2]


References
↑ Lever, Darcy. The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor: or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging and to Practical Seamanship. (c)1998 by Dover Publications, Inc.: p.5 ↑ O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander. (c) 1969 by Patrick O'Brian. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and New York, First Edition: p. 63. What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced but, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel, q.v., this image of a carronade aboard HMS Victory. It is conceivable that the gun's cascabel knob would have been placed in the splice. In that case, as the gun recoiled, the increased tension in each side of the splice would have tightened it around the cascabel knob. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 
The repeated interruption of four asterisks redacting the well-recognized name of the subject splice in the article above are apparently artifacts of some sort of automated "net nanny" Bowdlerizing algorithm. The gymnastics employed by cunning linguists to avoid the use of a visually descriptive Anglo-Saxon nautical term is rather pretentious. 
 
Note at footnote 2. above that the editorial comment, "What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced, bur, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel." Is incorrect and misleading. Allanyed's explanation above of varying practices according to the period is correct. 
 
When a breaching rope was simply turned about the cascabel ball, it was commonly lashed together at the point where the rope crossed to form the loop in order to securely fasten the rope to the neck of the ball so it couldn't come adrift in use.
 
For modeling purposes, where scale renders actual splices impossible, faux splices can be created by tapering the bitter ends of the ropes by scraping the individual strands with the edge of a sharp blade or carefully trimming them at an angle with a sharp scissors. The tapered ends, rather than being tucked as in an actual splice, are then laid against the rope and secured with adhesive and a simple whipping applied over the area where the "splice" occurs. This creates the tapered appearance of a true whipped splice while avoiding an unsightly out-of-scale "lump" where the splices occur. 
 

From Wiki:  http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Cunt_splice
**** splice
  A '**** splice', often softened to 'cut splice' or 'bight splice' for publication and in genteel conversation, is formed by eye splicing two different pieces of line into each other the same distance from the bitter end of each piece, forming "a Collar or Eye...in the Bight of the Rope. It is used for Pendents, Jib-Guys, &c."[1] Because the Eye is in the middle of the resultant rope, tension in the rope will tighten the eye around a wooden collar or fairlead. In Master and Commander, the bosun, Mr. Watt, personally works a **** splice into the breeching for the twelve-pounder bow-chaser that Aubrey mounts in HMS Sophie.[2]


References
↑ Lever, Darcy. The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor: or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging and to Practical Seamanship. (c)1998 by Dover Publications, Inc.: p.5 ↑ O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander. (c) 1969 by Patrick O'Brian. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and New York, First Edition: p. 63. What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced but, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel, q.v., this image of a carronade aboard HMS Victory. It is conceivable that the gun's cascabel knob would have been placed in the splice. In that case, as the gun recoiled, the increased tension in each side of the splice would have tightened it around the cascabel knob. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 
The repeated interruption of four asterisks redacting the well-recognized name of the subject splice in the article above are apparently artifacts of some sort of automated "net nanny" Bowdlerizing algorithm. The gymnastics employed by cunning linguists to avoid the use of a visually descriptive Anglo-Saxon nautical term is rather pretentious. 
 
Note at footnote 2. above that the editorial comment, "What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced, bur, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel." Is incorrect and misleading. Allanyed's explanation above of varying practices according to the period is correct. 
 
When a breaching rope was simply turned about the cascabel ball, it was commonly lashed together at the point where the rope crossed to form the loop in order to securely fasten the rope to the neck of the ball so it couldn't come adrift in use.
 
For modeling purposes, where scale renders actual splices impossible, faux splices can be created by tapering the bitter ends of the ropes by scraping the individual strands with the edge of a sharp blade or carefully trimming them at an angle with a sharp scissors. The tapered ends, rather than being tucked as in an actual splice, are then laid against the rope and secured with adhesive and a simple whipping applied over the area where the "splice" occurs. This creates the tapered appearance of a true whipped splice while avoiding an unsightly out-of-scale "lump" where the splices occur. 
 

I can't say whether these models were made in Singapore, Vietnam, or Mauritius or not, but they are the sort of product that small ship model factories in countries with developing economies are now turning out for the mass export. Singapore and Vietnam seem to have well-established ship model building industries. Mauritius has been the most prolific exporter of ship models since the last quarter of the 20th Century. Selling ship models for export is apparently a significant segment of the economy of this tiny island nation. Their product quality range runs from the almost crude to the very well-done. It's quite fascinating to see how they build these models on an assembly line basis. It's even more amazing that they can turn a profit doing so! Certainly, the people working in these small factories can't be making much at all. I expect much of the profit goes to the middle men who import the product and resell it around the world, but still and all, the Mauritians must be making enough building them for it to be worth their while to do so.
 
Check out these websites. While we will all lament that we often can't even give away our completed models, there's a whole industry out there selling ship models to an apparently viable customer base. 
 
See: http://customwoodhandicrafts.com/custom-wood-model-ships/ 
       https://hoiancraftships.com/ 
       https://silhoutech.com/
       http://aemodels.com/AE-MODELS-TEAM-PTE-LTD.-Services-Ship-Rig-Models-Rig-model-supplier-Singapore-Model-makers-in-Singapore
       https://bobatoshipmodels.com/ 
       https://historic-marine.com/ 
       https://le-port-ship-model-factory-and-showroom.business.site/ 
       https://mautourco.com/model-ship-building-works-of-art/
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-43432017
 

Bare wood, especially softer woods like basswood, should be sealed before applying any other coating and particularly so when using water-based coatings which will raise the grain of the wood. The easiest sealer to use on models is plain old clear (sometimes called "white") shellac thinned to around a "two pound cut," (Which is the consistency of 
Zinsser's "Bullseye" brand canned shellac.) This dries very quickly, won't raise the grain, and sands easily. (It will eliminate the "fuzzies" that occur when trying to sand soft woods.)  
 
If painting, for minor imperfections and filling pores, use any good "sanding primer." As mentioned, there are several major brands. Interlux is a high-quality marine paint line with which I am quite familiar but there are other sanding primers on the market. This sanding primer, "basecoat," or "sealer, depending upon the manufacturer's nomenclature, contains additives which make sanding easy. The additive can be anything from "whiting" (chalk or talcum) to microspheres. ("micro-balloons.") (If you have microballoons on hand for mixing epoxy fairing compound, you might want to experiment with adding them to regular paint or shellac and see if that works for you. Always test any coating system on scrap wood before applying to finished work to make sure it will provide the results sought.) 
 
I have found using water-based acrylics are not as suitable for fine finishes because the water can raise the grain and the softer synthetic coatings are more difficult to sand. If one is seeking a matte clear wood finish, I'd simply use clear shellac which will fill fairly well if applied in multiple coats. A thick shellac coating will end up glossy, but the gloss will easily sand off in the end to as fine a finish as one might require using fine sandpaper (300 grit or finer) and/or hand-rubbing with rottenstone and pumice.

https://www.bottompaintstore.com/interlux-prekote-quart-p-33277.html?campaignid=283850993&adgroupid=1258941293687119&creative=&matchtype=e&network=o&device=c&keyword=&msclkid=ac4ac711ef191c683eefa323e6f0a1be&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Google Shopping 2020 January- Bing&utm_term=4582283435435465&utm_content=Shopping-Catch ALL
 
If you have some serious divots, surfacing putty is the necessary coating. It is a paste about the consistency of toothpaste that is thinned with acetone. It can be applied with a putty knife and can be thinned to a desired consistency. (It will harden in the can quickly if the lid is left off the can for appreciable periods. Adding a small amount of acetone to the can after use and storing the well-closed can upside down overnight will reconstitute the paste to a softer consistency without a lot of stirring. This material is sort of like drywall "mud." It hardens very quickly and can be sanded easily in a half hour or so. If a surfacing putty is used, the surfacing putty should be overcoated with the primer after it's been used. It's somewhat porous and if a gloss finish is applied directly over it, there is the tendency to create a 'flat spot" where the gloss topcoat was unevenly absorbed by the surfacing putty. 

 
 
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=interlux+surfacing+putty&adgrpid=1342504259915083&hvadid=83906731284955&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=43893&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-83906856471787%3Aloc-190&hydadcr=4123_13164389&tag=mh0b-20&ref=pd_sl_6qak90lgdy_e

From Wiki:  http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Cunt_splice
**** splice
  A '**** splice', often softened to 'cut splice' or 'bight splice' for publication and in genteel conversation, is formed by eye splicing two different pieces of line into each other the same distance from the bitter end of each piece, forming "a Collar or Eye...in the Bight of the Rope. It is used for Pendents, Jib-Guys, &c."[1] Because the Eye is in the middle of the resultant rope, tension in the rope will tighten the eye around a wooden collar or fairlead. In Master and Commander, the bosun, Mr. Watt, personally works a **** splice into the breeching for the twelve-pounder bow-chaser that Aubrey mounts in HMS Sophie.[2]


References
↑ Lever, Darcy. The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor: or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging and to Practical Seamanship. (c)1998 by Dover Publications, Inc.: p.5 ↑ O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander. (c) 1969 by Patrick O'Brian. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and New York, First Edition: p. 63. What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced but, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel, q.v., this image of a carronade aboard HMS Victory. It is conceivable that the gun's cascabel knob would have been placed in the splice. In that case, as the gun recoiled, the increased tension in each side of the splice would have tightened it around the cascabel knob. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 
The repeated interruption of four asterisks redacting the well-recognized name of the subject splice in the article above are apparently artifacts of some sort of automated "net nanny" Bowdlerizing algorithm. The gymnastics employed by cunning linguists to avoid the use of a visually descriptive Anglo-Saxon nautical term is rather pretentious. 
 
Note at footnote 2. above that the editorial comment, "What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced, bur, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel." Is incorrect and misleading. Allanyed's explanation above of varying practices according to the period is correct. 
 
When a breaching rope was simply turned about the cascabel ball, it was commonly lashed together at the point where the rope crossed to form the loop in order to securely fasten the rope to the neck of the ball so it couldn't come adrift in use.
 
For modeling purposes, where scale renders actual splices impossible, faux splices can be created by tapering the bitter ends of the ropes by scraping the individual strands with the edge of a sharp blade or carefully trimming them at an angle with a sharp scissors. The tapered ends, rather than being tucked as in an actual splice, are then laid against the rope and secured with adhesive and a simple whipping applied over the area where the "splice" occurs. This creates the tapered appearance of a true whipped splice while avoiding an unsightly out-of-scale "lump" where the splices occur. 
 

From Wiki:  http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Cunt_splice
**** splice
  A '**** splice', often softened to 'cut splice' or 'bight splice' for publication and in genteel conversation, is formed by eye splicing two different pieces of line into each other the same distance from the bitter end of each piece, forming "a Collar or Eye...in the Bight of the Rope. It is used for Pendents, Jib-Guys, &c."[1] Because the Eye is in the middle of the resultant rope, tension in the rope will tighten the eye around a wooden collar or fairlead. In Master and Commander, the bosun, Mr. Watt, personally works a **** splice into the breeching for the twelve-pounder bow-chaser that Aubrey mounts in HMS Sophie.[2]


References
↑ Lever, Darcy. The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor: or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging and to Practical Seamanship. (c)1998 by Dover Publications, Inc.: p.5 ↑ O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander. (c) 1969 by Patrick O'Brian. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and New York, First Edition: p. 63. What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced but, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel, q.v., this image of a carronade aboard HMS Victory. It is conceivable that the gun's cascabel knob would have been placed in the splice. In that case, as the gun recoiled, the increased tension in each side of the splice would have tightened it around the cascabel knob. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 
The repeated interruption of four asterisks redacting the well-recognized name of the subject splice in the article above are apparently artifacts of some sort of automated "net nanny" Bowdlerizing algorithm. The gymnastics employed by cunning linguists to avoid the use of a visually descriptive Anglo-Saxon nautical term is rather pretentious. 
 
Note at footnote 2. above that the editorial comment, "What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced, bur, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel." Is incorrect and misleading. Allanyed's explanation above of varying practices according to the period is correct. 
 
When a breaching rope was simply turned about the cascabel ball, it was commonly lashed together at the point where the rope crossed to form the loop in order to securely fasten the rope to the neck of the ball so it couldn't come adrift in use.
 
For modeling purposes, where scale renders actual splices impossible, faux splices can be created by tapering the bitter ends of the ropes by scraping the individual strands with the edge of a sharp blade or carefully trimming them at an angle with a sharp scissors. The tapered ends, rather than being tucked as in an actual splice, are then laid against the rope and secured with adhesive and a simple whipping applied over the area where the "splice" occurs. This creates the tapered appearance of a true whipped splice while avoiding an unsightly out-of-scale "lump" where the splices occur. 
 

A mask is still pretty much a necessity.  The cloud of fine particles is impressive.  You still want a shop vac sucking up the dust.  At least in a garden, the vac will not make you deaf.
I think that the sweet spot is ~1700 RPM for the drum.  Faster will probably char and slower will make an already tedious operation last much longer.  It would probably take  a motor of 1/2 HP or greater to avoid it getting hot.

From Wiki:  http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Cunt_splice
**** splice
  A '**** splice', often softened to 'cut splice' or 'bight splice' for publication and in genteel conversation, is formed by eye splicing two different pieces of line into each other the same distance from the bitter end of each piece, forming "a Collar or Eye...in the Bight of the Rope. It is used for Pendents, Jib-Guys, &c."[1] Because the Eye is in the middle of the resultant rope, tension in the rope will tighten the eye around a wooden collar or fairlead. In Master and Commander, the bosun, Mr. Watt, personally works a **** splice into the breeching for the twelve-pounder bow-chaser that Aubrey mounts in HMS Sophie.[2]


References
↑ Lever, Darcy. The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor: or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging and to Practical Seamanship. (c)1998 by Dover Publications, Inc.: p.5 ↑ O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander. (c) 1969 by Patrick O'Brian. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and New York, First Edition: p. 63. What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced but, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel, q.v., this image of a carronade aboard HMS Victory. It is conceivable that the gun's cascabel knob would have been placed in the splice. In that case, as the gun recoiled, the increased tension in each side of the splice would have tightened it around the cascabel knob. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 
The repeated interruption of four asterisks redacting the well-recognized name of the subject splice in the article above are apparently artifacts of some sort of automated "net nanny" Bowdlerizing algorithm. The gymnastics employed by cunning linguists to avoid the use of a visually descriptive Anglo-Saxon nautical term is rather pretentious. 
 
Note at footnote 2. above that the editorial comment, "What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced, bur, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel." Is incorrect and misleading. Allanyed's explanation above of varying practices according to the period is correct. 
 
When a breaching rope was simply turned about the cascabel ball, it was commonly lashed together at the point where the rope crossed to form the loop in order to securely fasten the rope to the neck of the ball so it couldn't come adrift in use.
 
For modeling purposes, where scale renders actual splices impossible, faux splices can be created by tapering the bitter ends of the ropes by scraping the individual strands with the edge of a sharp blade or carefully trimming them at an angle with a sharp scissors. The tapered ends, rather than being tucked as in an actual splice, are then laid against the rope and secured with adhesive and a simple whipping applied over the area where the "splice" occurs. This creates the tapered appearance of a true whipped splice while avoiding an unsightly out-of-scale "lump" where the splices occur. 
 

From Wiki:  http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Cunt_splice
**** splice
  A '**** splice', often softened to 'cut splice' or 'bight splice' for publication and in genteel conversation, is formed by eye splicing two different pieces of line into each other the same distance from the bitter end of each piece, forming "a Collar or Eye...in the Bight of the Rope. It is used for Pendents, Jib-Guys, &c."[1] Because the Eye is in the middle of the resultant rope, tension in the rope will tighten the eye around a wooden collar or fairlead. In Master and Commander, the bosun, Mr. Watt, personally works a **** splice into the breeching for the twelve-pounder bow-chaser that Aubrey mounts in HMS Sophie.[2]


References
↑ Lever, Darcy. The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor: or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging and to Practical Seamanship. (c)1998 by Dover Publications, Inc.: p.5 ↑ O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander. (c) 1969 by Patrick O'Brian. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and New York, First Edition: p. 63. What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced but, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel, q.v., this image of a carronade aboard HMS Victory. It is conceivable that the gun's cascabel knob would have been placed in the splice. In that case, as the gun recoiled, the increased tension in each side of the splice would have tightened it around the cascabel knob. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 
The repeated interruption of four asterisks redacting the well-recognized name of the subject splice in the article above are apparently artifacts of some sort of automated "net nanny" Bowdlerizing algorithm. The gymnastics employed by cunning linguists to avoid the use of a visually descriptive Anglo-Saxon nautical term is rather pretentious. 
 
Note at footnote 2. above that the editorial comment, "What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced, bur, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel." Is incorrect and misleading. Allanyed's explanation above of varying practices according to the period is correct. 
 
When a breaching rope was simply turned about the cascabel ball, it was commonly lashed together at the point where the rope crossed to form the loop in order to securely fasten the rope to the neck of the ball so it couldn't come adrift in use.
 
For modeling purposes, where scale renders actual splices impossible, faux splices can be created by tapering the bitter ends of the ropes by scraping the individual strands with the edge of a sharp blade or carefully trimming them at an angle with a sharp scissors. The tapered ends, rather than being tucked as in an actual splice, are then laid against the rope and secured with adhesive and a simple whipping applied over the area where the "splice" occurs. This creates the tapered appearance of a true whipped splice while avoiding an unsightly out-of-scale "lump" where the splices occur. 
 

I have a Vanda-Lay Dremel-powered drill press. Vanda-Lay makes some interesting tools and their quality is probably second only to Jim Byrnes' Model Machines tools. That said, there is no question that the Byrnes thickness sander is the better tool and the better buy, as well. I see from checking Jim's website that they are not taking orders for machines at the moment because they took time off for summer vacation, but will be back shipping machines in mid-August. I suppose this is why they don't have the prices for the machines listed on their website at the moment! As I recall, the Byrnes sander is about the same, or even less money than the Vanda-Lay thickness sander with the motor. I have to say, owning a Byrnes thickness sander, that it is the "better buy," even if it costs a bit more than the Vanda-Lay. 
 
These sanders require some power to work effectively. I don't doubt that you can power one with a hand drill motor as Vanda-Lay suggests and a few have noted above, but I would think that would put some serious power demands on a hand drill motor, particularly if you are using it for a prolonged period. I also don't think there are any hand drill motors that put out anything like the RPMs that either the Byrnes motor or the power tool motor Vanda-Lay sells for somewhere around $300 do.
 
The fact that the Byrnes' integral motor takes up far less bench space than the Vanda-Lay, regardless of how the Vanda-Lay is powered, is no small consideration, not to mention that the integral motor on the Byrnes machine is far more "elegant" than the cobbled-together power options for the Vanda-Lay.
 
There are two big differences that put the Byrnes head and shoulders over the Vanda-Lay. The first, but not the greatest, difference is that the Byrnes is exceptionally accurate and is easier to adjust. It has an indexed adjustment knob that allow adjustments in increments of .002". The Vanda-Lay may be just as accurate but I expect it is more fiddily to set. The second, and biggest... huge... difference in the two machines is that the Vanda-Lay has a three-inch wide drum. It will only sand wood three inches wide or less. The Byrnes machine has a six-inch wide drum! The Byrnes sander will handle twice the width capacity of the Vanda-Lay and the Byrnes offers the option of loading its six inch wide drum with two different grits of abrasive sheet, each three inches wide, on the six inch drum. This allows you to use half of the drum for coarser sanding and the other for finer sanding, should you desire to do so.
 
So, for the same price, all else considered, the Byrnes is twice the machine in my estimation.  
 
I realize that price is often a serious issue for all of us. All I can say in that regard here is that the difference in price isn't much to get twice the machine in the Byrnes. It can't be said enough that the cheapest tool in the end is often the most expensive one. You could buy any one of the Byrnes Model Machines, use it for ten years, and if you didn't beat it up, probably sell it easily for half or two thirds of what you paid for it. Not so with the Vanda-Lay. If it's a difference of even a couple of hundred bucks, how long will it really take for you to forget the "pain" of that? These days, where I live, at least, that's maybe three half-way decent dinners out with the Missus. If you get the Byrnes, you won't be sorry.
 
 
 

From Wiki:  http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Cunt_splice
**** splice
  A '**** splice', often softened to 'cut splice' or 'bight splice' for publication and in genteel conversation, is formed by eye splicing two different pieces of line into each other the same distance from the bitter end of each piece, forming "a Collar or Eye...in the Bight of the Rope. It is used for Pendents, Jib-Guys, &c."[1] Because the Eye is in the middle of the resultant rope, tension in the rope will tighten the eye around a wooden collar or fairlead. In Master and Commander, the bosun, Mr. Watt, personally works a **** splice into the breeching for the twelve-pounder bow-chaser that Aubrey mounts in HMS Sophie.[2]


References
↑ Lever, Darcy. The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor: or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging and to Practical Seamanship. (c)1998 by Dover Publications, Inc.: p.5 ↑ O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander. (c) 1969 by Patrick O'Brian. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia and New York, First Edition: p. 63. What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced but, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel, q.v., this image of a carronade aboard HMS Victory. It is conceivable that the gun's cascabel knob would have been placed in the splice. In that case, as the gun recoiled, the increased tension in each side of the splice would have tightened it around the cascabel knob. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 
The repeated interruption of four asterisks redacting the well-recognized name of the subject splice in the article above are apparently artifacts of some sort of automated "net nanny" Bowdlerizing algorithm. The gymnastics employed by cunning linguists to avoid the use of a visually descriptive Anglo-Saxon nautical term is rather pretentious. 
 
Note at footnote 2. above that the editorial comment, "What purpose this splice would serve is unclear; breech ropes were not typically spliced, bur, rather, rove through an iron loop atop the cascabel." Is incorrect and misleading. Allanyed's explanation above of varying practices according to the period is correct. 
 
When a breaching rope was simply turned about the cascabel ball, it was commonly lashed together at the point where the rope crossed to form the loop in order to securely fasten the rope to the neck of the ball so it couldn't come adrift in use.
 
For modeling purposes, where scale renders actual splices impossible, faux splices can be created by tapering the bitter ends of the ropes by scraping the individual strands with the edge of a sharp blade or carefully trimming them at an angle with a sharp scissors. The tapered ends, rather than being tucked as in an actual splice, are then laid against the rope and secured with adhesive and a simple whipping applied over the area where the "splice" occurs. This creates the tapered appearance of a true whipped splice while avoiding an unsightly out-of-scale "lump" where the splices occur. 
 

Way too much to copy from Caruana's History of English Sea Ordnance Volume II, pp381-3    In short, up to about the middle of the 18th century the breeching was simply taken in a round turn round the neck of the button and secured by means of a seizing.
The next solution employed wrought iron double thimbles attached to the neck of the button. 
The thimbles were eventually discontinued in favor of a spliced eye in the bight of the breeching.  This is described in Steel's Art of Rigging of 1797. 
Of course the breeching ring of the Blomefield changed everything.
Allan
 
 

I have a Vanda-Lay Dremel-powered drill press. Vanda-Lay makes some interesting tools and their quality is probably second only to Jim Byrnes' Model Machines tools. That said, there is no question that the Byrnes thickness sander is the better tool and the better buy, as well. I see from checking Jim's website that they are not taking orders for machines at the moment because they took time off for summer vacation, but will be back shipping machines in mid-August. I suppose this is why they don't have the prices for the machines listed on their website at the moment! As I recall, the Byrnes sander is about the same, or even less money than the Vanda-Lay thickness sander with the motor. I have to say, owning a Byrnes thickness sander, that it is the "better buy," even if it costs a bit more than the Vanda-Lay. 
 
These sanders require some power to work effectively. I don't doubt that you can power one with a hand drill motor as Vanda-Lay suggests and a few have noted above, but I would think that would put some serious power demands on a hand drill motor, particularly if you are using it for a prolonged period. I also don't think there are any hand drill motors that put out anything like the RPMs that either the Byrnes motor or the power tool motor Vanda-Lay sells for somewhere around $300 do.
 
The fact that the Byrnes' integral motor takes up far less bench space than the Vanda-Lay, regardless of how the Vanda-Lay is powered, is no small consideration, not to mention that the integral motor on the Byrnes machine is far more "elegant" than the cobbled-together power options for the Vanda-Lay.
 
There are two big differences that put the Byrnes head and shoulders over the Vanda-Lay. The first, but not the greatest, difference is that the Byrnes is exceptionally accurate and is easier to adjust. It has an indexed adjustment knob that allow adjustments in increments of .002". The Vanda-Lay may be just as accurate but I expect it is more fiddily to set. The second, and biggest... huge... difference in the two machines is that the Vanda-Lay has a three-inch wide drum. It will only sand wood three inches wide or less. The Byrnes machine has a six-inch wide drum! The Byrnes sander will handle twice the width capacity of the Vanda-Lay and the Byrnes offers the option of loading its six inch wide drum with two different grits of abrasive sheet, each three inches wide, on the six inch drum. This allows you to use half of the drum for coarser sanding and the other for finer sanding, should you desire to do so.
 
So, for the same price, all else considered, the Byrnes is twice the machine in my estimation.  
 
I realize that price is often a serious issue for all of us. All I can say in that regard here is that the difference in price isn't much to get twice the machine in the Byrnes. It can't be said enough that the cheapest tool in the end is often the most expensive one. You could buy any one of the Byrnes Model Machines, use it for ten years, and if you didn't beat it up, probably sell it easily for half or two thirds of what you paid for it. Not so with the Vanda-Lay. If it's a difference of even a couple of hundred bucks, how long will it really take for you to forget the "pain" of that? These days, where I live, at least, that's maybe three half-way decent dinners out with the Missus. If you get the Byrnes, you won't be sorry.
 
 
 

And all th is time I thought I was the only one who was frustrated by the original paperback volume one binding with the pages that fall out. When I got the second volume with the spiral binding that allows you to lay the book flat on your workbench when using it as a reference, I seriously entertained taking my volume one down to the local chain stationary store and having it spiral-bound, as well. One of those things on my list of "probably-never-will-get-around-tuits," though.  

There's an excellent instructional piece on preparing your own grown wood for modeling use in the NRG's Ship Modeler's Shop Notes, Volume II, I believe, but if you don't have it, buy both volumes and it will be in one of them. A couple of invaluable modeling books and, in terms of bang for your buck, a very good investment. Get them from the NRG online store or used off eBay.

Thanks for the clarification! As I wrote, "Without looking at a carton in my hand right now, I'm going to guess and say that pumice is the finer abrasive powder and rottenstone is the coarser of the two." I was just too lazy to go out to my shop and check which was which.  

Okay, you caught me with some time on my hands. Painting and finishing are highly skilled trades that the painting materials industry has spent generations trying to "dumb down" in order to convince untrained consumers they can "do it yourself" at home. If one wants a professional result, they still have to know how to do it like a professional. 
 
Whether a steel or wood hull, they both should appear "smooth as a baby's bottom" up close if you want to achieve a realistic look at "scale viewing distance." This is a matter of proper painting technique. As they say, a good paint job is 90% preparation and 10% application.  Softwoods like basswood pose the problem of raised grain but this is easily solved. When softwoods especially are exposed to water, or even ambient moisture, their grain will "raise" because the soft wood between the grain absorbs the moisture and swells. The first thing to remember is you must seal the bare wood first. Sealing is an essential first step. Sand your piece well down to 220 or 320 grit abrasive and be sure you have a smooth surface; save for perhaps a few minor dings and divots you will be filling. The purpose of sanding is to remove a thin layer of the surface. Don't sand down to bare wood "chasing" a larger imperfection and don't concentrate sanding on an imperfection. That will cause an uneven surface. After you have sanded well, dust the piece and wipe it with a tack rag and apply sealer.  Don't use water-based sealer, paint, or anything else water-based. (If you use acrylic paints, use those that are thinned with alcohol, not water. Alcohol will not raise wood grain.) The water will soak right into the wood and you'll be back to sanding the grain flat again. I use pre-mixed canned shellac to seal model wood, particularly basswood. Shellac will soak into the wood, but will not raise the grain. Shellac is one of the best moisture barrier coatings available and it will significantly slow the rate of moisture absorption and so stabilize the wood. Shellac is compatible with any paint or varnish.
 
If your hull is smooth, so much the better. Remember the "viewing distance" calculations. If you can't see it at your "scale viewing distance," then leave it off the model. Riveted iron plates can post challenges, of course. Thin paper strips can be applied to the shellac sealer to represent iron plates. Shellac is a good adhesive for them as well. If you are going to be showing plates, portlights, eyebrows and similar details on your hull, then you can modify the schedule below to accommodate the detailed surface you have. Seal well with shellac, then airbrush your successive coats while trying to be as dust-free as possible. If your surface is interrupted by a lot of protruding detail, you will just have to "dance with the girl you brought."
 
After the shellac has dried, it should be sanded with 320 grit until it is perfectly smooth all over. Test the smoothness of your surface with your fingertips. They are far more sensitive to surface smoothness than your eyes alone. Again, sand and tack the piece and then apply a sanding basecoat. Sanding basecoat is a thick white paint that had a fair amount of chalk added to it. It serves as an intermediate layer of the coatings lay-up which will fill very light imperfections and will be easily sanded. It also does double duty as an undercoat which produces a uniformly opaque surface which is essential to a uniform finish coat, (You will be painting forever to try to cover color variations beneath a finish coat. Finish coat paint isn't designed for this.) When the sanding base coat is dry, sand it with 320 grit (or start with 220 and work up to 320 if you've got brush strokes all over it... it's thick stuff) Don't make yourself crazy if you still have some small imperfections. You'll get to those next. Again, dust and tack the surface. 
 
Your surface should be getting close to perfectly smooth at this point but there may be a few imperfections, a scratch here or a little ding there, that haven't been removed. You should sparingly apply surfacing putty to any remaining scratches or dings. (It may also be called "glazing putty," but it's not for puttying windows.) See: Interlux Paint 257P Surfacing Putty - White-Pint | Autoplicity  Surfacing putty is sold in paint stores, chandleries, and auto body and fender supply stores. It's what the pros use to get a perfect finish. It's not cheap but the canned stuff is thinned with acetone and a tablespoon added to the can before sealing well should ensure a long shelf life. There may well be less expensive brands than the Interlux linked above. Check with your local auto paint store. Surfacing putty is about the consistence of toothpaste and is applied to scratches and dings with a flexible spatula or putty knife. The object is to fill the imperfection, and not leave a big "bump" of putty around it. If you apply it properly, a few swipes with some 320 sandpaper should be enough to level the surface without leaving a big "putty bump" on it. The imperfection should be invisible. Pay particular attention to this step and make sure you have not overlooked puttying any imperfections. The fewer there are left, the more they stand out! (Resist the temptation to use drywall patching putty and similar compounds instead of real surfacing putty. their matrix is too coarse and cannot be sanded smooth enough. Similarly, don't substitute "body filler" products like Bondo which are too hard to sand easily. WEST System epoxy resin with their proprietary sanding additives is entirely suitable but somewhat more difficult to sand and quite expensive.)
 
After you've puttied and sanded again, dust and tack and apply a coat of undercoat. Undercoat is a paint designed to cover well and dries "flat" with a matte finish. It provides a base for the finish coat. Importantly, it will seal the areas where you have applied surfacing putty. Dried putty will absorb a finish coating more readily than sanding basecoat and if you skip the basecoat your finish coat will have areas of flat "print through" where you applied surfacing putty unless you sealed the piece with undercoat. When it dries, again sand, dust and tack. This time, however, will be the last time you should be doing anything other than very light sanding on the piece, so take care to be certain that your sanding is absolutely perfect. You may wish to sand with an even finer grit than 320 although there's little to be gained by sanding above 600 grit for modeling purposes because we aren't (or shouldn't be) using high gloss finish coats.
 
For the application of finish coats, it's highly recommended that you go somewhere else with as little ambient dust as possible in order to avoid getting specks of dust in the finish coats. I often use the bathroom when my wife is not at home. It's the least dusty room in any house. Make sure the piece is scrupulously clean. Apply a quality oil-based finish coat. Depending upon the scale, a metal hull can be painted with an eggshell finish. It's a matter of taste, but for larger wooden ships, I prefer a more matte finish than for metal hulls. There are painting instructions elsewhere. You have to be an accomplished painter to apply a perfect finish with a brush. It you aren't, don't bother trying. All your hard work preparing a perfect surface will be for naught if you mess up the finish coats. Most prefer an airbrush because it is easier to use and to control the thickness of the paint application. Apply multiple thin coats. You can always apply another coat when the last one dries and build up your finish coating as needed, but if you put too much paint on at one time and get runs, sags, or "curtains," you're looking at a long and tedious sanding job to correct the damage done.  Don't rush. (It may be a matter of taste, but I wouldn't recommend aerosol "rattle can" paint for quality work such as discussed here. As remarkably reliable as the more expensive brands have become in mass producing plastic spray nozzles, all it takes is a single "spit or sputter" from a rattle can to ruin a finish coat.)
 
As you finish coats are applied, it's a near certainty that some dust will fall on the wet surface and stick there. Do not try to remove dust or anything else from the paint until the paint has completely dried. You may try all you want, but if you go back over a wet surface to just pick out that one gnat that landed on it and got stuck you will make a bigger mess than just leaving it there to dry. After each coat of finish paint is applied and dried well, wipe the surface with a soft cloth and this will remove most all of the dust that may have fallen on it. The dust usually is only microscopically attached to the surface and need only be knocked off and the attachment point will be invisible.
 
Apply as many finish coats as you feel are necessary to get the finish you want. It's not uncommon to miss a spot here or there (called a "holiday" in the trade) and need to apply another coat to correct that. If you do get a run or a sag, let it dry completely and then sand it off fair to the adjacent surface and start again. Don't be discouraged if you have to repeat a step along the way. Attention to detail is essential. 
 
When you reach what you think is your final finish coat there will still probably some dust that stuck to this coat, as well. Let the finish coats dry well. You may also find that your finish is too glossy for your taste, or too matte. This last step addresses dust specks and the reflective quality of the finish. Be sure the finish coats are thoroughly dry. (Like for a week. Particularly synthetic coatings like acrylics may take a lot longer to "dry" (cure) than we think. Those that have "rubbery" latex-like bases will always be difficult to sand. A hard finish sands well.  Obtain some rottenstone and pumice from the paint store. These are inexpensive abrasive powders. Without looking at a carton in my hand right now, I'm going to guess and say that pumice is the finer abrasive powder and rottenstone is the coarser of the two. These abrasive powders are used by being rubbed on the workpiece with a soft damp cloth. The coarser powder will remove the gloss. The more you rub, the less glossy the surface will become. Further rubbing, however will soften the surface to a beautiful eggshell finish. Use of the finer powder will do the same, but can be worked up to a high gloss finish if rubbed enough. This is a "hand-rubbed finish." There are lots of YouTube videos about hand-rubbing finishes, which is commonly done in fine furniture finishing. This hand-rubbing will remove all the dust specks that were on the painted surface and leave a perfectly smooth surface with the reflective quality of your choice.
 
In summary,
 
1.   Sand and shellac to seal.
2.   Sand and sanding basecoat
3.   Sand and surfacing putty
4.   Sand and undercoat
5.   Sand and finish coat
6.   Hand-rub finish coat
 
When you go to the maritime museums and see the magnificent builders' yard models of the steamships of the early years of the last century with their perfectly painted "iron" and "steel" hulls, this is how it was done. 

I have a Vanda-Lay Dremel-powered drill press. Vanda-Lay makes some interesting tools and their quality is probably second only to Jim Byrnes' Model Machines tools. That said, there is no question that the Byrnes thickness sander is the better tool and the better buy, as well. I see from checking Jim's website that they are not taking orders for machines at the moment because they took time off for summer vacation, but will be back shipping machines in mid-August. I suppose this is why they don't have the prices for the machines listed on their website at the moment! As I recall, the Byrnes sander is about the same, or even less money than the Vanda-Lay thickness sander with the motor. I have to say, owning a Byrnes thickness sander, that it is the "better buy," even if it costs a bit more than the Vanda-Lay. 
 
These sanders require some power to work effectively. I don't doubt that you can power one with a hand drill motor as Vanda-Lay suggests and a few have noted above, but I would think that would put some serious power demands on a hand drill motor, particularly if you are using it for a prolonged period. I also don't think there are any hand drill motors that put out anything like the RPMs that either the Byrnes motor or the power tool motor Vanda-Lay sells for somewhere around $300 do.
 
The fact that the Byrnes' integral motor takes up far less bench space than the Vanda-Lay, regardless of how the Vanda-Lay is powered, is no small consideration, not to mention that the integral motor on the Byrnes machine is far more "elegant" than the cobbled-together power options for the Vanda-Lay.
 
There are two big differences that put the Byrnes head and shoulders over the Vanda-Lay. The first, but not the greatest, difference is that the Byrnes is exceptionally accurate and is easier to adjust. It has an indexed adjustment knob that allow adjustments in increments of .002". The Vanda-Lay may be just as accurate but I expect it is more fiddily to set. The second, and biggest... huge... difference in the two machines is that the Vanda-Lay has a three-inch wide drum. It will only sand wood three inches wide or less. The Byrnes machine has a six-inch wide drum! The Byrnes sander will handle twice the width capacity of the Vanda-Lay and the Byrnes offers the option of loading its six inch wide drum with two different grits of abrasive sheet, each three inches wide, on the six inch drum. This allows you to use half of the drum for coarser sanding and the other for finer sanding, should you desire to do so.
 
So, for the same price, all else considered, the Byrnes is twice the machine in my estimation.  
 
I realize that price is often a serious issue for all of us. All I can say in that regard here is that the difference in price isn't much to get twice the machine in the Byrnes. It can't be said enough that the cheapest tool in the end is often the most expensive one. You could buy any one of the Byrnes Model Machines, use it for ten years, and if you didn't beat it up, probably sell it easily for half or two thirds of what you paid for it. Not so with the Vanda-Lay. If it's a difference of even a couple of hundred bucks, how long will it really take for you to forget the "pain" of that? These days, where I live, at least, that's maybe three half-way decent dinners out with the Missus. If you get the Byrnes, you won't be sorry.