First Wooden ship

With all the recent discussions on wooden ship models, it seems appropriate to bump this thread to the first page.

Regards,

I'm posting another reply in order to get this thread moved to the first page of the Forum. The topic has come up in a post from a new member.

Hear! Hear! Well said, Mr. Tilley.

I agree completely with the ideas that seem to be implied in hippiedude's post. I've noted over the years that hobbiests in general use their hobbies to find things they don't get in their "real" lives. That may explain why some people get such satisfaction out of model competitions. I can easily understand why somebody who doesn't get much competition in his/her job or family life might derive enormous satisfaction from entering - and winning - a model contest. I personally have gotten more than enough of that sort of thing from my professional existence over the years; model competitions just don't interest me. But I have a great deal of respect for the people who do enter them.

Personal interests have a great deal to do with how an individual approaches a hobby. I was trained as a professional historian, and I probably have more interest in questions of historical accuracy than lots of other modelers. Plenty of them take different approaches to their hobbies than I take to mine. I say that's great.

What I don't like are those kit manufacturers who misrepresent their products and (as I've ranted about earlier in this post) drive innocent consumers out of the hobby. That out-of-scale hardware referred to in hippiedude's post costs money - quite a bit of it. To be obsessed with accuracy is one thing; to expect a reasonably high-quality product at a reasonable price is another. Some of those gawdawful European kits cost as much as a thousand dollars. Surely it's reasonable to expect them to bear some resemblance to actual ships.

I have built 2 boats from amanti kits. They were pretty good kits and the wood worked well, although learning to bend the wood when I had never built a wooden boat before was a real education. I general I was happy with the results but then again I was not exactly looking for accuracy, but mostly looking to have fun. I did have fun But I will say that the hardware that came with the kits (cleats and anchors and stuff) were way... WAY out of scale. This was something that is sorta hard to get around except by buying new hardware that is more properly scaled or making it. I guess i would have to say that more than anything I had fun and was reasonable proud of what I had made. Enjoy, your building for fun. Otherwise it's work. And I know I get enough of that at work.

Dude
Results may vary

My impression is that JoTika is a distributor for the British firm CalderCraft. I've never looked at a Calder kit in person, but on the basis of the company literature and photos they certainly seem to be far superior in terms of accuracy than any of the continental European kits I've encountered.

One caveat. A recent issue of Ships In Scale magazine contained a lengthy article on a model a guy had built from the Calder H.M.S. Diana kit. His model, I think, is pretty spectacular, but in his text he made some slightly vague negative remarks about the kit's accuracy. He wasn't really specific, but he did leave me a little nervous.

Calder recently did a new H.M.S. Victory which looks downright sensational. As I understand it, purchasers of the kit are invited to subscribe to a mailing list, the members of which get periodic updates on information about the ship's history that's being dug up by researchers at the Portsmouth Naval Museum. What we have here, in other words, is a kit manufacturer who's genuinely concerned about historical accuracy. I find that refreshing.

While we've got you here, Mr. Tilley, what do you think of the kits produced by JoTika Ltd.?

http://www.jotika-ltd.com/Pages/1024768/index.htm

Their website seems to show some very nice wooden ship kits, but I have no experience to measure them against.

Regards,

I'm "replying" to this topic in order to get it moved to the first page of the Forum. A post that came in today seems related to it.

Wow just read all the posts on this subject you people are amazing ultimate knowledge and respect to you all I really really learn things from you guys
Keep it coming
Nick

I appreciate - and agree completely with - Mr. LeCren's emphasis on having fun with the hobby. The last thing in the world I want to do is drive people out of it. In some venues over the past few years I've noted an unfortunate tendency for ship modeling to become the domain of well-heeled snobs, and I certainly don't want to be any part of that trend.

My criticism of those Continental European kits, in fact, is that, by combining mediocre materials, unworkable construction methods, miserable inaccuracy, and astronomical prices, THEY drive people out of the hobby. Anybody who's ever worked in a hobby shop will tell you that the vast majority of those kits never get finished - and the vast majority of people who purchase them never come back.

The primary emphasis in any hobby certainly should be the pleasure of the participant, and it's not for me or anybody else to pass judgment on how other people spend their leisure time. I do, however, object to these downright deceptive marketing practices that, in my opinion, are doing far more damage than good to the hobby of ship modeling. There's no earthly reason why good, accurate ship model kits - like good, accurate aircraft model kits - can't be marketed and enjoyed by large numbers of people.

Thanks for the replies. By the way, call me John!

I appreciate your honesty, I think it goes to show the integrity that some people have to try to produce models that are true to their original design & specifications and I will take your comments on board when it comes to my next model.

When I started this about 3 years ago (yes, I know I'm slow!) all I wanted to do was build a model ship that looked good and that I would be proud to say I made. I think I have almost achieved that but since starting I have learned an awful lot about this hobby and the dedication that some people have towards it. As with any hobby or profession, there will always be people who go that extra mile in their pursuits, while the other 95% will always fall short for some reason or another. Hopefully in the future I will not be one of them!

I hope to start a new project in the not too distant future and as long as the next one is always better than the last, what more could we ask from ourselves?

All the best
John.

Mr. Parry:
I happen to agree with a lot of what jtilley writes, but please don't be put off your model because of his views (as I said, I am of similar opinion so I scratch build). Unless you are building something for a museum, I am sure your model will make an excellent display in your home, admired by your family and friends, most of whom probably wouldn't know deck camber from the anchor anyway.

We all started (probable assumption here) ... with kits, often expensive ones, that turned into mediocre models if they were finished at all. The vast majority of kits never see display on a mantle, so for you to finish yours is a remarkable achievement indeed. Take pride in that, you have joined a select fraternity.

Use the experience to build on your next kit ... do a bit of research (Nautical Research Guild is one place, but there are others). Subscribe to their journal, or to "Ships in Scale" or "Model Boats" magazines.

If you have a subject in mind and want to go with a kit instead of scratch building, just get the one that has the best lumber and clearest instructions, and modify as required by your research. In time you'll notice and undertake the little improvements in hull and fittings that now come second nature to many of us.

Most of all, have fun and enjoy the hobby!
Regards,
Bruce

Regarding the Corel Unicorn - I'm afraid this isn't going to be pleasant. Mr. Parry may want to stop reading now.

I'm going to try to keep my personal opinions out of this and stick to facts - and to what I believe are widespread opinions among experienced ship modelers. I feel obliged to emphasize that I've never built, or even closely examined, a Corel kit. I'm sure some of the company's products are better than others, and I have no idea where the Unicorn stacks up in comparison. I'm basing my comments on the ad for the kit at the Model Expo website (which includes a color photo and a written description) and two books that I happen to have at hand: F.H. Chapman's Architectura Navalis Mercatoria (which contains plans of the Unicorn) and The Line of Battle: The Sailing Warship, 1650-1840, a volume in the series Conway's History of the Ship. I think these sources are enough to make the basic points.

It's hard to tell, of course, how much of what appears in the ModelExpo ad can be attributed to the manufacturer, the builder of the model, and/or the dealer. But the following things jump out.

1. The ad's assertion that the Unicorn was "designed in 1700 by F.H. Chapman, Britain's foremost naval architect," is ridiculous. Chapman was born in 1721, and the Unicorn was launched in 1747. Chapman did spend some of his younger years in England as a ship's carpenter, but he was a Swede, and there's no evidence that he ever designed a ship for the British Navy. In 1747 he was running a merchant shipyard in Stockholm. His book contains beautiful drawings of lots of vessels, some of them his own designs but many of them not. There's a good, though not detailed, drawing of the Unicorn among them. Chapman describes her as "an English naval frigate...a fast vessel." He had nothing to do with the design or construction of her.

2. On the basis of the photo in the ModelExpo ad, the overall shape of the hull seems to be about right but the model differs from the Chapman drawing (which I think we can trust) in several significant ways. There seems to be no camber (side-to-side vertical curvature) in the decks or the beakhead bulkhead. (A ship's deck is scarcely ever flat. The manufacturers often make decks flat because they insist on making them out of plywood, which is difficult to force into the accurate compound curve.) The figurehead seems to be out of scale with the rest of the model, and the headrails just aft of it are wildly distorted. The quarter galleries don't look right, and the gunports on the quarterdeck don't seem to be of the configuration shown in the drawing. (In the drawing, with the exeption of the aftermost one on each side, they're shaped like broken circels with the tops chopped off. The slope of the quarterdeck railing doesn't match the sheer of the quarterdeck, so the foremost guns project above the railing.)

It's tough to see the details of the deck in the picture, and there's no deck plan in the Chapman book, but it looks to my eye like the quarterdeck and forecastle deck on the model are connected by wide, permanent gangways. That's highly unlikely for a ship launched in 1747 (and just about inconceivable for one designed in 1700). Early frigates had narrow, temporary gangways - if any.

I don't have access to the model's plans, so I can't say for sure whether the individual who built the one in the ad followed them, but somebody involved in the process doesn't understand rigging. The topsail and topgallant yards are in the raised positions, where they would not be unless the sails were set. And, to top everything off (literally), the flags are inaccurate. Prior to 1801 the British ensign didn't have the diagonal red stripes in the field.

It looks to me like it might be possible to build an accurate model from this kit, but I question whether doing so would be any easier than scratchbuilding.

I want to emphasize that my low opinions of Continental European sailing ship kits are not unusual; they're shared by most people who've been at the game for a while. The inaccuracy of these kits, along with mediocre materials and astronomical prices, has been responsible, I suspect, for driving far more people out of the hobby than they've brought into it. Mr. Parry, in getting 90 percent of the way through one of them, is unusual. I take no pleasure whatever in tearing down the reputation of a kit in which he's obviously invested a great deal of time and skill, but the focus of this site is scale modeling and these kits, unless they're modified almost beyond recognition, don't produce scale models. Surely a purchaser shouldn't have to own a library of books and plans in order to correct the basic inadequacies of a kit that costs several hundred dollars. An analogy: most of those Continental European kits bear considerably less resemblance to their prototypes than the 1950s Aurora plastic kits bear to real airplanes. Sure an Aurora P-38 kit can be made into an accurate scale model - by replacing or heavily modifying virtually every piece of it. But is that a reasonable way to spend one's time?

For a lengthy and highly knowedgable discussion of this subject in general, I recommend the website of the Nautical Research Guild, <www.Naut-Res-Guild.org>. Among the stuff available on that site (under "Reference Material," then "Models That Should or Should Not Be Built") is an article called "Piracy On the High "C's": Those (Much Too) Expensive Imported Ship Model Kits," by Charles MacDonald. If my comments seem nasty, wait till you read his.

I'm sorry to be so negative in a forum that's been complimented for its helpfulness and cordiality, but this is a sore subject among ship modelers. I continue to recommend the products of two American firms, Model Shipways and Bluejacket, which, though they vary somewhat in quality, are based on good research and contain sound materials.

QUOTE: Originally posted by davidbgriffith I would certainly go along with the advice to be wary of some (but not all) European kits. If you get the catalogues you will realise that some of them are totally grotesque. I did the Corel HMS Unicorn a few years ago, but in order to get it looking half decent I ended up scratchbuilding or at least improving almost every part of it. Regards, David Griffith, Glasgow, Scotland

Hi to all

I am 90% through the build of the Corel HMS Unicorn as mentioned by Dave above and I have to say, I'm quite upset by his comments, especially as this is my first model!

I guess to my eyes the model looks fantastic, certainly better than anything I have seen "in the flesh" so to speak. Being new to this hobby I wonder if someone could give some specific examples of items on a wooden model that are better scratch built rather than as supplied in a kit?

I think we all would agree that any kit parts need a reasonable amount of work to improve those parts and I certainly wouldn't expect them to be perfect in any way. Are there any pictures available from anyone to point out the differences that might exist?

Thanks to all in advance, it is great to have found a forum for this fantastic hobby

John Parry

A few other points about the Eagle. I notice the promotional photos of the Constructo kit show her with a bright green bottom. I obviously can't state definitively what color her bottom has been throughout her career, but I can say that for quite a few years it's been the usual dark red with a black stripe on the waterline.

Representing the Eagle at any specific point in her career is quite a challenge. Her rig has changed visibly several times. (She now has the traditional German double-spanker rig, which for may years she'd abandoned in favor of a single spanker.) Some years ago a remarkably ugly charthouse was built on her quarterdeck; it's not terribly conspicuous on most photos because it's dwarfed by the sails and masts, but it's decidedly out of character. Her boat complement has changed several times. The figurehead has been changed several times. (The original was a Nazi eagle with a swastika in its claws; when the CG took over the ship the eagle stayed, but the swastika got replaced by a CG shield. The current figurehead, to my eye, looks like a highly-stylized and emaciated pigeon.) The big boat booms on the bulwarks aft of the foremast have been removed. And, most conspicuously of all, she now carries the notorious vermilion-white-and-blue "Coast Guard Slash" on her bow, and the words "U.S. Coast Guard" on her sides. The font for that lettering, incidentally, has stymied lots of modelers. It's "Zurich bold extended," and it's included in the set that comes with WordPerfect. (I found that out the hard way.) Microscale (aka SuperScale) also makes a nice sheet of decals for Coast Guard aircraft that contains the CG Shield and the appropriate lettering in various sizes; one of them might well work for the Constructo model, if you're interested in reproducing the ship in her current configuration. My own opinion is that virtually nothing they've done to her has made her look any better than she did in the 1950s.

In any configuration, though, she's a beautiful ship and a fine subject for a model. Good luck.

jtilley,

Excellent information. If nothing else, I'll have fun with the build and use it as a learning kit.

Thanks.

Jim

I haven't built or examined a Caldercraft kit first-hand. What I've seen in the ads, however, suggests that the hobby dealer is giving you the straight scoop: they look pretty good compared to the Continental kits.

The latest issue of Ships in Scale magazine contains a well-illustrated article on a model built from a Calder kit by a guy who clearly knows what he's doing. The model itself is, to my eye, excellent. The text of the article, though, contains some rather vague references to "replacing inaccurate parts" and similar comments. I get the impression that the author was not exactly enamored of the kit - but he did get an impressive result from it.

I agree completely with your comments on Artesania Latina kits. Some years ago I was given the job of reviewing one of them for another publication. I was living with my father at the time; he was an architect of about 50 years' experience. I told him I wasn't impressed with the kit's plans; that I was thinking about describing them as "of less than the best quality." He said, "you need to be careful about criticizing somebody's draftsmanship." I asked him how he would describe them, and handed them to him. He looked at them for about two minutes and said, "either 'undistinguished' or 'mediocre.'" Those terms, in my opinion, apply to virtually all the Continental European sailing ship kits that have come to my attention.

Hey folks

Years ago I built a couple of the Revell plastic sailing ship kits and decided to 'have a go' at a wooden kit. I took myself off to the LHS and purchased AL's 'HARVEY', a neat little Baltimore Clipper that seemed to fall nicely in between the 'rediculously small' and 'absolutely enormous' kits. That was near enough twenty yeers ago. Progress so far amounts to the bulkhead frame with ply false deck attached. Every now and then I drag the box of bits out and have a bit of a look and a bit of a think and inevitably return it to its place in the back of the cupboard.

Now I consider myself to be a reasonably accomplished modeller. The plastic sailing ships look great. I scratchbuild model railway rolling stock, structures etc. in large scale ( up to 1/25) using both wood and plastic as media. Hells bells, I have even scratch built a couple of plywood canoes and a kyak in 12" to the foot scale! And yet I find this wooden ship kit totally intimidating. The instructions are vague, the timber stock is of indifferent quality etc etc.

I have of late been spending a lot of time looking at a rather nice 'box' in a specialist model boat shop I have recently discovered. They carry the Caldercraft range and the proprieter swears this is a substantially better range of kits than the 'other' European kits. Whether this opinion is supported or compromised by the fact that he doesn't carry any other range of wooden kits depends entirely on my current level of cynicism!

The specific Caldercraft kit I am considering is the Sherbourne, a neat little cutter the only complication of which may be the very bluff bow.

What I would like to do is build a 'decent' kit and then use that experience to kitbash/scratchbuild the Harvey using salvage kit parts and the plans, which to my uneducated eye look to be the best part of the kit anyway.

Any comments from builders familiar with either or both kits welcome...

Cheers! Andy.

Regarding the Constructo Eagle - you may want to stop reading here, but since you asked....

I'll start off by confessing that I haven't examined the kit itself. I have, however, looked at quite a few Constructo products, and I found some pictures of this one on the web. So take all the following with a grain of salt.

One big problem with models of the Eagle is that most of the widely published plans are wrong. Virtually every Eagle kit (including the grand old Revell plastic one from the '50s) is based on the drawings by Harold Underhill, a fine British draftsman who worked between the '30s and the '60s. In one of his books, Sail Training and Cadet Ships, he published a well-rendered set of drawings that are often sold as representing the Eagle. In fact (and Underhill himself was absolutely up front about this) the drawings represent the Eagle's near-sister, the Gorch Foch, which looked quite similar but was (if I remember right) over twenty feet longer. (Or maybe the Eagle was the longer one; it's been quite a while since I worked on this topic.)

Some years ago the Coast Guard Historian's Office hired me to do a line drawing of the Eagle, and furnished me with a copy of the original plans (or at least a few of them) from Blohm and Voss, the German firm that built the ship. The plans are clearly labeled "Horst Wessel" (the Eagle's original name); they represent that ship and no other. I also got copies of some relatively recent (and newly-measured) drawings that the Coast Guard had prepared. All these documents made it clear that the Underhill plans - and most models of the Eagle - are significantly off in their proportions.

On the basis of the photos I've looked at I can't be sure, but it looks to me like the Constructo kit is based on the Underhill drawings. Beyond that, about all I can say is that this firm has a better reputation than some of the Continental European manufacturers - but not much. Their solid hull kits probably are more sound than the plank-on-bulkhead ones.

I notice that Constructo promotes this kit as "entry level." As such, it may be pretty good. My suggestion is to have a good time with it. If you're accustomed to working on plastic aircraft you'll find that this project takes some skills that are different, but not more difficult.

If you're interested in finding out more about the Eagle (and, for that matter, getting hold of accurate drawings - including the outboard profile and sail plan that I did), I can guarantee you a cordial response from the Coast Guard Historian's Office. The head of that office, Dr. Bob Browning, is a great guy and highly sympathetic to modelers. You can reach him through the Coast Guard website, <www.uscg.mil>. It also has some statistics and beautiful photos of the Eagle that you can download.

Hope this isn't too depressing. Ship modeling is a great hobby, and the kit you've picked may well be a good way to break into it. Welcome aboard.

I recently purchased my first wooden ship model, having experience only with plastic aircraft. I bought the Constructo (Made in Italy) 1/185 USS Eagle. Do any of you with more experience have comments, good or bad, on this kit?

Thanks.

Jim

Just wanted to say that since joining the FSM forum a few weeks ago I have found the forum in general, and the 'SHIPS' forum in particular is just about the warmest, most open, helpful place on the nett! thanx!

Cheers, Andy.

I recommend Wooden Boat Magazine - it is dedicated to people who build / restore wooden boats and they have great photos and articles.
Some of the restorations will take your breath away. People also send in photos of their boats.
They also sell models ect.
www.woodenboatstore.com
Nice references and a relaxing read.
Cheers
Sharkbait

I'm telling you...I think the NUMBER one book I used was "Historic Ship Models" by Wolfram zu Mondfeld. I probably checked out about EVERY book on the market and at the library because I was restoring a destroyed Halve Maen built in the 30s. NO plans, no instructions...I had NO knowledge of shipcraft...and that book ended up being the heart of my reference material! I found lots of other more isolated information in other books, but Historic ship models was definately the most comprehensive and illustrated book that I've ever read on the subject. Buying it? your call...but man, at least check it out!
Good luck whatever you choose!!
-jonathan


ps...guilty of the "constitution start"

Thanks all for your help. I've decided to buy two books: How to Build First Rate Model Ships, and Shipmodeling Simplified. I'll also probably try one of the models jtilley suggested, but it will have to wait longer than I had hoped.

Jtilley-By no means did you scare me off. I just wanted to know what I was getting myself into. Wouldn't want to do something that isn't challenging, no fun in that.

Again, thanks everyone for your input. I'll keep you posted on my progress.

Chris

Model expo has a Video on VHS. I found it helpfull. Joining a local club is another plus if there is one in your area.

YOU TAKE THE HELM TAPE(HOW TO BUILD)
"HOW-TO-BUILD"
VHS VIDEO FOR PLANK-ON-FRAME WOODEN SHIP KITS

Watch our 90 minute videotape and let a professional modeler show you how to build the Bluenose II. From planking the hull to rigging the sails, you'll learn the secrets of building a museum quality model. Apply everything you learn from this tape to any plank-on-frame wooden ship model. Gives beginners an unfair advantage!

No. SST500 Price $14.99

Regards,

CC

Mr. LeCren is, of course, right: the last thing I want to do is scare anybody away from the hobby. I'm sure it is indeed possible to turn some of those Continental kits into nice models - and I'm sure there's some variation in quality among them. One quickly reaches the point, however, where it's actually easier and less time-consuming - and certainly cheaper - to scratchbuild a model than to fix the problems of a mediocre kit. I continue to endorse the Model Shipways and Bluejacket products. Some of their older kits aren't as nice as their newer ones, but they're all basically sound products.

There are some really good plastic kits out there. (Two that come to mind are Heller's H.M.S. Victory and Revell's U.S.S. Constitution. The Airfix Wasa and H.M.S. Prince are also excellent - though on mighty small scales.) On the other hand, some of the plastic manufacturers are guilty of even bigger sins than the wood kit makers. (Some of the other Heller kits, if enlarged to full-size, wouldn't float.) It's largely a matter of personal taste. Plastic kits can produce fine, accurate scale models. Wood is a wonderful, traditional material that offers its own rewards - as I don't need to tell a professional carpenter. There's no way that the smell of plastic cement can ever surpass that of freshly-cut wood.

I fully endorse the other participant's comments about tools. If you're a carpenter, you already have most of what you need to build a wood ship model. In terms of more specialized tools, you certainly need an Xacto knife with an assortment of blades (and the willingness to replace them when they get dull), a pin vise, a set of drill bits (#60 t0 #80), needle-nosed pliers, tweezers, sandpaper, and the other standard modeling tools. If you're going to work from scratch, a table saw will come in handy. (I like the miniature saw sold by Micromart, but that's a bigger investment than you need to make in the beginning.) Some sort of lathe is useful for making spars, guns barrels, etc.; I have a 30-year-old Unimat, but good work can be done by chucking dowels into an electric drill. The first power tool I recommend for acquisition is a Dremel moto-tool (or equivalent from Black and Decker, etc.). Be sure it has a variable speed capability. I've sounded off elsewhere in this forum about too-fast, too-powerful Dremel tools. The little battery-operated "Mighty-Mite" probably will do everything necessary on a kit-built model.

The most important thing about any hobby is to enjoy it. This forum seems to be a pretty good place to get acquainted with other folks who are having fun with model building. Good luck!

Dear Chris,

I go along with all that other advice, but don't be put off, because doing a planked ship model is an acheivement you will be proud of for the rest of your life.

I would certainly go along with the advice to be wary of some (but not all) European kits. If you get the catalogues you will realise that some of them are totally grotesque. I did the Corel HMS Unicorn a few years ago, but in order to get it looking half decent I ended up scratchbuilding or at least improving almost every part of it.

For your first project choose something relatively simple with fine lines, which will be much easier to plank than the bluff shape of a man of war. A schooner or Baltimore clipper would be your best choice.

Provided you go about it in a systematic way, and a far as possible follow full size practice, planking a hull is not intrinsically difficult, but it does demand that you work accurately. It is imprtant to taper the planks properly to follow the sweep of the lines. To help you with this I would suggest two things.

Firstly, try and find a copy of "Plank on Frame Models, volume 1", by Harold A Underhill. This is a very old book by a really obsessional anal retentive who should have made a point of getting out more, but the chapter on planking is worth reading.

Secondly, get a set of proportional dividers. These will allow you to taper the planks towards the ends of the ship much more easily. expensive, but a worthwhile investment if you want to carry on in the hobby.

Give it a go.

Regards,

David Griffith, Glasgow, Scotland

This is some good advice from the experienced builders. I too have found the European kits to be packaged really nice, but when it comes to building, will rely on experience. Check out the Bluejacket website. They have some neat entry level plank on boats such as skiffs and dories. These kits will give you a taste of the larger kits without you getting overwelmed.
Here are some sites:
http://www.bluejacketinc.com/
http://www.modelexpoinc.com/

When you start buildling sailing ships. Try a plastic one like Revell offers first to get the feel for rigging and references to details on the deck, masts, and hull. The plastics in my opinion are a little harder to rig than wood because plastic is so pliable, but provide excellent practice without breaking the budget or time frame.

Chris:
Don't let jtilley scare you away, I don't think that was his intent!
I happen to agree with a lot of what he says, although in my opinion some of the European kits can be turned into very nice models. My main objections with them are a lack of quality control with the materials they do supply, and instruction sheets that are very hard to follow.

I use and often recommend zu Mondfeld's book as a reference, and I can add Edwin Leaf's book "Ship Modelling from Scratch" to that. He also walks you through a couple of simple scratch builds suitable for first projects.

I endorse the recommendation of a small ship in a large scale as a first project. About 80% of ship modellers never finish their first projects because they pick something like 'Sovereign of the Seas'. Pick something with one or maybe two masts at most, fore and aft rig (schooner) is easier than square rig first time out.

Build a solid base on which to work and upon which your hull will remain ridgid until it is complete. Many kit manufacturers forget to tell you this.

Don't let the hobby shop talk you into fancy tools like rigging jigs or plank benders. There are other ways to perform these chores without laying out that kind of cash. Basic model making tools are all that is required, plus a good selection of small chisels and small fret and back saws. Model shops that cater to R/C airplanes have these items.

I scratch build ships myself, although I have worked in wood in the past, and will do so again, right now my project are small er steel hull vessels in 1:48 scale that I am making from styrene.

Please keep us posted on which ship you decide on and how you make out.
Regards,
Bruce