Bob Cleek

The lip is now cut and rounded on the edges
 
I will be raising the top when I get it back in the boat.
 
Michael

Farmed Douglas fir is far less suitable for boat and ship building than naturally-grown vertical-grained Doug fir with ring counts of twelve to eighteen rings per inch. Just about every wooden boat and ship built on the West Coast of the US up until recent times was built primarily, or exclusively, of vertical-grain Doug fir. This includes all the lumber schooners and the once-vast fleets of small fishing boats, including the Montereys, many of which are still going strong eight to a hundred years and more from their original launching. Vertical-grain Doug fir was long a favored species for laid plank  vessel deckis. (Plain-sawn Doug fir is not nearly as good for home deck building because it does require painting to avoid weathering. Plain-sawn redwood was far better for home decking until it became cost-prohibitive.) In the Nineteenth Century, Doug fir (and larch in Europe) were favored for warship construction over teak, which became available to the Admiralty after Britain colonized India and Burma, because, although, bare teak stood up to the elements better than unpainted Doug Fir, teak was highly prone to splintering when hit by cannon shot and teak splinter wounds were highly likely to fester, unlike Doug fir splinters. Teak is also much more difficult to work than just about any of the usual ship-building woods, because its high silica content dulls tools very quickly.
 
There was a time when prime old-growth teak was so available in Asia that teak cargo pallets and cargo hatch covers were made of it, but those days are long gone. The totalitarian governments in the teak growing nations clear cut the teak forests to provide export product to support their revolutionary governments and the elephants trained to extract teak logs from the forest without damaging them are no longer available, so large teak timbers necessary for vessel construction aren't available today in the quantities necessary.  Having owned for over forty years a teak-planked yacht built to Lloyd's 100A1+ standards in 1963 by Cheoy Lee Shipyard, Kowloon, Hong Kong I can attest that the teak wood used to plank that boat is virtually unobtainable today.
 
Having worked for a yacht brokerage specializing in classic wooden yachts in the 1970's and being intimately familiar with a broad range of wooden boat building quality, I experienced firsthand the phenomenon of teak's becoming the favored species for brightwork. Before the advent of fiberglass boats, a "gold plater's" brightwork would almost always be made of mahogany, preferably real Honduras mahogany, and well-varnished. Teak was favored only for decks because of its easy maintenance: saltwater rinse daily, or bleach and rinse as needed. (Originally, holystoning was a primarily a practice on naval vessels maintained "Bristol fashion" when abrasion of the deck surface was necessary because the tar used on the rigging above the deck dripped in hot tropical weather and was tracked by sailors' feet all over the teak decks. It became "traditional" in naval practice thereafter and is a very wasteful and "abusive" maintenance practice that wears down the decks and accelerates the need to replace decks.) As fiberglass boats were built in quantity on speculation and had to sit at the brokers' docks, sometimes for considerable time, until they were sold, varnished mahogany trim required regular maintenance of drying with a chamois and sanding and re-varnishing on a regular basis.  The fiberglass boat manufacturers then began using bare teak for outboard trim on their vessels and marketed it as "highest quality." That's really how things like teak cap rails and grab rails became universal on fiberglass boats from the 'seventies on.
 
 

Lovely work Richard also the cabinet in your earlier post. I am always on the lookout for salvageable wood for my model projects, it always breaks my heart to see an old house being crushed into matchsticks by huge machinery when much of the wood used could still be salvaged! The time is money myth will become apparent one day, but I digress. 
I am still using some of the eastern sugar maple that I acquired in 1973 as a six foot long green log after slabbing it up into quarters after taking a three inch plank from the centre for a coffee table and air drying the rest. It is what I am using for the interior of my Bristol pilot cutter.
The deck is close grained salvaged old growth clear Douglas Fir.
michael

Farmed Douglas fir is far less suitable for boat and ship building than naturally-grown vertical-grained Doug fir with ring counts of twelve to eighteen rings per inch. Just about every wooden boat and ship built on the West Coast of the US up until recent times was built primarily, or exclusively, of vertical-grain Doug fir. This includes all the lumber schooners and the once-vast fleets of small fishing boats, including the Montereys, many of which are still going strong eight to a hundred years and more from their original launching. Vertical-grain Doug fir was long a favored species for laid plank  vessel deckis. (Plain-sawn Doug fir is not nearly as good for home deck building because it does require painting to avoid weathering. Plain-sawn redwood was far better for home decking until it became cost-prohibitive.) In the Nineteenth Century, Doug fir (and larch in Europe) were favored for warship construction over teak, which became available to the Admiralty after Britain colonized India and Burma, because, although, bare teak stood up to the elements better than unpainted Doug Fir, teak was highly prone to splintering when hit by cannon shot and teak splinter wounds were highly likely to fester, unlike Doug fir splinters. Teak is also much more difficult to work than just about any of the usual ship-building woods, because its high silica content dulls tools very quickly.
 
There was a time when prime old-growth teak was so available in Asia that teak cargo pallets and cargo hatch covers were made of it, but those days are long gone. The totalitarian governments in the teak growing nations clear cut the teak forests to provide export product to support their revolutionary governments and the elephants trained to extract teak logs from the forest without damaging them are no longer available, so large teak timbers necessary for vessel construction aren't available today in the quantities necessary.  Having owned for over forty years a teak-planked yacht built to Lloyd's 100A1+ standards in 1963 by Cheoy Lee Shipyard, Kowloon, Hong Kong I can attest that the teak wood used to plank that boat is virtually unobtainable today.
 
Having worked for a yacht brokerage specializing in classic wooden yachts in the 1970's and being intimately familiar with a broad range of wooden boat building quality, I experienced firsthand the phenomenon of teak's becoming the favored species for brightwork. Before the advent of fiberglass boats, a "gold plater's" brightwork would almost always be made of mahogany, preferably real Honduras mahogany, and well-varnished. Teak was favored only for decks because of its easy maintenance: saltwater rinse daily, or bleach and rinse as needed. (Originally, holystoning was a primarily a practice on naval vessels maintained "Bristol fashion" when abrasion of the deck surface was necessary because the tar used on the rigging above the deck dripped in hot tropical weather and was tracked by sailors' feet all over the teak decks. It became "traditional" in naval practice thereafter and is a very wasteful and "abusive" maintenance practice that wears down the decks and accelerates the need to replace decks.) As fiberglass boats were built in quantity on speculation and had to sit at the brokers' docks, sometimes for considerable time, until they were sold, varnished mahogany trim required regular maintenance of drying with a chamois and sanding and re-varnishing on a regular basis.  The fiberglass boat manufacturers then began using bare teak for outboard trim on their vessels and marketed it as "highest quality." That's really how things like teak cap rails and grab rails became universal on fiberglass boats from the 'seventies on.
 
 

Farmed Douglas fir is far less suitable for boat and ship building than naturally-grown vertical-grained Doug fir with ring counts of twelve to eighteen rings per inch. Just about every wooden boat and ship built on the West Coast of the US up until recent times was built primarily, or exclusively, of vertical-grain Doug fir. This includes all the lumber schooners and the once-vast fleets of small fishing boats, including the Montereys, many of which are still going strong eight to a hundred years and more from their original launching. Vertical-grain Doug fir was long a favored species for laid plank  vessel deckis. (Plain-sawn Doug fir is not nearly as good for home deck building because it does require painting to avoid weathering. Plain-sawn redwood was far better for home decking until it became cost-prohibitive.) In the Nineteenth Century, Doug fir (and larch in Europe) were favored for warship construction over teak, which became available to the Admiralty after Britain colonized India and Burma, because, although, bare teak stood up to the elements better than unpainted Doug Fir, teak was highly prone to splintering when hit by cannon shot and teak splinter wounds were highly likely to fester, unlike Doug fir splinters. Teak is also much more difficult to work than just about any of the usual ship-building woods, because its high silica content dulls tools very quickly.
 
There was a time when prime old-growth teak was so available in Asia that teak cargo pallets and cargo hatch covers were made of it, but those days are long gone. The totalitarian governments in the teak growing nations clear cut the teak forests to provide export product to support their revolutionary governments and the elephants trained to extract teak logs from the forest without damaging them are no longer available, so large teak timbers necessary for vessel construction aren't available today in the quantities necessary.  Having owned for over forty years a teak-planked yacht built to Lloyd's 100A1+ standards in 1963 by Cheoy Lee Shipyard, Kowloon, Hong Kong I can attest that the teak wood used to plank that boat is virtually unobtainable today.
 
Having worked for a yacht brokerage specializing in classic wooden yachts in the 1970's and being intimately familiar with a broad range of wooden boat building quality, I experienced firsthand the phenomenon of teak's becoming the favored species for brightwork. Before the advent of fiberglass boats, a "gold plater's" brightwork would almost always be made of mahogany, preferably real Honduras mahogany, and well-varnished. Teak was favored only for decks because of its easy maintenance: saltwater rinse daily, or bleach and rinse as needed. (Originally, holystoning was a primarily a practice on naval vessels maintained "Bristol fashion" when abrasion of the deck surface was necessary because the tar used on the rigging above the deck dripped in hot tropical weather and was tracked by sailors' feet all over the teak decks. It became "traditional" in naval practice thereafter and is a very wasteful and "abusive" maintenance practice that wears down the decks and accelerates the need to replace decks.) As fiberglass boats were built in quantity on speculation and had to sit at the brokers' docks, sometimes for considerable time, until they were sold, varnished mahogany trim required regular maintenance of drying with a chamois and sanding and re-varnishing on a regular basis.  The fiberglass boat manufacturers then began using bare teak for outboard trim on their vessels and marketed it as "highest quality." That's really how things like teak cap rails and grab rails became universal on fiberglass boats from the 'seventies on.
 
 

It’s my understanding that Douglas Fir was used for the masts on the large American Schooners built in the early 1900’s.  It was shipped all the way from the Pacific NW to shipyards in Maine on special Railroad cars.  These masts were made from a “single stick,” not built up.
 
Chapelle writes that the RN refers to American “fir built frigates,” not a complimentary term.  On the other hand, it is well known that The US Navy used Live Oak shipped from Southern States to Northern shipyards for structural members, so I don’t know what the RN is referring to
 
It would seem to me that Teak would not have made an appearance until the Nineteenth Century when the British began to build vessels in Indian shipyards. I have a 2”x 4” piece of Teak that I bought many years ago during a business trip to Taiwan.  In it’s uncut state it a light brown.  I don’t know what it would look like if it were to be exposed to weather and wet sanded on a daily basis (holystoned).  It certainly is not a candidate for a ship modeling wood.  It has a coarse distinct grain and an oily texture.  It works great for glass cases as it is very easy to finish.
 
Roger
 
 

The deck appears to be a veneer product made by Teak Decking Systems ("TDS" - World's Premier Teak Decking by Teakdecking Systems — Teakdecking Systems) The structural deck would be welded steel, TDS is laid out on a sheet of plywood and then the teak veneer is glued to the plywood in the configuration designed and shipped out of the factory as an exactly cut prefabricated sheet. (Note the absence of fastener plugs in the teak deck planks.) What you are looking at in the pictures is a modern "faux" laid teak deck, not a real one. I don't know how the original deck was laid out, exactly. It was probably much thicker (and wider) teak planking bolted to the deck beams or through the steel plate deck, then caulked and it was probably laid out to coincide with the bases of the deck furniture. The modern layout and narrow strakes of the restoration planking are an anachronism.  Quality teak in sizes suitable for "old school" deck planking is virtually unobtainable today, which probably explains the decision not to replicate the original teak decking. 

I'm a "woodie," too. I also followed Gerald's build and was in awe of his jigs. He must have spent a tremendous amount of time conceiving, designing, and building them. That man was a genius, for sure. His Techniques of Ship Modeling is one of the best books on the subject that I've ever seen. I go back for a re-read every so often, along with Underhill's modeling technique books, just to refresh my memory. Looking back on his build log, though, I see where all of his links to his own website are now dead. Apparently, nobody maintained them after his passing and all of it is probably lost, including things like the plans for his jigs. Sigh. 
 

Being as Cangarda is blind-riveted, there would be little point in not painting it, would there? Then again, there were some pretty spectacular builder's models of early 1900's metal steamships which were built of wood and finished "bright" with all hardware of yellow metal (sometimes even gold-plated.)
 

 

 
https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/media/cangarda-as-found.97579/
 
Or, build it all of copper and brass and leave unfinished:
 

 
 
 
 
 

One thing's for sure, they need to brush up on their flag etiquette and strike that yacht signal from the stern staff. That place of honor is reserved for the national ensign only.
 

 
Then, later, here she is flying the British "Blue Duster" in Canadian waters.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ensign
 

 
And in 2011 in Brockville, Canada, flying an outdated (of 1957-1965) Canadian ensign, the "Blue Duster" with  Canadian of defacement. (As of 1965, the Canadian ensign is the red and white "maple leaf" national flag.)
 

 
So, as for a home port, perhaps she has none and sails hither and yon under false "flags of convenience." (See: https://naylorlaw.com/blog/flag-of-convenience/) Might she be switching national registries to keep one step ahead of the taxman? That could arguably make her a pirate, raising the question of whether MSW would condone a build log for a model of a pirated ship or whether its prohibition only extends to pirated models of ships.     

Ditto! Lovely as they are, we really have more than enough models of warships from the Age of Sail. For too long, modelers, and kit designers, have overlooked the rich history of and abundant information about inshore working craft as modeling subjects. I should think such boats would be a rich vein to mine for a model kit designer because they are of a size which permits the portrayal of rich detail at large scale while, at the same time, producing a model small enough to display in a home smaller than an English manor house.
 
I anticipate this will be a valuable building log. 

As a practical matter, there isn't any greater risk of wood warping due to humidity changes if left bare rather than being coated with any sort of moisture barrier. (The expansion of wood due to temperature changes is negligible, if not purely theoretical.) Wood expands and contracts as it absorbs or expels moisture. If the wood has been properly dried and stabilized before it is worked, and the model is kept indoors where the humidity is relatively stable (i.e. not in a bathroom used for long hot steamy showers,) it should be no more prone to warping than any other piece of wood in the building. "Sealing" wood is often misunderstood. There is no practical way to completely control the movement of wood as the ambient humidity fluctuates, but if its moisture content has stabilized when worked it won't move enough to notice or to damage the structure built with it. (Grown wood off the tree needs to be air-dried for a year per inch of thickness of the lumber, or kiln-dried to reach an acceptable moisture content for the species, before being worked.) Coatings can protect against a spilled drink or a wet sponging, but there isn't any way to completely prevent moisture from "doing its thing." Humidity, like the water it is, "will always seek its lowest level." (Pascal's Principle) All that coatings can do is slow that process and perhaps reduce the extent of absorption in fluctuating humidity cycles. Actually, few coatings, even epoxies, are truly moisture-impermeable. (Surprisingly, one of the more effective moisture barriers is good old shellac, a property which causes it to be used to insulate fine wire in electrical coils even today.) You don't want to store a ship model in a wet basement anyway.
 
I don't believe there is any great advantage to putting any coating on a model built of a fine wood species that you want to present as bare wood. The natural appearance of the wood itself should be all that is required. On lesser grade wood species which will probably require staining in any event, however, a light coating of an oil, shellac, or matte coating is a good thing for appearances' sake if not overdone. It won't prevent the wood from moving with changes in humidity, though. Here again, it's a matter of taste. If you want the bare wood on your ship model to look like the real thing from a scale viewing distance, it should have a matte appearance. If you want it to look like fine hand-rubbed furniture, then, by all means, finish it like fine finished furniture. These are artistic decisions for each modeler to make as they find appropriate to each particular model.
 
One thing to remember is that in model building, as with full-size wooden boat building, wooden parts move relative to their size and the direction of that movement is primarily across the grain, not with the grain. (This property in vertical grain planking is what makes carvel planking seams swell tightly and become watertight and plain sawn planking swell against the adjacent lapping plank in lapstrake planking.) It's the soft wood between the harder "rings" that absorbs the most moisture and swells the most. Very few wood species swell much at all in length. The larger a piece of wood is, the more it will swell and shrink. Models, being made of a lot of very small pieces of wood, aren't prone to moving much at all, but improper grain orientation, particularly in large parts in the structure, can cause structural problems at times if humidity extremes are encountered. 
 
I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I favor leaving wood that I want to portray bare wood (e.g. decks) to remain bare, or at least appear so, given the frequent need for staining and weathering. At most, I give bare wood a single coat of thin white shellac for protection from staining from handling and ease of future cleaning. I suppose we have the Admiralty to thank for the fashion of bright (unpainted) wood in ship model  kit hulls these days, but, aside from displaying the intricate framing and planking of a fully-framed Navy Board style hull, I don't see a lot of point to leaving hulls bare, or even building them "plank on frame" or "plank on bulkhead at all. (It's my guess the kit manufacturers favor planking because they can pack the kit in smaller and lighter boxes that way.) A "bread and butter" hull glued up of "lifts" or even a carved solid hull, is a lot faster and easier to build than hanging plank if you're not going to show bare wood. But I suppose that's a story for another night.  

What is it that you wish to accomplish by applying a finish to your pear wood? Preventing it's darkening will pose insurmountable challenges. Applying oil will darken most woods to one degree or another upon application, of course. (It's not a matter of applying the oil thinly with a rag. The oil soaks into the wood, rather than staying on the surface.) Regardless of what you might put on it, all wood will darken over time from the polymerization of polyphenols from lignin into tannins which are dark red or brown in color when they are highly polymerized. The specific content of the lignin in different woods affect the density, strength and color of the wood. Cherry wood, for example, may darken so quickly that care has to be taken in large jobs to keep the stock covered to prevent uneven darkening before the job is finished so the color tone will match across the entire job. Osage orange wood goes from bright yellow to dark brown. Pear also darkens noticeably. This darkening is favored in some woods which become more beautiful as they age, Honduras mahogany, cherry, and walnut, for example. Indeed, stains and dyes are used primarily to mimic the appearance of fine aged woods, which they accomplish well in the short term to the unpracticed eye, but destroy the potential of the later greater beauty of naturally aged wood pieces. Such finishes will also accentuate the figuring in some woods, of course, but that's the last thing desired in a scale model.
 
This natural darkening process is primarily a function of exposure to UV radiation and oxygen. The darkening effects of oxygen can be reduced, but not totally eliminated, by applying some sort of barrier coat fully encapsulating the wood, clear shellac being one of the most effective which is otherwise invisible when thinly applied, but the problem is that the majority of the natural darkening is the result of sunlight, rather than oxygen, so clear shellac is only of limited effectiveness. If you keep your model in a darkened environment, as seen in many museums for conservation purposes, you can slow the visible effects of the wood's aging from UV exposure. Otherwise, one would have to opt for a marine spar varnish with UV inhibiting additives, which are themselves only partially effective. However, the effectiveness of varnish with UV inhibitors increases with the thickness of the coating (eight coats being the industry standard) and, obviously, thick coats of varnish aren't what anyone would desire on a model where the thickness of the coating would destroy sharp detail. Spar varnish is also a glossy finish, so it would have to be hand-rubbed to a matte finish on a model, have a flattening agent added to it, or be top-coated with a clear matte finish. (I know of no "satin" varnish marketed which contains UV inhibitors.)
 
Bottom line, preventing the natural darkening of the pear wood in your model over time really isn't possible. If you feel it is necessary to seal the bare wood for some reason, maybe out of concern from accidental staining or to make cleaning easier (although a good case is a better investment in that respect,) a very thin coating of shellac or clear lacquer preferably sprayed on (to minimize the thickness of the coating film) is the alternative. 
 
While I realize others' mileage may vary, I would not advise the use of "rattle can" aerosol spray coatings for fine modeling work. Canned spray paint always poses the risk of a "nozzle spit" ruining the job, the plastic nozzles don't permit adjusting the shape of the spray or the amount of coating material applied, often resulting in thicker coating in corners and thinner on edges, and the color selection is limited to what's on the shelf. Canned spray paint is also extremely expensive. A good brush and properly conditioned paint applied in multiple thin coats is, in my opinion, a far better option if you don't have an airbrush. While an airbrush requires a bit of a learning curve, its use isn't daunting. I realize the expense of buying an airbrushing rig may seem beyond the budget of some, but the flexibility, results, and time savings an airbrush provides is not an unreasonable investment in one's modeling hobby and an expensive top of the line airbrush, while nice to have, isn't an essential requirement for basic modeling work. If you invest in an airbrush, I think you'll find painting a model with a "rattle can" was a lot like driving a tack with a sledge hammer. 
 
 

All you really need to know about shellac is that it is an organic resinous material that dries hard and is soluble in alcohol. It comes in a range of shades from clear ("white shellac,") which is bleached, and shades of orange through dark brown. It is most easily bought premixed in pint or quart cans. It can be thinned as needed. Mixed shellac is designated by the "cut" expressed in pounds, that being one pound of shellac flakes to one gallon of alcohol is a  '"one pound cut." It's safe and easy to use. Out of the can, it is the consistency of water and will soak into bare wood as water would and dry with a flat finish. Additional coats will build in thickness and yield a glossy finish which can be hand-rubbed down with fine sandpaper, steel wool, or a Scotch-brite pad to knock the gloss off.
 
Any alcohol-soluble dye, stain, or coloring can be added to shellac. Given that alcohol mixes well with water, I'd expect even water colors might work to color the alcohol. To give you an idea of how shellac behaves with coloring additives, India ink is simply thin shellac with lamp black or some other black pigment added. 
 
If I were you, I'd experiment before putting colored shellac on a finished model, of course, but I'd also consider applying a stain or dye to the bare wood first and then to apply clear shellac over it, rather than trying to get the color into the shellac first.
 

Glad to see your surgery was a success and you're back at your bench. Your work is truly and inspiration. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Syren Ship Model Company immediately springs to mind.  https://syrenshipmodelcompany.com/

As a practical matter, there isn't any greater risk of wood warping due to humidity changes if left bare rather than being coated with any sort of moisture barrier. (The expansion of wood due to temperature changes is negligible, if not purely theoretical.) Wood expands and contracts as it absorbs or expels moisture. If the wood has been properly dried and stabilized before it is worked, and the model is kept indoors where the humidity is relatively stable (i.e. not in a bathroom used for long hot steamy showers,) it should be no more prone to warping than any other piece of wood in the building. "Sealing" wood is often misunderstood. There is no practical way to completely control the movement of wood as the ambient humidity fluctuates, but if its moisture content has stabilized when worked it won't move enough to notice or to damage the structure built with it. (Grown wood off the tree needs to be air-dried for a year per inch of thickness of the lumber, or kiln-dried to reach an acceptable moisture content for the species, before being worked.) Coatings can protect against a spilled drink or a wet sponging, but there isn't any way to completely prevent moisture from "doing its thing." Humidity, like the water it is, "will always seek its lowest level." (Pascal's Principle) All that coatings can do is slow that process and perhaps reduce the extent of absorption in fluctuating humidity cycles. Actually, few coatings, even epoxies, are truly moisture-impermeable. (Surprisingly, one of the more effective moisture barriers is good old shellac, a property which causes it to be used to insulate fine wire in electrical coils even today.) You don't want to store a ship model in a wet basement anyway.
 
I don't believe there is any great advantage to putting any coating on a model built of a fine wood species that you want to present as bare wood. The natural appearance of the wood itself should be all that is required. On lesser grade wood species which will probably require staining in any event, however, a light coating of an oil, shellac, or matte coating is a good thing for appearances' sake if not overdone. It won't prevent the wood from moving with changes in humidity, though. Here again, it's a matter of taste. If you want the bare wood on your ship model to look like the real thing from a scale viewing distance, it should have a matte appearance. If you want it to look like fine hand-rubbed furniture, then, by all means, finish it like fine finished furniture. These are artistic decisions for each modeler to make as they find appropriate to each particular model.
 
One thing to remember is that in model building, as with full-size wooden boat building, wooden parts move relative to their size and the direction of that movement is primarily across the grain, not with the grain. (This property in vertical grain planking is what makes carvel planking seams swell tightly and become watertight and plain sawn planking swell against the adjacent lapping plank in lapstrake planking.) It's the soft wood between the harder "rings" that absorbs the most moisture and swells the most. Very few wood species swell much at all in length. The larger a piece of wood is, the more it will swell and shrink. Models, being made of a lot of very small pieces of wood, aren't prone to moving much at all, but improper grain orientation, particularly in large parts in the structure, can cause structural problems at times if humidity extremes are encountered. 
 
I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I favor leaving wood that I want to portray bare wood (e.g. decks) to remain bare, or at least appear so, given the frequent need for staining and weathering. At most, I give bare wood a single coat of thin white shellac for protection from staining from handling and ease of future cleaning. I suppose we have the Admiralty to thank for the fashion of bright (unpainted) wood in ship model  kit hulls these days, but, aside from displaying the intricate framing and planking of a fully-framed Navy Board style hull, I don't see a lot of point to leaving hulls bare, or even building them "plank on frame" or "plank on bulkhead at all. (It's my guess the kit manufacturers favor planking because they can pack the kit in smaller and lighter boxes that way.) A "bread and butter" hull glued up of "lifts" or even a carved solid hull, is a lot faster and easier to build than hanging plank if you're not going to show bare wood. But I suppose that's a story for another night.  

What is it that you wish to accomplish by applying a finish to your pear wood? Preventing it's darkening will pose insurmountable challenges. Applying oil will darken most woods to one degree or another upon application, of course. (It's not a matter of applying the oil thinly with a rag. The oil soaks into the wood, rather than staying on the surface.) Regardless of what you might put on it, all wood will darken over time from the polymerization of polyphenols from lignin into tannins which are dark red or brown in color when they are highly polymerized. The specific content of the lignin in different woods affect the density, strength and color of the wood. Cherry wood, for example, may darken so quickly that care has to be taken in large jobs to keep the stock covered to prevent uneven darkening before the job is finished so the color tone will match across the entire job. Osage orange wood goes from bright yellow to dark brown. Pear also darkens noticeably. This darkening is favored in some woods which become more beautiful as they age, Honduras mahogany, cherry, and walnut, for example. Indeed, stains and dyes are used primarily to mimic the appearance of fine aged woods, which they accomplish well in the short term to the unpracticed eye, but destroy the potential of the later greater beauty of naturally aged wood pieces. Such finishes will also accentuate the figuring in some woods, of course, but that's the last thing desired in a scale model.
 
This natural darkening process is primarily a function of exposure to UV radiation and oxygen. The darkening effects of oxygen can be reduced, but not totally eliminated, by applying some sort of barrier coat fully encapsulating the wood, clear shellac being one of the most effective which is otherwise invisible when thinly applied, but the problem is that the majority of the natural darkening is the result of sunlight, rather than oxygen, so clear shellac is only of limited effectiveness. If you keep your model in a darkened environment, as seen in many museums for conservation purposes, you can slow the visible effects of the wood's aging from UV exposure. Otherwise, one would have to opt for a marine spar varnish with UV inhibiting additives, which are themselves only partially effective. However, the effectiveness of varnish with UV inhibitors increases with the thickness of the coating (eight coats being the industry standard) and, obviously, thick coats of varnish aren't what anyone would desire on a model where the thickness of the coating would destroy sharp detail. Spar varnish is also a glossy finish, so it would have to be hand-rubbed to a matte finish on a model, have a flattening agent added to it, or be top-coated with a clear matte finish. (I know of no "satin" varnish marketed which contains UV inhibitors.)
 
Bottom line, preventing the natural darkening of the pear wood in your model over time really isn't possible. If you feel it is necessary to seal the bare wood for some reason, maybe out of concern from accidental staining or to make cleaning easier (although a good case is a better investment in that respect,) a very thin coating of shellac or clear lacquer preferably sprayed on (to minimize the thickness of the coating film) is the alternative. 
 
While I realize others' mileage may vary, I would not advise the use of "rattle can" aerosol spray coatings for fine modeling work. Canned spray paint always poses the risk of a "nozzle spit" ruining the job, the plastic nozzles don't permit adjusting the shape of the spray or the amount of coating material applied, often resulting in thicker coating in corners and thinner on edges, and the color selection is limited to what's on the shelf. Canned spray paint is also extremely expensive. A good brush and properly conditioned paint applied in multiple thin coats is, in my opinion, a far better option if you don't have an airbrush. While an airbrush requires a bit of a learning curve, its use isn't daunting. I realize the expense of buying an airbrushing rig may seem beyond the budget of some, but the flexibility, results, and time savings an airbrush provides is not an unreasonable investment in one's modeling hobby and an expensive top of the line airbrush, while nice to have, isn't an essential requirement for basic modeling work. If you invest in an airbrush, I think you'll find painting a model with a "rattle can" was a lot like driving a tack with a sledge hammer. 
 
 

All you really need to know about shellac is that it is an organic resinous material that dries hard and is soluble in alcohol. It comes in a range of shades from clear ("white shellac,") which is bleached, and shades of orange through dark brown. It is most easily bought premixed in pint or quart cans. It can be thinned as needed. Mixed shellac is designated by the "cut" expressed in pounds, that being one pound of shellac flakes to one gallon of alcohol is a  '"one pound cut." It's safe and easy to use. Out of the can, it is the consistency of water and will soak into bare wood as water would and dry with a flat finish. Additional coats will build in thickness and yield a glossy finish which can be hand-rubbed down with fine sandpaper, steel wool, or a Scotch-brite pad to knock the gloss off.
 
Any alcohol-soluble dye, stain, or coloring can be added to shellac. Given that alcohol mixes well with water, I'd expect even water colors might work to color the alcohol. To give you an idea of how shellac behaves with coloring additives, India ink is simply thin shellac with lamp black or some other black pigment added. 
 
If I were you, I'd experiment before putting colored shellac on a finished model, of course, but I'd also consider applying a stain or dye to the bare wood first and then to apply clear shellac over it, rather than trying to get the color into the shellac first.
 

As a practical matter, there isn't any greater risk of wood warping due to humidity changes if left bare rather than being coated with any sort of moisture barrier. (The expansion of wood due to temperature changes is negligible, if not purely theoretical.) Wood expands and contracts as it absorbs or expels moisture. If the wood has been properly dried and stabilized before it is worked, and the model is kept indoors where the humidity is relatively stable (i.e. not in a bathroom used for long hot steamy showers,) it should be no more prone to warping than any other piece of wood in the building. "Sealing" wood is often misunderstood. There is no practical way to completely control the movement of wood as the ambient humidity fluctuates, but if its moisture content has stabilized when worked it won't move enough to notice or to damage the structure built with it. (Grown wood off the tree needs to be air-dried for a year per inch of thickness of the lumber, or kiln-dried to reach an acceptable moisture content for the species, before being worked.) Coatings can protect against a spilled drink or a wet sponging, but there isn't any way to completely prevent moisture from "doing its thing." Humidity, like the water it is, "will always seek its lowest level." (Pascal's Principle) All that coatings can do is slow that process and perhaps reduce the extent of absorption in fluctuating humidity cycles. Actually, few coatings, even epoxies, are truly moisture-impermeable. (Surprisingly, one of the more effective moisture barriers is good old shellac, a property which causes it to be used to insulate fine wire in electrical coils even today.) You don't want to store a ship model in a wet basement anyway.
 
I don't believe there is any great advantage to putting any coating on a model built of a fine wood species that you want to present as bare wood. The natural appearance of the wood itself should be all that is required. On lesser grade wood species which will probably require staining in any event, however, a light coating of an oil, shellac, or matte coating is a good thing for appearances' sake if not overdone. It won't prevent the wood from moving with changes in humidity, though. Here again, it's a matter of taste. If you want the bare wood on your ship model to look like the real thing from a scale viewing distance, it should have a matte appearance. If you want it to look like fine hand-rubbed furniture, then, by all means, finish it like fine finished furniture. These are artistic decisions for each modeler to make as they find appropriate to each particular model.
 
One thing to remember is that in model building, as with full-size wooden boat building, wooden parts move relative to their size and the direction of that movement is primarily across the grain, not with the grain. (This property in vertical grain planking is what makes carvel planking seams swell tightly and become watertight and plain sawn planking swell against the adjacent lapping plank in lapstrake planking.) It's the soft wood between the harder "rings" that absorbs the most moisture and swells the most. Very few wood species swell much at all in length. The larger a piece of wood is, the more it will swell and shrink. Models, being made of a lot of very small pieces of wood, aren't prone to moving much at all, but improper grain orientation, particularly in large parts in the structure, can cause structural problems at times if humidity extremes are encountered. 
 
I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I favor leaving wood that I want to portray bare wood (e.g. decks) to remain bare, or at least appear so, given the frequent need for staining and weathering. At most, I give bare wood a single coat of thin white shellac for protection from staining from handling and ease of future cleaning. I suppose we have the Admiralty to thank for the fashion of bright (unpainted) wood in ship model  kit hulls these days, but, aside from displaying the intricate framing and planking of a fully-framed Navy Board style hull, I don't see a lot of point to leaving hulls bare, or even building them "plank on frame" or "plank on bulkhead at all. (It's my guess the kit manufacturers favor planking because they can pack the kit in smaller and lighter boxes that way.) A "bread and butter" hull glued up of "lifts" or even a carved solid hull, is a lot faster and easier to build than hanging plank if you're not going to show bare wood. But I suppose that's a story for another night.  

What is it that you wish to accomplish by applying a finish to your pear wood? Preventing it's darkening will pose insurmountable challenges. Applying oil will darken most woods to one degree or another upon application, of course. (It's not a matter of applying the oil thinly with a rag. The oil soaks into the wood, rather than staying on the surface.) Regardless of what you might put on it, all wood will darken over time from the polymerization of polyphenols from lignin into tannins which are dark red or brown in color when they are highly polymerized. The specific content of the lignin in different woods affect the density, strength and color of the wood. Cherry wood, for example, may darken so quickly that care has to be taken in large jobs to keep the stock covered to prevent uneven darkening before the job is finished so the color tone will match across the entire job. Osage orange wood goes from bright yellow to dark brown. Pear also darkens noticeably. This darkening is favored in some woods which become more beautiful as they age, Honduras mahogany, cherry, and walnut, for example. Indeed, stains and dyes are used primarily to mimic the appearance of fine aged woods, which they accomplish well in the short term to the unpracticed eye, but destroy the potential of the later greater beauty of naturally aged wood pieces. Such finishes will also accentuate the figuring in some woods, of course, but that's the last thing desired in a scale model.
 
This natural darkening process is primarily a function of exposure to UV radiation and oxygen. The darkening effects of oxygen can be reduced, but not totally eliminated, by applying some sort of barrier coat fully encapsulating the wood, clear shellac being one of the most effective which is otherwise invisible when thinly applied, but the problem is that the majority of the natural darkening is the result of sunlight, rather than oxygen, so clear shellac is only of limited effectiveness. If you keep your model in a darkened environment, as seen in many museums for conservation purposes, you can slow the visible effects of the wood's aging from UV exposure. Otherwise, one would have to opt for a marine spar varnish with UV inhibiting additives, which are themselves only partially effective. However, the effectiveness of varnish with UV inhibitors increases with the thickness of the coating (eight coats being the industry standard) and, obviously, thick coats of varnish aren't what anyone would desire on a model where the thickness of the coating would destroy sharp detail. Spar varnish is also a glossy finish, so it would have to be hand-rubbed to a matte finish on a model, have a flattening agent added to it, or be top-coated with a clear matte finish. (I know of no "satin" varnish marketed which contains UV inhibitors.)
 
Bottom line, preventing the natural darkening of the pear wood in your model over time really isn't possible. If you feel it is necessary to seal the bare wood for some reason, maybe out of concern from accidental staining or to make cleaning easier (although a good case is a better investment in that respect,) a very thin coating of shellac or clear lacquer preferably sprayed on (to minimize the thickness of the coating film) is the alternative. 
 
While I realize others' mileage may vary, I would not advise the use of "rattle can" aerosol spray coatings for fine modeling work. Canned spray paint always poses the risk of a "nozzle spit" ruining the job, the plastic nozzles don't permit adjusting the shape of the spray or the amount of coating material applied, often resulting in thicker coating in corners and thinner on edges, and the color selection is limited to what's on the shelf. Canned spray paint is also extremely expensive. A good brush and properly conditioned paint applied in multiple thin coats is, in my opinion, a far better option if you don't have an airbrush. While an airbrush requires a bit of a learning curve, its use isn't daunting. I realize the expense of buying an airbrushing rig may seem beyond the budget of some, but the flexibility, results, and time savings an airbrush provides is not an unreasonable investment in one's modeling hobby and an expensive top of the line airbrush, while nice to have, isn't an essential requirement for basic modeling work. If you invest in an airbrush, I think you'll find painting a model with a "rattle can" was a lot like driving a tack with a sledge hammer. 
 
 

As a practical matter, there isn't any greater risk of wood warping due to humidity changes if left bare rather than being coated with any sort of moisture barrier. (The expansion of wood due to temperature changes is negligible, if not purely theoretical.) Wood expands and contracts as it absorbs or expels moisture. If the wood has been properly dried and stabilized before it is worked, and the model is kept indoors where the humidity is relatively stable (i.e. not in a bathroom used for long hot steamy showers,) it should be no more prone to warping than any other piece of wood in the building. "Sealing" wood is often misunderstood. There is no practical way to completely control the movement of wood as the ambient humidity fluctuates, but if its moisture content has stabilized when worked it won't move enough to notice or to damage the structure built with it. (Grown wood off the tree needs to be air-dried for a year per inch of thickness of the lumber, or kiln-dried to reach an acceptable moisture content for the species, before being worked.) Coatings can protect against a spilled drink or a wet sponging, but there isn't any way to completely prevent moisture from "doing its thing." Humidity, like the water it is, "will always seek its lowest level." (Pascal's Principle) All that coatings can do is slow that process and perhaps reduce the extent of absorption in fluctuating humidity cycles. Actually, few coatings, even epoxies, are truly moisture-impermeable. (Surprisingly, one of the more effective moisture barriers is good old shellac, a property which causes it to be used to insulate fine wire in electrical coils even today.) You don't want to store a ship model in a wet basement anyway.
 
I don't believe there is any great advantage to putting any coating on a model built of a fine wood species that you want to present as bare wood. The natural appearance of the wood itself should be all that is required. On lesser grade wood species which will probably require staining in any event, however, a light coating of an oil, shellac, or matte coating is a good thing for appearances' sake if not overdone. It won't prevent the wood from moving with changes in humidity, though. Here again, it's a matter of taste. If you want the bare wood on your ship model to look like the real thing from a scale viewing distance, it should have a matte appearance. If you want it to look like fine hand-rubbed furniture, then, by all means, finish it like fine finished furniture. These are artistic decisions for each modeler to make as they find appropriate to each particular model.
 
One thing to remember is that in model building, as with full-size wooden boat building, wooden parts move relative to their size and the direction of that movement is primarily across the grain, not with the grain. (This property in vertical grain planking is what makes carvel planking seams swell tightly and become watertight and plain sawn planking swell against the adjacent lapping plank in lapstrake planking.) It's the soft wood between the harder "rings" that absorbs the most moisture and swells the most. Very few wood species swell much at all in length. The larger a piece of wood is, the more it will swell and shrink. Models, being made of a lot of very small pieces of wood, aren't prone to moving much at all, but improper grain orientation, particularly in large parts in the structure, can cause structural problems at times if humidity extremes are encountered. 
 
I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I favor leaving wood that I want to portray bare wood (e.g. decks) to remain bare, or at least appear so, given the frequent need for staining and weathering. At most, I give bare wood a single coat of thin white shellac for protection from staining from handling and ease of future cleaning. I suppose we have the Admiralty to thank for the fashion of bright (unpainted) wood in ship model  kit hulls these days, but, aside from displaying the intricate framing and planking of a fully-framed Navy Board style hull, I don't see a lot of point to leaving hulls bare, or even building them "plank on frame" or "plank on bulkhead at all. (It's my guess the kit manufacturers favor planking because they can pack the kit in smaller and lighter boxes that way.) A "bread and butter" hull glued up of "lifts" or even a carved solid hull, is a lot faster and easier to build than hanging plank if you're not going to show bare wood. But I suppose that's a story for another night.  

As a practical matter, there isn't any greater risk of wood warping due to humidity changes if left bare rather than being coated with any sort of moisture barrier. (The expansion of wood due to temperature changes is negligible, if not purely theoretical.) Wood expands and contracts as it absorbs or expels moisture. If the wood has been properly dried and stabilized before it is worked, and the model is kept indoors where the humidity is relatively stable (i.e. not in a bathroom used for long hot steamy showers,) it should be no more prone to warping than any other piece of wood in the building. "Sealing" wood is often misunderstood. There is no practical way to completely control the movement of wood as the ambient humidity fluctuates, but if its moisture content has stabilized when worked it won't move enough to notice or to damage the structure built with it. (Grown wood off the tree needs to be air-dried for a year per inch of thickness of the lumber, or kiln-dried to reach an acceptable moisture content for the species, before being worked.) Coatings can protect against a spilled drink or a wet sponging, but there isn't any way to completely prevent moisture from "doing its thing." Humidity, like the water it is, "will always seek its lowest level." (Pascal's Principle) All that coatings can do is slow that process and perhaps reduce the extent of absorption in fluctuating humidity cycles. Actually, few coatings, even epoxies, are truly moisture-impermeable. (Surprisingly, one of the more effective moisture barriers is good old shellac, a property which causes it to be used to insulate fine wire in electrical coils even today.) You don't want to store a ship model in a wet basement anyway.
 
I don't believe there is any great advantage to putting any coating on a model built of a fine wood species that you want to present as bare wood. The natural appearance of the wood itself should be all that is required. On lesser grade wood species which will probably require staining in any event, however, a light coating of an oil, shellac, or matte coating is a good thing for appearances' sake if not overdone. It won't prevent the wood from moving with changes in humidity, though. Here again, it's a matter of taste. If you want the bare wood on your ship model to look like the real thing from a scale viewing distance, it should have a matte appearance. If you want it to look like fine hand-rubbed furniture, then, by all means, finish it like fine finished furniture. These are artistic decisions for each modeler to make as they find appropriate to each particular model.
 
One thing to remember is that in model building, as with full-size wooden boat building, wooden parts move relative to their size and the direction of that movement is primarily across the grain, not with the grain. (This property in vertical grain planking is what makes carvel planking seams swell tightly and become watertight and plain sawn planking swell against the adjacent lapping plank in lapstrake planking.) It's the soft wood between the harder "rings" that absorbs the most moisture and swells the most. Very few wood species swell much at all in length. The larger a piece of wood is, the more it will swell and shrink. Models, being made of a lot of very small pieces of wood, aren't prone to moving much at all, but improper grain orientation, particularly in large parts in the structure, can cause structural problems at times if humidity extremes are encountered. 
 
I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I favor leaving wood that I want to portray bare wood (e.g. decks) to remain bare, or at least appear so, given the frequent need for staining and weathering. At most, I give bare wood a single coat of thin white shellac for protection from staining from handling and ease of future cleaning. I suppose we have the Admiralty to thank for the fashion of bright (unpainted) wood in ship model  kit hulls these days, but, aside from displaying the intricate framing and planking of a fully-framed Navy Board style hull, I don't see a lot of point to leaving hulls bare, or even building them "plank on frame" or "plank on bulkhead at all. (It's my guess the kit manufacturers favor planking because they can pack the kit in smaller and lighter boxes that way.) A "bread and butter" hull glued up of "lifts" or even a carved solid hull, is a lot faster and easier to build than hanging plank if you're not going to show bare wood. But I suppose that's a story for another night.  

What is it that you wish to accomplish by applying a finish to your pear wood? Preventing it's darkening will pose insurmountable challenges. Applying oil will darken most woods to one degree or another upon application, of course. (It's not a matter of applying the oil thinly with a rag. The oil soaks into the wood, rather than staying on the surface.) Regardless of what you might put on it, all wood will darken over time from the polymerization of polyphenols from lignin into tannins which are dark red or brown in color when they are highly polymerized. The specific content of the lignin in different woods affect the density, strength and color of the wood. Cherry wood, for example, may darken so quickly that care has to be taken in large jobs to keep the stock covered to prevent uneven darkening before the job is finished so the color tone will match across the entire job. Osage orange wood goes from bright yellow to dark brown. Pear also darkens noticeably. This darkening is favored in some woods which become more beautiful as they age, Honduras mahogany, cherry, and walnut, for example. Indeed, stains and dyes are used primarily to mimic the appearance of fine aged woods, which they accomplish well in the short term to the unpracticed eye, but destroy the potential of the later greater beauty of naturally aged wood pieces. Such finishes will also accentuate the figuring in some woods, of course, but that's the last thing desired in a scale model.
 
This natural darkening process is primarily a function of exposure to UV radiation and oxygen. The darkening effects of oxygen can be reduced, but not totally eliminated, by applying some sort of barrier coat fully encapsulating the wood, clear shellac being one of the most effective which is otherwise invisible when thinly applied, but the problem is that the majority of the natural darkening is the result of sunlight, rather than oxygen, so clear shellac is only of limited effectiveness. If you keep your model in a darkened environment, as seen in many museums for conservation purposes, you can slow the visible effects of the wood's aging from UV exposure. Otherwise, one would have to opt for a marine spar varnish with UV inhibiting additives, which are themselves only partially effective. However, the effectiveness of varnish with UV inhibitors increases with the thickness of the coating (eight coats being the industry standard) and, obviously, thick coats of varnish aren't what anyone would desire on a model where the thickness of the coating would destroy sharp detail. Spar varnish is also a glossy finish, so it would have to be hand-rubbed to a matte finish on a model, have a flattening agent added to it, or be top-coated with a clear matte finish. (I know of no "satin" varnish marketed which contains UV inhibitors.)
 
Bottom line, preventing the natural darkening of the pear wood in your model over time really isn't possible. If you feel it is necessary to seal the bare wood for some reason, maybe out of concern from accidental staining or to make cleaning easier (although a good case is a better investment in that respect,) a very thin coating of shellac or clear lacquer preferably sprayed on (to minimize the thickness of the coating film) is the alternative. 
 
While I realize others' mileage may vary, I would not advise the use of "rattle can" aerosol spray coatings for fine modeling work. Canned spray paint always poses the risk of a "nozzle spit" ruining the job, the plastic nozzles don't permit adjusting the shape of the spray or the amount of coating material applied, often resulting in thicker coating in corners and thinner on edges, and the color selection is limited to what's on the shelf. Canned spray paint is also extremely expensive. A good brush and properly conditioned paint applied in multiple thin coats is, in my opinion, a far better option if you don't have an airbrush. While an airbrush requires a bit of a learning curve, its use isn't daunting. I realize the expense of buying an airbrushing rig may seem beyond the budget of some, but the flexibility, results, and time savings an airbrush provides is not an unreasonable investment in one's modeling hobby and an expensive top of the line airbrush, while nice to have, isn't an essential requirement for basic modeling work. If you invest in an airbrush, I think you'll find painting a model with a "rattle can" was a lot like driving a tack with a sledge hammer. 
 
 

What is it that you wish to accomplish by applying a finish to your pear wood? Preventing it's darkening will pose insurmountable challenges. Applying oil will darken most woods to one degree or another upon application, of course. (It's not a matter of applying the oil thinly with a rag. The oil soaks into the wood, rather than staying on the surface.) Regardless of what you might put on it, all wood will darken over time from the polymerization of polyphenols from lignin into tannins which are dark red or brown in color when they are highly polymerized. The specific content of the lignin in different woods affect the density, strength and color of the wood. Cherry wood, for example, may darken so quickly that care has to be taken in large jobs to keep the stock covered to prevent uneven darkening before the job is finished so the color tone will match across the entire job. Osage orange wood goes from bright yellow to dark brown. Pear also darkens noticeably. This darkening is favored in some woods which become more beautiful as they age, Honduras mahogany, cherry, and walnut, for example. Indeed, stains and dyes are used primarily to mimic the appearance of fine aged woods, which they accomplish well in the short term to the unpracticed eye, but destroy the potential of the later greater beauty of naturally aged wood pieces. Such finishes will also accentuate the figuring in some woods, of course, but that's the last thing desired in a scale model.
 
This natural darkening process is primarily a function of exposure to UV radiation and oxygen. The darkening effects of oxygen can be reduced, but not totally eliminated, by applying some sort of barrier coat fully encapsulating the wood, clear shellac being one of the most effective which is otherwise invisible when thinly applied, but the problem is that the majority of the natural darkening is the result of sunlight, rather than oxygen, so clear shellac is only of limited effectiveness. If you keep your model in a darkened environment, as seen in many museums for conservation purposes, you can slow the visible effects of the wood's aging from UV exposure. Otherwise, one would have to opt for a marine spar varnish with UV inhibiting additives, which are themselves only partially effective. However, the effectiveness of varnish with UV inhibitors increases with the thickness of the coating (eight coats being the industry standard) and, obviously, thick coats of varnish aren't what anyone would desire on a model where the thickness of the coating would destroy sharp detail. Spar varnish is also a glossy finish, so it would have to be hand-rubbed to a matte finish on a model, have a flattening agent added to it, or be top-coated with a clear matte finish. (I know of no "satin" varnish marketed which contains UV inhibitors.)
 
Bottom line, preventing the natural darkening of the pear wood in your model over time really isn't possible. If you feel it is necessary to seal the bare wood for some reason, maybe out of concern from accidental staining or to make cleaning easier (although a good case is a better investment in that respect,) a very thin coating of shellac or clear lacquer preferably sprayed on (to minimize the thickness of the coating film) is the alternative. 
 
While I realize others' mileage may vary, I would not advise the use of "rattle can" aerosol spray coatings for fine modeling work. Canned spray paint always poses the risk of a "nozzle spit" ruining the job, the plastic nozzles don't permit adjusting the shape of the spray or the amount of coating material applied, often resulting in thicker coating in corners and thinner on edges, and the color selection is limited to what's on the shelf. Canned spray paint is also extremely expensive. A good brush and properly conditioned paint applied in multiple thin coats is, in my opinion, a far better option if you don't have an airbrush. While an airbrush requires a bit of a learning curve, its use isn't daunting. I realize the expense of buying an airbrushing rig may seem beyond the budget of some, but the flexibility, results, and time savings an airbrush provides is not an unreasonable investment in one's modeling hobby and an expensive top of the line airbrush, while nice to have, isn't an essential requirement for basic modeling work. If you invest in an airbrush, I think you'll find painting a model with a "rattle can" was a lot like driving a tack with a sledge hammer.