hier ein kurzer Auszug aus Brian Lavery, Nelson's Navy (das ist zwar v.a. um 1800 - aber der Schiffbau von 1700 hat sich von 1800 kaum unterschieden):
"The problem of timber supply was one that had dogged British naval administrators for more than a century. Traditionally, British ships had been built of oak, and shipbuilders were reluctant to move away from this. Many frigates and sloops were built of pine, but these were poorly received by naval officers, and did not last long. After 1801 it became increasingly common to built ships in India, using native supplies of teak. These ships were much more successful, and lasted for many years.
But oak remained the main material for shipbuilding. The most important pieces were the curved knees which supported the decks, and the curved futtocks which made up the frame timbers. The grain of the tree had to be suitible for this, and compass timber, as it was called, could fetch very high prices. It might take a hundred years to grow timber suitible for an ordinary ship-of-the-line, and yet more for a first rate. This was the main reason why large ships were disproportionately expensive.
Shipbuilders preferred to use native oak if possible, and for more than a century landowners ahd been urged to plant trees. However, transport was always a problem, unless by water; timber more than about three miles from the sea or navigable river declined rapidly in value. Native timber was never sufficient, and large supplies were procured abroad, particularly in northern Europe. This was one of the main reasons why the navy went to great lengths to keep the Baltic open in 1800s."