garym

All of the new kits (after Pegasus, I think) have sail material and plans. Sails aren't really my thing, so I cannot give any real pointers on how make them look authentic, have only ever added sails on a customer's request - a Krick Alert, Gorch Fock and a Japanese sail training ship - and that's it!
 
I have seen the signal flags on the Victory at Portsmouth, without sails, so it should work with the model, perhaps...

Vince,
 
Nice update. Gary is correct these detail areas take so long, It seems as thought there is no visible progress, then when its done it, as yours is, looks spectacular.  
 
Regards,
 
Michael

Yes, they are in the Vanguard and Pegasus kits, too.

Thank you, Greg! I always thought that the pressed copper tiles never looked quite right, as the simulated nail heads are shown much too proud of the surface, when in fact they were nearer to flush with the surface. Also, due to the pressing out process, the edges on some are wavy or curled up slightly, so the slightest brush against them can snag and pull them off. They look OK from a distance, but do not stand up so well to close scrutiny - I have always thought; what is the point of adding super detail parts for a model when other aspects let it down - it has to be all or nothing.
 
It is no good having, say, super detailed window frames, but when looking at them, your eye is instead immediately drawn to the oversized clumps of poorly cast blobs of metal that is meant to be the stern carvings - or even worse, changing the shape of the actual main stern pattern to accommodate the oversize parts!.
This I think, is the big difference between beautifully scratch built models and the majority of commercial kits. I prefer kits that, when built, people cannot tell the difference between kit and scratch, or at least blur the lines between them - if it is as true a scale model as you can possibly make it, then there should be little difference (especially in the bow and stern areas) - except you don't need a fully kitted out workshop complete with expensive machine tools to make the kit..(although a small lathe would help for those pesky masts and yards..)

While saying "I agree with everyone else" seems to contribute very little, well... I agree with everyone else.  I would add however a couple of small points.
First, I don't think I can overemphasize the need for the build to move quickly.  As a beginner I really had no concept of what I was creating.  I needed to see it develop. If the ship took a year to complete, I would have never had the vision to finish it.
 
Like Probablynot, my first boat was a POB and I would recommend them to a beginner, but like him I have a fair amount of wood working experience.  I can cut a straighter line with my tablesaw than I can with a razor and a straight edge.  (Unfortunately, I grew up where there was no water and except for fiberglass canoes, have never worked on or even seen any real boat/ship worked on.)
 
Second, access to a site like this plus the Internet plus books is, in my mind essential.  A good friend of mine confessed that he tried boats several years ago and turned two kits into kindling- because he never got past the planking.  I can't convince him to try again- he's that discouraged.  So a simple boat that you can find a build log on- that would, to me, be essential.
 
Finally, I think you have to find a simple boat that is interesting to you.  I build the Mare Nostrum and am working on the Swift.  The MS is a pretty piece of work, she has interesting lines and nice details.  Even though I understand that she is a simple boat, I proudly display her in my home.  On the Swift I am doing a lot of experimenting and technique refining.  Even so, I plan on presenting her to my brother as a wedding gift. 
 
After these two builds I plan a real ship- and I have two, so I'm thinking of setting up two work benches so I can switch from one to the other!

Interesting topic and as Mark said, Adam and Chris covered most of that pretty well. The only thing I would add, is that for any wooden ship builder, the kit HAS to be of something the builder likes for whatever aesthetic reason. Regardless of the builder's skill level, mistakes will inevitably be made...the key is the perseverance to move on from the mistake. IF the ship really never interested the builder they are less likely to rebound from the mistake, or the difficulties and learning curves that also comes with ship building.

I sometimes think the too easy "entry level" kits actually discourage builders. My first build was a solid-hull America's cup racer. I was able to do it with little more than a linolium knife and the smallest bits for my hand drill. It came out OK, but I had no real sense of accomplishment and wondered why I'd spent $50 on a cheap wooden kit..
A couple of years later I saw a library display on modeling with Frank Mastini's book prominently displayed. I picked up the book, read all about plank on bulkhead kits and soon had an itching to build another ship kit.
I read the Mastini book, which actually gives pretty good advice on picking a first kit. Based on his book, I chose the Constructo Enterprise, a fairly straight-foward schooner that's double-planked (which I agree with Mastini is a must for any first kit), but one that had lots of guns (something the little boy in me still demands).
Now I in no way, shape and form have any wood-working skills. And I was really intimidated when Christmas morning rolled around and my wife presented me with what I told friends was basically "a box of sticks."
But following the Mastini book (the Constructo instructions are terrible, although the ship plans are good) I was able to build a ship model that I was really proud of.
When my father-in-law (who is a marvelous woodworker) saw it and began talking that he'd like to try a kit, I went to Mastini and chose the Bluenose for him. I gave him that, some basic tools and a copy of Mastini for Christmas one year and now he has one ship under his belt and is working on a second.
So I guess what I am saying is that if I were to recommend an "entry level" kit, it would be something plank on frame that is double planked, relatively inexpensive and is either single- or double-masted. I would also insist that the new hobbyist get themselves a copy of Mastini, because I think good instructions and explanations of the concepts behind shipbuilding are key to a successful build.
I think what happens too often is that folks buy kits and either screw up very early due to things like fairing the frames being left out of the instructions, or get discouraged by bad instructions and give up.
If I had to do it over again, I'd probably build the MS Armed Virginia Sloop or Fair American as a first kit. I can't recommend the NIagara or Pride of Baltimore, as they seem to be single-plank on bulkhead, and I think the double plank is really a must for a first kit.But I do think Model Shipways instructions are so clear and do a good job of laying out the basic concepts of building that even their intermediate kits could easily be built by a beginner.

Adam,
 
Between you and Chris, I think you pretty well summed it up.  Maybe instead of calling them "skill levels" on the kits, they should be called "confidence levels". 

Adam, I think you got the essence of it correct when you spoke of the question of how much as opposed to what is required for a model.  Planking techniques for a cutter are the same as for a ship-of-the-line, but the SOL has much more to do.  Same thing for masting, rigging, guns, etc.  Some of the skill levels mentioned on kit boxes are questionable, to say the least.  Model Shipways' Kate Cory, for example, is described on the box as an ideal first model.  Excuse me?  Kate Cory is square-rigged, coppered, has a ton of deck furniture, and includes four fiddly little whaleboats.  In my book, that's a challenge for any modeler, much less a beginner.  To me, the main point is, does a kit include enough elements to make success likely, i.e. detailed instructions, low parts count, pre-cut or pre-formed components, minimal tricky elements and such.  Based on those criteria, I have always held Midwest Products kits to be as near fool-proof as beginner's kits can be.  Fortunately, we live in an age where even more complex models can be tackled by beginners thanks to some manufacturers paying more attention to comprehensive instructions, newer design techniques, and of course, access to info at sites such as MSW.  But for anyone considering one of those newer designs, I would still advise along the lines of "less is more", as in "more likely to be completed".
 
Cheers,
Chris

So after much debate with myself, ultimately losing I decided to go out on a limb and throw this out to the masses.
 
I have seen many people ask here on the forums, and I personally have been asked by friends of mine, some variation of - what is a good entry level wooden ship?
 
When I worked in the hobby store, the answer was easy – not personally having built them myself I had to go by the marketing materials and the word of the ship builders who came through.    When I got into the hobby myself last spring I leveraged that information as well as the write ups of various ships to decide ultimately on the Phantom.
 
However, after building the phantom and now working on a few other models I find myself sometimes wondering myself, when that question is asked, what is a good starter ship model?
 
I had been debating on bringing this up here, just for general conversation as I don’t think there truly is a “correct” answer, but the opinions would be interesting I think.
 
Where I kind of found myself drifting towards is that there really isn’t an easy answer to that question.  After answering it to some degree in another thread earlier today I decided what the heck, let’s bring it up and see what sticks!
 
Here is where my thoughts on the matter tend to circulate.
 
In the plastic world you have a box of parts and those parts, with zero modification, create a rough model of the box art.  You can in some cases (snap together) create something with zero tools and zero experience.  You can, of course, get more expensive detailed kits but still in most cases the parts in the box will assemble as is to create what it is you are after.  The difficulty of plastic comes in when you start adding glue or when you decide to go for it and craft aftermarket parts etc. to add to the existing model. So there is a curve, but in many ways it is a voluntary one.
 
Wooden ship models are very much not the case.   You cannot (as far as I can tell) open a wooden ship kit and create a model of the ship on the box with the parts in the box as is.  It isn’t even an option.   I remember joking about it when I opened up that Phantom.  I was staring at a bunch of wood with a handful of prefabbed parts. 
 
So this is where my thinking that there really isn’t such a thing as “entry level” model ship kits.  By default, the model ship world starts you at advanced.   I have seen people marvel at scratch building, and oh my there are some incredible masters of it that scratch build from front to back and top to bottom .  However, I think some people do themselves an injustice in not believing that they themselves have scratch built something on their ship.   Whether it is a door way, a hatch, a wheel house or a mast; everything about model ship building is about taking one thing and making it into something else so as to fit the rest of the things to make a ship.
 
I think with wooden ships you start at advanced and go up from there.  I think when we talk about “difficulty” in wooden ships it isn’t so much what you have to do, but how much of it you have to do.  The skills come with the practice of what is done; learning how to plank properly, learning how to lay a deck, rig a mast, mount a cannon etc.  The difficulty and challenge is how much planking has to be done, how much detail is in place, how many lines have to be rigged and the pattern or how many tree nails have to be done, sails etc.
 
Please do not get me wrong, I am not in any way saying that everyone who builds wooden ships are at the same skill level, trust me I look at my work and then at others and it is painfully obvious I have a way to go. 
 
What I am suggesting is that newcomers to the hobby should not steer away from things because they are “advanced” looking or complicated because in reality whether it is a small boat like the phantom or a huge boat like the MS Constitution, you are using the same sets of skills and doing the same activities just more of it on one than on the other?
 
I can see the phantom being beginner due to quicker turnaround time, easier to “get one under the belt” maybe.  But after building the phantom and realizing it may be smaller but there was a lot more to it than what I expected.   The Harriet Lane, also listed as an entry level, seems to have a level of complexity that may initially shock someone who picked it up thinking entry level in a different way than the model ship world does.
 
I have done the Phantom (a solid hull) and worked on the hull of the Willie L Bennett (planked) and the Mayflower (planked) and I personally think planking was easier than the solid hull!
 
I truly hope I am getting this question out correctly,  as I have said I have debated it back and forth so many times in my head because I think it is a more complex answer than – This one or That one.
Now, this does not include built from plans type ship building, which is a whole different ball game.  
 
This is primarily in regards to kits.
 
Maybe a lot of this comes from what my expectations were of “Starter” versus advanced.  The Phantom was a challenge, again coming from the world of pre-formed parts.
 
Having only been at this just over a year just has me philosophizing over wooden ship building in general.   Looking at the builds and the people around here just got me to thinking; there really isn’t an entry level wooden ship builder. 
 
By default it is an advanced hobby.
 
Is the advancedness of  a particular model  in the kit? 
Or in the builder?
Or in both?
 
What do you guys think?  (And if you think I am just out of control, feel free to say so – I can take it; sometimes my mind goes weird places and the Admiral has to reel me back in)
 
Thanks for taking the time to indulge my random rambling.
 
Enjoy!!
-Adam

This contemporary illustration might be helpful, Brian.
 
John
 

Charlie:
I think it was quite prevalent in real shipbuilding. Certainly in the last two centuries in Britain and the US. Go to any shipyard along the US coast over the last 200 years, and they did a lot of spiling and tapering of hull planking.
 
Russ

Replica of the schooner 'Enterprize' under construction in Melbourne some years ago.  In this view the spiling of the planks is very obvious.
 
John
 

 

Apprentice:
I am not sure what time period or nationality you are talking about, but I have always read that planks were spiled and tapered, at least in British and American shipyards. For framing they would look for timbers that had naturally curved grain, but in planks, that would be very difficult to find in most cases. It is far more likely that they would use what they had an spile the mating edge and taper the other edge from a wider plank. If it was just a minor bit of edge bending, they would do it, especially on the ceiling plank, but for any significant curve, that almost certainly had to come out of a wider plank.
 
Certainly in the mid to late 19th century in American merchant shipyards, they were spiling and tapering. There is plenty of evidence for that and the same is known of British merchant shipyards of the period. Maybe you are referring to an earlier period or larger ships?
 
Russ

Charlie:
Welcome aboard.
 
Spiling is not mandatory. It simply follows, to some degree, how ships were actually planked. Ship's planking was actually spiled on one edge and tapered on the other. The extent to which this was done would depend on the kind of hull being planked. Some hull's required different methods depending on its shape.
 
In most kits, the supplied planking strips are not wide enough to allow for proper spiling and tapering so modelers have developed alternative methods for hull planking. It gets the job done and can be made to look very neat.
 
How one planks a model hull is up to the modeler. Some will want to spile and taper their planking and others will prefer to use other methods.
 
Russ

I agree. I had never seen this. However, for many 19th and 20th century ships, the end grain of the side planks did overlap that of the transom planks.
 
Russ

I agree that in model work that is the usual convention. However, in many real ships both the side and transom planks hooded into rabbets in the fashion piece (the curved timber that made the 'corner' of the stern). This was to avoid exposed end-grain, where moisture could wick in to the planks and start rot. I've done this the 'correct' way on a model and can state that it is a very tricky job! No wonder one doesn't see this on models.

Denis,
 
I think the handrails work.  A nice touch that I'd leave in place.  Bill has a valid point on these.  It's your ship and your the Captain.  

Thank you Gary!
The kit itself unfortunately does not contain all these details. So it is always necessary to look for a lot of picture and additional informations. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to get the necessary amount of details.
 
Regards, Joachim