Bob Cleek

Yes, I don't see any reason why the Byrnes drawplate can't be sharpened. All it takes is a flat surface, some fine abrasive sheet that will cut metal decently, and the patience to do the bit of handwork required (which I expect could actually be substantial if the drawplate is hardened steel as I expect the Byrnes model is. I've also used razor blades as well as hacksaw and drywall knife blades as stock to grind my own scraper shapes which works fine once you master the shaping. I use a rotary tool with a diamond burr or a metal cutting ceramic disk. It takes a careful touch, of course. l've never tried to sharpen the Artesania Latina molding scrapers. While I haven't found the need to do so as yet, I expect it would be possible, but how effective, I'm not sure. Further experimentation is in oder!  The Artesania Latina scrapers are a bit pricy and not essential for ship modeling until you run into a more complex molding shape that's required. Simple 1/8" half rounds and larger probably just as easily made with DIY scraper. Artesania Latina scrapers come into their own when the more detailed and complex trim and molding shapes that are much more difficult to grind yourself are required.

I was about to suggest to use a home-made scraper with a half-round profile, made from a piece of razor-blade to shape the shafts of the oars. You can cut the profile into an ordinary razor-blade with a diamond burr. Brake off the piece with pliers. This scraper can be held in a pin-vice that is slotted cross-wise. I have used such purpose-made scrapers for shaping very small profiles etc.

I was going to ask if this was doable and practicable so thanks for pointing this out.  My Byrnes plate has seen hundreds of passes and I wondered if it and the moulding cutters you posted can be similarly sharpened?  Heretofore I have made my own moulding cutters from stiff back razors or pieces of hack saw blade but for the price, these cutters look like a great alternative.
 
Allan

Ah ha! I know the name of that tune.  Back in the days before the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships ("DANFS") ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_American_Naval_Fighting_Ships ) was posted, in part at least, on the internet (https://www.hazegray.org/danfs/) I had acquired for free in a "junk books pile" a set of the nine-volume "Encyclopedia Britannica" of U.S. Navy ship histories and photographs going back to "day one" of the U.S. Navy less one volume. Published by the Naval Historical Center, the large and expensive, somewhat limited edition series had been out of print since 1991 and there was little chance of my ever obtaining the missing volume. Then, one day when I had some time to kill, I was perusing the stacks of the county main library which I rarely visited and I spotted a DANFS volume! Unbelievably, it was the one volume that I didn't have! I checked the card catalog and there was no listing for any DANFS volumes in the library's collection. I took the book to the head librarian and explained my situation, the fact that it appeared this volume was an "orphan," and that there was no sign of it or the rest of the set in the card catalog. Explaining my interest in maritime history, I asked her as nicely as I could if it were possible for me to buy this rather esoteric research book from the library so they could use the money to buy another book more likely to be read by the library's patrons. She looked at the volume and noted it had a library stamp and all that in it, but nobody had ever checked it out. She looked at me and said, "I have no idea where this book came from. It should have been culled from the stacks long ago. If we kept every book that came into our possession, we'd quickly run out of shelf space. Just take it. We're glad to get rid of it and I'm happy to see it go to somebody who wants it." Thanking her profusely, I walked out with a free book which, considering its value as the "missing link" to a now complete DANFS set, I would have gladly paid a fair price for!
 
I'm not so sure whether you'd be so lucky with a set that's worth close to a thousand bucks, though! You can always try. Stranger things have happened!  
 
BTW, I just ran a search on the DANFS set and there's a complete nine volume set for sale on eBay right now for a rather excellent price of $101.19 with free shipping! I'm not sure why, but there it was:  https://www.ebay.com/itm/325989377449?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1qIDhXgXvR8eXOOj6-pkOmQ61&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-213727-13078-0&mkcid=2&itemid=325989377449&targetid=4580771614098651&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=&poi=&campaignid=603247547&mkgroupid=1234752552191001&rlsatarget=pla-4580771614098651&abcId=9316119&merchantid=51291&msclkid=4c8398c3d71f1a7cd709fedb7e6913fd 
 
Note that "complete" eight volume sets were the original set. The ninth volume was an additional supplement updating additional vessels. Prices for complete sets appear to be running closer to $200 to $300, plus shipping.
 
Anybody who's interested in U.S. Navy fighting ships really shouldn't miss this opportunity. 
 
 

I have no experience with "blue mold" holly, but I've dealt quite successfully with mold on other wood species by bleaching it with a solution of oxalic or citric acid and water. Oxalic acid is sold in crystal form in paint stores as "wood bleach." (Don't buy "teak bleach" or other such products. Just get plain oxalic acid crystals marketed as "wood bleach" 'and follow the instructions on the container.) As I said, I haven't ever bleached moldy holly, but, to one degree or another, I've had success with bleaching other wood species. Oxalic acid wood bleach is relatively inexpensive, so you won't be out much if it doesn't work and you'll always have it to try on other species that you want to bleach back to "just cut" color. Do wear nitrile gloves or the equivalent when working with oxalic acid solutions. It's not particularly dangerous, but prolonged exposure to skin can cause acid burns and soaking your fingers in the stuff, which will first attack the soft flesh beneath your fingernails, but only start hurting several hours after exposure, is one of those things you'll probably only ever do once in your life. (Don't ask me how I know this!  )

Ah ha! I know the name of that tune.  Back in the days before the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships ("DANFS") ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_American_Naval_Fighting_Ships ) was posted, in part at least, on the internet (https://www.hazegray.org/danfs/) I had acquired for free in a "junk books pile" a set of the nine-volume "Encyclopedia Britannica" of U.S. Navy ship histories and photographs going back to "day one" of the U.S. Navy less one volume. Published by the Naval Historical Center, the large and expensive, somewhat limited edition series had been out of print since 1991 and there was little chance of my ever obtaining the missing volume. Then, one day when I had some time to kill, I was perusing the stacks of the county main library which I rarely visited and I spotted a DANFS volume! Unbelievably, it was the one volume that I didn't have! I checked the card catalog and there was no listing for any DANFS volumes in the library's collection. I took the book to the head librarian and explained my situation, the fact that it appeared this volume was an "orphan," and that there was no sign of it or the rest of the set in the card catalog. Explaining my interest in maritime history, I asked her as nicely as I could if it were possible for me to buy this rather esoteric research book from the library so they could use the money to buy another book more likely to be read by the library's patrons. She looked at the volume and noted it had a library stamp and all that in it, but nobody had ever checked it out. She looked at me and said, "I have no idea where this book came from. It should have been culled from the stacks long ago. If we kept every book that came into our possession, we'd quickly run out of shelf space. Just take it. We're glad to get rid of it and I'm happy to see it go to somebody who wants it." Thanking her profusely, I walked out with a free book which, considering its value as the "missing link" to a now complete DANFS set, I would have gladly paid a fair price for!
 
I'm not so sure whether you'd be so lucky with a set that's worth close to a thousand bucks, though! You can always try. Stranger things have happened!  
 
BTW, I just ran a search on the DANFS set and there's a complete nine volume set for sale on eBay right now for a rather excellent price of $101.19 with free shipping! I'm not sure why, but there it was:  https://www.ebay.com/itm/325989377449?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1qIDhXgXvR8eXOOj6-pkOmQ61&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-213727-13078-0&mkcid=2&itemid=325989377449&targetid=4580771614098651&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=&poi=&campaignid=603247547&mkgroupid=1234752552191001&rlsatarget=pla-4580771614098651&abcId=9316119&merchantid=51291&msclkid=4c8398c3d71f1a7cd709fedb7e6913fd 
 
Note that "complete" eight volume sets were the original set. The ninth volume was an additional supplement updating additional vessels. Prices for complete sets appear to be running closer to $200 to $300, plus shipping.
 
Anybody who's interested in U.S. Navy fighting ships really shouldn't miss this opportunity. 
 
 

Check your local library, they may be able to bring it in for you. Also if you have a university in your area they may have it. I have a copy of Caruana on perpetual checkout from my local university library as no-one else is ever looking for it.

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

Well, I learn something new everyday! Thanks for the clarification, guys! It makes sense that a metalworking drawplate might have a slight chamfer on the "exit" side of the plate to allow for a bit of 'wiggle room" as the wire exits the plate. I guess I've just been lucky in obtaining woodworking drawplates without knowing the difference.
 
My Byrnes drawplate is marketed as useful for making trunnels nails, but doesn't mention any further distinction regarding its use for wood or metal one way or the other. It has "(T)hirty precision holes cover the range from .016" through .059" - at 1:48 (1/4" scale) that represents full-size trunnels of 3/4" diameter through almost 2" in diameter!" The smallest holes on the Byrnes drawplate are so small as to be nearly invisible when viewed from the back ("exit") side and I had to hold it up to the light to see them without a magnifying glass. The back of the Byrnes drawplate is perfectly flat and the "exit" side of the holes aren't chamfered. Like all things "Byrnes," this drawplate is an elegantly finished tool, although I can't imagine ever needing a .016" diameter dowel, nor finding a species of wood that would draw down to such a size without breaking! (Some species of long-grained bamboo, perhaps?) 
 
The cheesy drawplate I got first from Micro-Mark has 24 holes, which are not numbered as to size. The smallest hole looks to be about the same diameter as the smallest hole on the Byrnes drawplate, but the largest hole is around .125", a bit more than twice the diameter of the largest hole in the Byrnes drawplate. Thus, the Micro-Mark drawplate provides a wider range of sizes in a fewer number of holes and therefore a much less gradual progression of hole sizes. This fact makes it a lot more difficult to use with the narrower holes because each successively sized hole takes a much larger "bite" out of the material at each step in the shaving process than a greater number of holes over the same size range which tends to encourage breakage, . The "exit" side of its holes aren't chamfered.
 
The second drawplate which I acquired, (if memory serves, on eBay,) has 83 holes running from about .125" to what looks like a couple of steps smaller than the smallest hole on the Byrnes drawplate at .016, a rather wide range of sizes with three and a half times as many holes over the same range of sizes on the Micro-Mark drawplate. This fact greatly reduces the problem of breakage characteristic of the Micro-Mark with its greater a progression between sizes. 
 
While the Byrnes drawplate is marked with wire gauge sizes for each hole, neither of my other two are. The larger drawplate I got off of eBay is better finished than the Micro-Mark drawplate and, of course, the Byrnes drawplate is impeccably machined. (I have no idea where any of their manufacturers get the bits that drill the smallest holes!) My largest drawplate is about .225" thick. The Byrnes drawplate is about .125" thick, and the Micro-Mark drawplate is about .096" thick. The Micro-Mark drawplate decidedly lacks the "heft" of the other two. 
 
Given the example of the Byrnes drawplate, I "lapped" the other two on their back ("exit") sides to "sharpen" their wood-cutting edges by taping a few abrasive sheets to the machined cast iron table of my Unisaw and took them down to a uniform surface finish of about 600 grit. This markedly improved their cutting smoothness.  
 
I have on a few occasions drawn annealed fine copper wire through these plates with acceptable results, but never having done so with a "real" metal-working drawplate I can't offer any comparisons between the two types of plates for drawing wire. I would expect that a goldsmith or silversmith would be far more demanding of the results than my limited experience permits! As much of a conclusion as I can offer from my limited experience is that a woodworking drawplate can be made to draw metal wire, albeit perhaps crudely by professional jewelers' standards, but a metalworking drawplate cannot be used to "shave" wood at all, at least not without taking the back ("exit") side of the plate down below the chamfer to the level of the sized hole alone as noted in the comments above.
 
That said, while I've found this to be so only with round-sectioned material, I doubt the same can be said for many, if not all, of the many other drawplate section shapes available for drawing wire. It certainly would be convenient to be able to get out half- and quarter-round wood trim on a drawplate, wouldn't it? I currently produce half- and quarter-round trim stock with an Artesania Latina scraper applied to the edge of a suitably-thicknessed strip of wood and then cut the shaped edge from the strip on my Byrnes table saw and have no complaints beyond the tedium of the scraping. 
 
For those unfamiliar with these handy tools, they come in three separate sets ("Set A" through "Set C") of three scrapers each. Every shape is different. Available in the U.S. from all the "usual suspects" and sometimes on eBay. Priced between USD$10.00 and USD$17.00 per set of three scrapers. Pictured below approximately "life-sized." 
 
(Note below: Not my hairy thumb!)

Note: I find it more effective to hold the scraper in a jeweler's hand vise with the vise jaws close to the working edge of the scraper. This further stiffens the scraper and gives better control of the scraper, not to mention saving wear and tear on fingertips!
 

 
 
SET "A": https://artesanialatina.net/en/micro-tools/1295-micro-moulding-scrapers-a-shapers-for-wooden-plastic-models-miniatures-8421426273007.html
 
SET"B": https://artesanialatina.net/en/micro-tools/1296-micro-moulding-scrapers-B-shapers-for-wooden-plastic-models-miniatures-8421426273014.html

SET "C": https://artesanialatina.net/en/micro-tools/62355-micro-moulding-scrapers-c-shapers-for-wooden-plastic-models-miniatures-8437021128222.html

  

Indeed, jewellers' drawplates are not suitable for reducing wood in size. I think we had this discussion already in some thread here.
 
The anatomy of an oar depends on it's use and the period. Sea-oars are rather different from the oars that are used on inland waterways. Basically, sea-oars are symmetrical, so that one can use them forward and backward. Also the diameter is round for much of the length. Likewise, the blade is quite narrow.
 
The diameter is, of course, proportionate to the length. The length depends on the breadth of the boat and whether it is single- or double-banked. For single-banked boats the length would be about three- to four-times the breadth.
 
In 1/128 scale I think it would be not so easy to make the blade and the shaft in two pieces. You would need to slot the shaft for the blade and this could be a challenge for a shaft only somewhere, say, 0.6 to 0.8 mm in diameter. I would start from a flat piece of wood (or styrene), layout the shape, cut out the shape, and then shape the shaft and blade by scraping and sanding.
 
My 1/160 scale oars where made from layer of paper blanks cut out with the laser-cutter and laminated together using varnish. They were further shaped using diamond files.

Hello,
being a master goldsmith and working with these drawplates on a day to day basis, please take into consideration that jewellers' drawplates are not designed to scrape away material. On one side the holes have a deep taper to facilitate wire to be reduced in diameter by compressing the metal (and lengthening in consequence, volume of wire remains the same), on the other side, the holes are chamfered. You'd have to grind away a considerable amount of metal from the side where the diameters of the holes are smaller to get to the point of the nominal size of the hole, their smallest diameters. Otherwise, these drawplates don't cut.

The Micro-Mark drawplate you've mentioned is insanely overpriced. If it is anything like the same item I once naively purchased from Micro-Mark ages ago, it's junk, probably made in India or Pakistan. Drawplates are not inexpensive. The decent ones are made to high tolerances of accuracy from high-quality steel, or even tungsten, but they run in the same price range, if not lower, than the crummy low-quality one Micro-Mark offers. The fact that Micro-Mark claims its "regular price" is $75.00 is ludicrous! 
 
Rule one on tool buying (which in this instance I broke, to my dismay) is to only buy a tool when you need it and then buy the best tool of that type you can possibly afford. Quality compromises will allow you to get a lesser quality tool, but in this instance, the Micro-Mark drawplate is at the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality and priced equivalent to, if not more than, professional level jeweler's drawplates sold by the top jewelers' tool supply companies. Drawplates come in various size ranges as well as a wide variety of extrusion "shapes.' You can get drawplates that will produce wire sizes with "star" shaped cross-sections, as well as squares, half-moons, diamonds, half-rounds, and so on. Obviously, a simple round shape drawplate is the easiest to make and will therefore be less expensive that the more difficult to fabricate shapes.
 
While Micro-Mark is always an entertaining catalog and their sales are sometimes quite worthwhile if you know what you are buying, the best source of quality ship modeling tools will often be found in the catalogs of professional supply houses that cater to jewelers, and in dental and medical instrument supply houses. Check out what Otto Frei, one of the largest jewelers' supply houses, has to offer: Drawplates & Drawbenches — Otto Frei Otto Frei's least expensive offerings are priced about the same as Micro-Mark's offering, and up, but you should be able to expect that you will be getting a better quality tools from them. (Rather commonly, retailers that focus on the "hobby" market, will sell lower cost, lower quality products than retailers that focus on professional customers.) There is also a plethora of jeweler's drawplates listed for sale on eBay. Of course, eBay is definitely "buyer beware country," but if you examine the listings closely and avoid buying from an Asian distributor of knock-off tools, you may find some good bargains: jeweler's drawplates for sale | eBay

I have no experience with "blue mold" holly, but I've dealt quite successfully with mold on other wood species by bleaching it with a solution of oxalic or citric acid and water. Oxalic acid is sold in crystal form in paint stores as "wood bleach." (Don't buy "teak bleach" or other such products. Just get plain oxalic acid crystals marketed as "wood bleach" 'and follow the instructions on the container.) As I said, I haven't ever bleached moldy holly, but, to one degree or another, I've had success with bleaching other wood species. Oxalic acid wood bleach is relatively inexpensive, so you won't be out much if it doesn't work and you'll always have it to try on other species that you want to bleach back to "just cut" color. Do wear nitrile gloves or the equivalent when working with oxalic acid solutions. It's not particularly dangerous, but prolonged exposure to skin can cause acid burns and soaking your fingers in the stuff, which will first attack the soft flesh beneath your fingernails, but only start hurting several hours after exposure, is one of those things you'll probably only ever do once in your life. (Don't ask me how I know this!  )

The Micro-Mark drawplate you've mentioned is insanely overpriced. If it is anything like the same item I once naively purchased from Micro-Mark ages ago, it's junk, probably made in India or Pakistan. Drawplates are not inexpensive. The decent ones are made to high tolerances of accuracy from high-quality steel, or even tungsten, but they run in the same price range, if not lower, than the crummy low-quality one Micro-Mark offers. The fact that Micro-Mark claims its "regular price" is $75.00 is ludicrous! 
 
Rule one on tool buying (which in this instance I broke, to my dismay) is to only buy a tool when you need it and then buy the best tool of that type you can possibly afford. Quality compromises will allow you to get a lesser quality tool, but in this instance, the Micro-Mark drawplate is at the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality and priced equivalent to, if not more than, professional level jeweler's drawplates sold by the top jewelers' tool supply companies. Drawplates come in various size ranges as well as a wide variety of extrusion "shapes.' You can get drawplates that will produce wire sizes with "star" shaped cross-sections, as well as squares, half-moons, diamonds, half-rounds, and so on. Obviously, a simple round shape drawplate is the easiest to make and will therefore be less expensive that the more difficult to fabricate shapes.
 
While Micro-Mark is always an entertaining catalog and their sales are sometimes quite worthwhile if you know what you are buying, the best source of quality ship modeling tools will often be found in the catalogs of professional supply houses that cater to jewelers, and in dental and medical instrument supply houses. Check out what Otto Frei, one of the largest jewelers' supply houses, has to offer: Drawplates & Drawbenches — Otto Frei Otto Frei's least expensive offerings are priced about the same as Micro-Mark's offering, and up, but you should be able to expect that you will be getting a better quality tools from them. (Rather commonly, retailers that focus on the "hobby" market, will sell lower cost, lower quality products than retailers that focus on professional customers.) There is also a plethora of jeweler's drawplates listed for sale on eBay. Of course, eBay is definitely "buyer beware country," but if you examine the listings closely and avoid buying from an Asian distributor of knock-off tools, you may find some good bargains: jeweler's drawplates for sale | eBay

I have no experience with "blue mold" holly, but I've dealt quite successfully with mold on other wood species by bleaching it with a solution of oxalic or citric acid and water. Oxalic acid is sold in crystal form in paint stores as "wood bleach." (Don't buy "teak bleach" or other such products. Just get plain oxalic acid crystals marketed as "wood bleach" 'and follow the instructions on the container.) As I said, I haven't ever bleached moldy holly, but, to one degree or another, I've had success with bleaching other wood species. Oxalic acid wood bleach is relatively inexpensive, so you won't be out much if it doesn't work and you'll always have it to try on other species that you want to bleach back to "just cut" color. Do wear nitrile gloves or the equivalent when working with oxalic acid solutions. It's not particularly dangerous, but prolonged exposure to skin can cause acid burns and soaking your fingers in the stuff, which will first attack the soft flesh beneath your fingernails, but only start hurting several hours after exposure, is one of those things you'll probably only ever do once in your life. (Don't ask me how I know this!  )

I have no experience with "blue mold" holly, but I've dealt quite successfully with mold on other wood species by bleaching it with a solution of oxalic or citric acid and water. Oxalic acid is sold in crystal form in paint stores as "wood bleach." (Don't buy "teak bleach" or other such products. Just get plain oxalic acid crystals marketed as "wood bleach" 'and follow the instructions on the container.) As I said, I haven't ever bleached moldy holly, but, to one degree or another, I've had success with bleaching other wood species. Oxalic acid wood bleach is relatively inexpensive, so you won't be out much if it doesn't work and you'll always have it to try on other species that you want to bleach back to "just cut" color. Do wear nitrile gloves or the equivalent when working with oxalic acid solutions. It's not particularly dangerous, but prolonged exposure to skin can cause acid burns and soaking your fingers in the stuff, which will first attack the soft flesh beneath your fingernails, but only start hurting several hours after exposure, is one of those things you'll probably only ever do once in your life. (Don't ask me how I know this!  )

Dan,
I have the draw plate you posted in the photo and the draw plate from Jim Byrnes.   No comparison as to quality and accuracy as the Byrnes is superior in all aspects.  I use bamboo for many things, including tree nails.  I can take most bamboo species down to 0.016" which is the equivalent of  1" at 1:64 or 0.75" at 1:48.  Bamboo skewers typically work best in my experience plus they are subtle in color in addition to being at the proper scale.  I split the skewers so they can pass through the largest diameter hole then pass the piece through each hole two or three times at a slight angle, then to the next smallest hole until I get to the diameter I need.
 
Donna Byrnes indicates accessories are available so you may be in luck.   https://www.byrnesmodelmachines.com/drawplate5.html
 
Allan

Hi Gregory
These drawings from Caruana were meant as the rigging for stowed gun rigging options, not how the breech line was secured to the rings.  The types of securing of the breech rope were as described in post #2.  My apologies for any confusion.
Allan

I don't see any detail regarding the attaching of the breech rope to the gunwale.
 
1997, maybe?  That breech rope looks decorative rather than functional.

USS Constitution 1797
 
Regards,
Henry

Lots of options including the three below.  From The History of British Sea Ordnance Volume 2, page 382.  He gives the following description of each.
 
Illustrations of breechings and gun-tackles on a 1795 pattern carriage, redrawn from Congreve's Treatise on the Mounting of sea Service Ordnance.    
Top: gun tun in.  Center: gun run out and secured.  Bottom: gun run in, secured, and housed.
Allan
 

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry. 

It wasn't until I posted the below comments that I saw Allan's post from Caruana. Fortuitously, it seems my deductions were correct. It appears that The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II need to be acquired! I was not familiar with the work. Thanks, Allan!
 
On second thought, having just looked up The History of British Sea Ordinance, volumes I and II, I'm afraid I'll just have to pass at $450 each used on eBay! Thanks again, Allan!  
***********************************************************************************************************************************
I believe it had to be a little bit of both, depending upon the size of the gun, first and foremost. As the saying goes, "Different ships, different long splices." Heavier guns had larger breaching ropes and larger rope tied through rings doesn't lend itself well to the mechanics of tying knots, so bends are the more common means of attachment. Then again, three well-done seizings will hold as well as a knot and be easier to remove that a knot that's been pulled tight by repeated jerks from a bucking cannon. For lighter guns, which will have smaller breaching ropes, they might dispense with bends entirely and just employ seizings, particularly where the rope is turned about a thimble on the ring or, as in one instance illustrated below, a thimble on a clevis pin.
 
For the purposes of modeling, the modeler may well decide that in the case of a smaller scale model, that a bend around the ring isn't a sufficiently noticeable detail to merit the work to tie them, while on the other hand, in the case of larger scales (and especially "gun station models") a proper commitment to accuracy at the finest level of detail possible will mandate that a proper bend and seizings are done.
 
The below contemporary drawing of heavy guns shows what appears, albeit unclearly, to be breaching ropes that have been bent around the ring, much as a cable was bent around an anchor stock ring with an anchor bend finished with the bitter end whipped.

In the below drawing the use of some sort of bend (an "anchor bend" it might appear) is used to secure the breaching rope to the ring in the same fashion as would a cable be fastened to an anchor stock ring with a bend and three whippings, the first being a throat seizing.

 
Here again in the below photo of a gun station on an unknown museum ship, apparently perhaps of later construction than your late 18th Century, a purpose-built toggle and clevis fitting with the clevis passing through a thimble about which the breaching rope is simply seized with a throat seizing and two common seizings. Here, the thimble precludes the bend about a ring and provides a neater, more elegant connection. 
 

 
Detail of above arrangement, albeit without a throat seizing:
 

 
Below are photos of guns rigged "for sea," rather than "for action."  (Modelers always seem to depict all their models' armament rigged for action, even to the point of all guns run out port and starboard, which would only occur on a rare occasion when the ship would be "breaking the line" and firing as her guns bore simultaneously on the enemy ships of the line to port and starboard (and to devastating effect as Nelson demonstrated at Trafalgar.) When the guns were not manned and rigged for action, they would be rigged for sea, meaning that all extraneous tackles and implements would be stowed (likely below), the barrel would be secured, more likely in the fashion shown in the first picture, than in the second, which isn't clear as to what is being used to secure the barrel, although it is not the breaching rope), and then the gun would be secured to prevent its movement on the deck in a seaway perhaps with its tackles set fast. (If the ship were sailing in any fashion which would cause her to heel when the guns were in action, the leeward guns would have to be restrained from rolling "downhill" towards the rail by their inhaul tackle, while the windward guns would have to be restrained from running backwards inboard by their outhaul or "training" tackles.) In the first picture below, however, the positioning of the gun is incorrect. In a seaway, the guns would not be stowed run out through the bulwark or through open gunports. Not only would open gunports be hazardous in a seaway (the lower deck ports often being only mere feet above the waterline) but the stability of the ship would be enhanced by bringing the weight of the guns as far inboard as possible. 
 
 

 

 

 
The above "stowed" options may warrant more research as to the exact practice common in a given navy at a given period. I included these for the sake of completeness. Although cannon depicted as rigged for sea are rarely seen on models today, they can be a lot less work to model than gun stations rigged for action and, if one must, there's always the option to combine the two conditions, with a couple of chase guns run out and perhaps two, four, or six stations rigged for action as if the larger modeled vessel were running down a much smaller quarry.