Question about Boxwood vs. Swiss Pear blocks?

As far as the blocks are concerned, I'm pretty sure she has/ had white painted blocks.

EDIT: at least currently, not the case.

The strops around the lower deadeyes are white, no doubt iron and are shackled to the rods that angle down inside the bulwarks to the hull/ deck join.

The deadeyes are black. the blocks look natural, a darker brown like leather.

Whats the difference in the two woods. Syren seems to sell either for the same price. All I can glean off their website is that maybe boxwood has a little tighter grain (?). Pear is darker. Unstained, thats what I'd pick.

Here's a question, others will know more. Looking at the blocks on that ship; what I can find in the photos is that they are what I believe is called an internal binding.

In other words, there's no external strop.

Current version from Ording:

It might be a project to get unstropped blocks and install little eyes in them. it would certainly give her a modern look.

I love ship fittings. Wish I owned a ship...

The heck you say Bill?! I am still researching and have not come across that as of yet, so I really appreciate the input. If they're White, then it should not make a difference, however, I wonder how well either wood will take paint? Then again, I could always use a sealer.

Thanks again,

Steve

In practical terms, the biggest difference between castello boxwood and pearwood blocks is color. Boxwood is yellowish; pear is slightly darker and very slightly pinkish. 

GM is right about the white-painted blocks of the Cutty Sark. I don't know what the recent researchers may have uncovered, but painting blocks white was common practice in the second half of the nineteenth century.

If (gawd forbid) I were building that model, I'd be torn between Syren blocks and the "metal stropped" ones from Bluejacket.

One tip: dont bother trying to figure out how many blocks you need. If you're just starting the model, you're at least a year away from needing any blocks. When the time comes, order two or three dozen of each size. Syren and Bluejacket both give excellent service; they won't slow down your progress.

I hope you've got the George Campbell plans for the Cutty Sark - one of the biggest bargains in ship modeling. That figure of 294 blocks seems low - but, of course, the total number needed will depend on just how much of the running rigging you plan to include.

If you want the rigging to be really authentic, you'll also need a whole lot of brass chain - the smallest size you can get. Quite a few lines in the Cutty Sark (including such conspicuous ones as the topsail halyards and the topsail sheeets) are made of iron chain.

Bill,

Thank you so much of the information so far. On the photos you posted Bill, it would be interesting to know if the blocks that were used during the 19th century were internally stropped. I do not think I am that masochistic to try and strop all the blocks that way..... But weirdly, I am already trying to figure out a way to do it. Heck, I am going to have to strop them anyway.

I know what you mean about ship fittings. Sailing in the Bay from the time I was 7 up to and after I was a Midshipman at Cal, I had the pleasure to work on and sail everything from ElToros to Annapolis Yawls and loved every minute of it.

John,

The plans I ordered from the Royal Museum Greenwich/Cutty Sark are listed as being done by Campbell and Sons in the 1950's. Hopefully these are the Campbell plans you mention. The plans themselves were really inexpensive but the postage was about $40 USD.

I have decided to go with Syren blocks and will strop them myself. I agree with your opinion of Chuck, he is great to work with and very helpful. And he keeps his site up to date so you know what he has in stock when you order. I am using his blocks and rigging lone on my current Catalan Ship project and I love them.

I know what you mean about not ordering everything at once; however, being a former Boy Scout and Naval officer, I tend to lay in supplies that I know I will need.

Again, thanks for you help gentlemen,

Steve

Happy to help. The upper photo is attributed to the Cutty Sark, I think reliably as it's on a page that is devoted to the ship. So at least some of the blocks were that type. I spent a bunch of time looking at photos of the ship, kind of got me going on it. The running rigging blocks appear small, but it is a largish ship. They also are very pleasing to the eye, have a beautiful elliptical shape in side profile. But I suppose one can only take this so far, right?

The newly clad bottom is a good example of Muntz metal, appears very "brass" colored.

There's a good picture on the Wiki page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntz_metal

 When you get the Campbell plans, be sure to check the scale, as I "heard" a rumor once that they were being arbitrarily photo copied. That is super easy to fix.

To Johns point, be sure to buy over at least 20% or so. Nothing worse than coming up just short.

Now Mr. QM, about that thousand feet of shoreline...

Sounds like you've got the Campbell plans all right, Steve. There should be three sheets - one for the hull, one for the basic rigging, and one for the sails and their associated rigging. As I remember, the sizes of the prototype lines and blocks are marked on the plans; divide those numbers by 96 and you've got it.

If you study the hull plan, you'll also see some compromises that Revell made - and that aren't hard to fix. For instance, the fore and main hatch coamings on the kit look like they represent heavy timber; in reality they're iron sheet (much thinner). And you'll probably want to address the problem of the overly-wide pinrails in way of the masts.

Good luck!