Bob Cleek

In my experience, at least, the irony is that shaping a solid hull (or stacking up a hollow "bread and butter" hull) takes a whole lot less time and work than building a POB or POF hull. Having cut my teeth on the old Model Shipways "yellow boxes," and Blue Jacket, and Marine Models solid hull kits, I couldn't agree more that they would almost be seen as 'scratch-builds" today! As the story goes, the manufacturers picked up some of the government surplus gunstock duplicating carving machines after the War and used those to shape their kit model hulls on a mass production basis. Those machines did a pretty accurate job. There wasn't a lot of need for checking shapes with a template if you had an eye for a fair shape. All many needed was just a surface sanding without the need for carved shaping, other than the stem, keel, and bulwarks which were left thick (to prevent damage in shipping, I suppose.)
 
I surely agree that there was little difference between the old pre-carved "kits" and scratch-building. All they provided that was not "scratch" were the cast metal fittings and the machine carved hull. Everything else, e.g. rigging thread, dowels, strip wood, that came in the old kits were just materials scratch-builders today buy piecemeal. What you were really paying for in the old kits were the plans and instructions and the perhaps exaggerated implied promise that anybody could build a model as good as the prototype in the photograph pasted on the end of the box.  Back in the day, it was assumed (although not disclosed in the advertising) that someone building a ship model knew a fair amount about their subject matter and in order to build a good model that knowledge was a prerequisite. The level of detail in the old plans and instructions presumed the modeler's knowledge of basic seamanship and nomenclature. Other than Underhill and Davis, available from specialty mail order houses, modeling tutorials were hard to source and the internet was decades in the future.
 
I think those of us who straddle the ship modeling kit generation gap will agree that the biggest difference modernly is that the level of general competence in the ordinary manual arts has dropped to the bottom of the barrel. Wood and metal "shop" and "mechanical drawing" aren't taught in high schools like they used to be. Relatively few younger people have woodworking skills beyond those required to assemble something out of an IKEA box. (Speaking of which, I expect today's kit manufacturers also appreciate the "knock-down" characteristics of POF and POB technology of POF which minimize shipping and warehousing costs.) Moreover, the power tool industry has convinced us all that their expensive machines are essential to produce high quality work all at the expense of the acquisition of skill in the use of hand tools which can usually do the same job at a much lower cost when employed by a skilled user. 
 
The spectacular open-framed "as built" and "Navy Board style" models certainly have their place, but for the modelers who have yet to attain the highly refined level of skill necessary to build them, solid hull models, or "laid up" "bread and butter" hulls should not be overlooked as an option in building a fine model. Kits have their place, if for no other reason than to serve as the "gateway drug" for the modeling hobby, but it's a quantuum leap from LEGO to building a fine traditional ship model, and it should be. Not everything should be "dumbed down" for consumption by the masses.

Navy vessels make poor yachts. The Navy never has to worry much about fuel costs! Then again, neither does Elon Musk.  

It looks like they have much "hihger" demands for their modeling than they do for proofreading their advertising copy!  
 
An interesting line of modeling tools, DSPIAE, appears to be a subsidiary of Meng, a relatively new Chinese plastic model kit company. See:; DSPIAE. 

Navy vessels make poor yachts. The Navy never has to worry much about fuel costs! Then again, neither does Elon Musk.  

It looks like they have much "hihger" demands for their modeling than they do for proofreading their advertising copy!  
 
An interesting line of modeling tools, DSPIAE, appears to be a subsidiary of Meng, a relatively new Chinese plastic model kit company. See:; DSPIAE. 

Mahl sticks are routinely used by sign painters. A skilled sign painter uses his mahl stick not only as a secure rest for the painter's hand, but also as a guide for the brush. By resting the heel of the brush hand on the mahl stick and moving the end of the stick in an arc, a true curve can be quickly and very accurately made. Similarly, the stick can be held in position and the brush in hand, or resting on the stick, can be moved across the painting using the mahl stick to yield a perfectly straight line.
 
Actually, I've never seen a mahl stick used such that it rested on the painted surface of the piece. The padded end of the stick could smear the work unless one waited weeks, if not months, for the oil paint to solidify. I've only ever seen the padded end of the stick placed on the working surface at the edge or margin of the work surface. (Some mahl sticks have a "hook" at one end so it can be hooked over the top edge or side edge of the canvas.) On a larger painting, the sticks can get pretty long to accomplish their use without placing the end in wet paint. Some fancy ones are even telescoping for ease of storage.
 

 
 

It’s true miniatures are popular now. I do seem to see more boat models on places like Etsy recently… but maybe that’s just because I’m looking because I like them. I did try to list my Dumas boat for $80- the kit cost $40 and I spent a week making it but no takers lol. Sorry to hear about the shop, we’re lucky to still have one locally. It is a great source of lumber too. 

Mahl sticks are routinely used by sign painters. A skilled sign painter uses his mahl stick not only as a secure rest for the painter's hand, but also as a guide for the brush. By resting the heel of the brush hand on the mahl stick and moving the end of the stick in an arc, a true curve can be quickly and very accurately made. Similarly, the stick can be held in position and the brush in hand, or resting on the stick, can be moved across the painting using the mahl stick to yield a perfectly straight line.
 
Actually, I've never seen a mahl stick used such that it rested on the painted surface of the piece. The padded end of the stick could smear the work unless one waited weeks, if not months, for the oil paint to solidify. I've only ever seen the padded end of the stick placed on the working surface at the edge or margin of the work surface. (Some mahl sticks have a "hook" at one end so it can be hooked over the top edge or side edge of the canvas.) On a larger painting, the sticks can get pretty long to accomplish their use without placing the end in wet paint. Some fancy ones are even telescoping for ease of storage.
 

 
 

There is a shop note - I have not saved the author's name or journal reference - but he got a much longer life from his disks by coating one side with epoxy glue - I think the watery clear flavor epoxy.

My mind is still dwelling on this, crazy huh?
Another cutting method might be a very thin cutoff disk in a dermal tool? 
I have some of these disks, very thin and quite fragile. But they cut beautifully. 
I'll check the name and post it.

there is the same thing  in art painting and it is called painter mahl stick

Navy vessels make poor yachts. The Navy never has to worry much about fuel costs! Then again, neither does Elon Musk.  

I made myself one of these (I'll photograph it tomorrow).
Making your own gives the scope to taylor to your need. Both hands free.
https://www.cousinsuk.com/product/bench-armrest-device-bergeon-swiss

I've always envied the doll house miniatures modelers. They seem to have a strong market for their finished models. Unfortunately, with ship models, not so much.  We used to have one of the largest "brick and mortar" doll house miniatures stores (with a big mail order business, as well,) in the town where I lived. I used to get a lot of ship modeling "miniature lumber" there. Sadly, they didn't survive the Pandemic and went out of business. 

I've always envied the doll house miniatures modelers. They seem to have a strong market for their finished models. Unfortunately, with ship models, not so much.  We used to have one of the largest "brick and mortar" doll house miniatures stores (with a big mail order business, as well,) in the town where I lived. I used to get a lot of ship modeling "miniature lumber" there. Sadly, they didn't survive the Pandemic and went out of business. 

It looks like they have much "hihger" demands for their modeling than they do for proofreading their advertising copy!  
 
An interesting line of modeling tools, DSPIAE, appears to be a subsidiary of Meng, a relatively new Chinese plastic model kit company. See:; DSPIAE. 

It looks like they have much "hihger" demands for their modeling than they do for proofreading their advertising copy!  
 
An interesting line of modeling tools, DSPIAE, appears to be a subsidiary of Meng, a relatively new Chinese plastic model kit company. See:; DSPIAE. 

It looks like they have much "hihger" demands for their modeling than they do for proofreading their advertising copy!  
 
An interesting line of modeling tools, DSPIAE, appears to be a subsidiary of Meng, a relatively new Chinese plastic model kit company. See:; DSPIAE. 

I have set for myself, rigid requirements for Navy Board framing:
It should not be used for a model of any ship built after 1719.  The first seriously enforced Establishments seems to be the 1719.
Some here are disturbingly fast and loose about what is meant by Navy Board or even Admiralty.
Navy Board is the late 17th century stylized framing method.  Franklin wrote the definitive book exploring Navy Board and its variations.
When it came out, the St. Philippe monograph blew my socks off.  It is one of the few ships with reliable plans and is of the proper era.
As an aside,  I think that Navy Board framing was developed to provide three proof diagonals for a proposed design. Proof diagonals that were 3D and easily understood by the royals in charge but who were unschooled in the art. 
I did a series of station sandwich trials of various framing styles.  It did it 1:120 for speed and material economy.
 
The all bends with a narrow space between - no way would I entertain the insane table joints at the midline of a bend - back on point - is too timber wall like.
 
The Navy Board framing revealed two serious penalties with this style.   To get the solid belt at the turn of the bilge:
The floor - which is a formidable and expensive timber  with conventional framing -  becomes unreasonably large.  For there to be the solid belts, each end must turn up like the horns of a longhorn bull.  It is much longer and has two reverse curves.  The waste is almost as bad as with the Hahn method but the stock must be significantly wider than is used with Hahn.  I can't justify it.
Futtock 1 -  although it is actually F1 and F3 -  it goes from above the wale to well below the turn of the bilge.  It is long - really long - and it defines an arc of near 90 degrees.  It also needs wide stock and produces and lot of waste  - close packing of patterns is difficult to do.
 
I developed a compromise that has the solid belt and looks like Navy Board at first glace.  The difference is that the spaces are all in the F1 frame.   The floor is its normal 60% of beam length.  F2 butts against the floor.  It is longer than a normal F2, but it starts at the turn of the bilge so the arc is much less.  I place a piece of timber that overlaps (scarphs) the floor to F2 joint that is the width of the solid belt of Navy Board.
I named it Navall timber framing.   The original navall timber was a free floating timber that started about halfway up the floor and overlapped the lower half of F2.  It was between two floors but did not touch either one.  Times passes and the navall timber evolves to be F1.   In Navall timber framing as I have designed it, the timber is too long to be a chock but too short to be a futtock 1.  Naming it a navall timber works for me even though it does bond to the floor on either side.
 
I have framed a 1:60 hull of HMS Centurion 1732 using Navall Timber Framing.   I have the bow framed also.  I am well into the stern framing, but it is really a bear to do.  But right now, my Muse has been gone for a while.  It is another of my hulls in frame on the stocks.   But it is a successful proof of concept as far as the method is concerned.
There is one negative factor:  the solid belt at the bilge and the solid wall above the wale is prone to humidity stress.  Titebond II makes a strong bond, but in a few places, Mother Nature and expanding wood from internal water pressure has shown it self to be stronger than PVA.
 
As for true miniature scale,  there are several here, bur none are Navy Board.   To me, a miniature is as much if not more about Art and artistry than straight forward ship modeling using wood.  I think 1/8th scale  1:96   is more than enough crazy making.  Going for an even smaller scale requires a special courage and inspiration.  It does have the advantage of being economical as far as the cost of the wood.

The nearest I know of is the Wespe log here by Wefalck. Not Navy Board era, but exquisite small-scale work.

I suggest getting a copy of McCaffery's Ships in Miniature for "how to" information and Donald McNarry's Ship Models in Miniature for photos of many small scale models.
 
Allan

There isn't any such thing as a "slight clinker effect." Plank is either hung "carvel" or "clinker" (AKA "lapstrake.") You did well to follow your instincts when planking and taper your planks. In fact, your intuitive solution is quite close to the actual practice, determining the width of the plank at the frame at the greatest beam and then the proportionate width of each plank at every other frame, which will give you the shape of each plank when the dimensions are laid out and a batten is sprung between the points so generated. 
 
If a hull is to be carvel planked, the edges of the planks are butted against each other and the hull is "faired," being planed and sanded to a fair shape so that a perfectly smooth hull results. A carvel planked hull is caulked with oakum and/or cotton driven between the plank edges so that the swelling of the planks against the caulking produces the necessary watertightness.) If a hull is to be clinker built, the planks are cut wider so that their edges overlap the adjacent plank, with the overlapping edges planed to a bevel which permits to overlapping planks to be riveted together, pulling the faying surface tightly together. (In this method, the swelling of the lapped plank faces provides the watertightness.) A clinker planked hull will have "gains" cut in lts plank ends so that the overlap transitions to a flat surface at the stem (and sometimes to some degree at the stern.). These gains are sloping rabets that reduce the thickness of the plank at the end overlap.
 
"Strip planking" is a relatively new technique made possible by epoxy adhesive technology. In this method, "strips" generally as wide as they are thick, are "stacked" up and glued with epoxy adhesive, then sheathed in fabric and resin. They are a form of monocoque construction, without frames. They can be quite attractive, but are not historically correct as far as their construction goes.
 
Google "Whitehall pulling boat" images and you'll see the range of "Whitehall" styles planked both types. Some examples are below.
 
Your kit apparently was designed to be simply "strip planked" (after a fashion) and finished to appear as a carvel planked example of the type. A clinker planked Whitehall at the scale you are working with would be a much more involved planking exercise than would be a "carvel-looking" hull. I would suggest you finish the hull smooth and painted inside and out so that it appears to be a carvel planked hull. It will not appear correct if it has "a slight clinker effect."
 
John Gardner's book Building Classic Small Craft, mentioned above, is an excellent resource for anyone building models of small craft. Indeed, with that book, one can spend a lot of time building many classic small boats without the need of kits at all.
 
A carvel planked Whitehall type pulling boat. Note that the hull is smooth inside and out.

 
An example of a couple of clinker planked pulling boats. Note the "gains" at the plank ends and the number of planks used.  Note that the plank overlaps are visible both outboard and inboard with the sawn frames sometimes "jogged" with notches so the plank lies flat on the plank face and sometimes not, those frames being steamed.

 
An example of a strip planked Whitehall pulling boat. Note the large number of "strips" and the absence of frames.

 
 

There isn't any such thing as a "slight clinker effect." Plank is either hung "carvel" or "clinker" (AKA "lapstrake.") You did well to follow your instincts when planking and taper your planks. In fact, your intuitive solution is quite close to the actual practice, determining the width of the plank at the frame at the greatest beam and then the proportionate width of each plank at every other frame, which will give you the shape of each plank when the dimensions are laid out and a batten is sprung between the points so generated. 
 
If a hull is to be carvel planked, the edges of the planks are butted against each other and the hull is "faired," being planed and sanded to a fair shape so that a perfectly smooth hull results. A carvel planked hull is caulked with oakum and/or cotton driven between the plank edges so that the swelling of the planks against the caulking produces the necessary watertightness.) If a hull is to be clinker built, the planks are cut wider so that their edges overlap the adjacent plank, with the overlapping edges planed to a bevel which permits to overlapping planks to be riveted together, pulling the faying surface tightly together. (In this method, the swelling of the lapped plank faces provides the watertightness.) A clinker planked hull will have "gains" cut in lts plank ends so that the overlap transitions to a flat surface at the stem (and sometimes to some degree at the stern.). These gains are sloping rabets that reduce the thickness of the plank at the end overlap.
 
"Strip planking" is a relatively new technique made possible by epoxy adhesive technology. In this method, "strips" generally as wide as they are thick, are "stacked" up and glued with epoxy adhesive, then sheathed in fabric and resin. They are a form of monocoque construction, without frames. They can be quite attractive, but are not historically correct as far as their construction goes.
 
Google "Whitehall pulling boat" images and you'll see the range of "Whitehall" styles planked both types. Some examples are below.
 
Your kit apparently was designed to be simply "strip planked" (after a fashion) and finished to appear as a carvel planked example of the type. A clinker planked Whitehall at the scale you are working with would be a much more involved planking exercise than would be a "carvel-looking" hull. I would suggest you finish the hull smooth and painted inside and out so that it appears to be a carvel planked hull. It will not appear correct if it has "a slight clinker effect."
 
John Gardner's book Building Classic Small Craft, mentioned above, is an excellent resource for anyone building models of small craft. Indeed, with that book, one can spend a lot of time building many classic small boats without the need of kits at all.
 
A carvel planked Whitehall type pulling boat. Note that the hull is smooth inside and out.

 
An example of a couple of clinker planked pulling boats. Note the "gains" at the plank ends and the number of planks used.  Note that the plank overlaps are visible both outboard and inboard with the sawn frames sometimes "jogged" with notches so the plank lies flat on the plank face and sometimes not, those frames being steamed.

 
An example of a strip planked Whitehall pulling boat. Note the large number of "strips" and the absence of frames.

 
 

There isn't any such thing as a "slight clinker effect." Plank is either hung "carvel" or "clinker" (AKA "lapstrake.") You did well to follow your instincts when planking and taper your planks. In fact, your intuitive solution is quite close to the actual practice, determining the width of the plank at the frame at the greatest beam and then the proportionate width of each plank at every other frame, which will give you the shape of each plank when the dimensions are laid out and a batten is sprung between the points so generated. 
 
If a hull is to be carvel planked, the edges of the planks are butted against each other and the hull is "faired," being planed and sanded to a fair shape so that a perfectly smooth hull results. A carvel planked hull is caulked with oakum and/or cotton driven between the plank edges so that the swelling of the planks against the caulking produces the necessary watertightness.) If a hull is to be clinker built, the planks are cut wider so that their edges overlap the adjacent plank, with the overlapping edges planed to a bevel which permits to overlapping planks to be riveted together, pulling the faying surface tightly together. (In this method, the swelling of the lapped plank faces provides the watertightness.) A clinker planked hull will have "gains" cut in lts plank ends so that the overlap transitions to a flat surface at the stem (and sometimes to some degree at the stern.). These gains are sloping rabets that reduce the thickness of the plank at the end overlap.
 
"Strip planking" is a relatively new technique made possible by epoxy adhesive technology. In this method, "strips" generally as wide as they are thick, are "stacked" up and glued with epoxy adhesive, then sheathed in fabric and resin. They are a form of monocoque construction, without frames. They can be quite attractive, but are not historically correct as far as their construction goes.
 
Google "Whitehall pulling boat" images and you'll see the range of "Whitehall" styles planked both types. Some examples are below.
 
Your kit apparently was designed to be simply "strip planked" (after a fashion) and finished to appear as a carvel planked example of the type. A clinker planked Whitehall at the scale you are working with would be a much more involved planking exercise than would be a "carvel-looking" hull. I would suggest you finish the hull smooth and painted inside and out so that it appears to be a carvel planked hull. It will not appear correct if it has "a slight clinker effect."
 
John Gardner's book Building Classic Small Craft, mentioned above, is an excellent resource for anyone building models of small craft. Indeed, with that book, one can spend a lot of time building many classic small boats without the need of kits at all.
 
A carvel planked Whitehall type pulling boat. Note that the hull is smooth inside and out.

 
An example of a couple of clinker planked pulling boats. Note the "gains" at the plank ends and the number of planks used.  Note that the plank overlaps are visible both outboard and inboard with the sawn frames sometimes "jogged" with notches so the plank lies flat on the plank face and sometimes not, those frames being steamed.

 
An example of a strip planked Whitehall pulling boat. Note the large number of "strips" and the absence of frames.

 
 

At the moment, someone building a POB kit model of Bismarck on the kit built build logs says that they have just completed the “first planking.”  Why add the second layer?  Plate it and add a realistic armor belt.
 
Roger