That's a great model with a lovely patina. My boat has no keelson and the stems are less of a right angle but there are lots of similarities.
Note to readers: Alick's response above is going to look somewhat out of place without a bit of explanation. I had posted a comment concerning a recently uncovered sample model in the hands of the Peterborough Museum and Archives, Ontario. The model's origin is 'unknown'. It is of longitudinal cedar strip construction, 30" in length, with narrow, half-round ribs to which the strips are fastened with tiny copper tacks. The rib tops are bevelled; thin, wide, flat outwales are attached by tacks with large, flat heads driven through from the inside bevelled edge. Decks are one piece of medium length, with arc-shaped coaming. My apologies that photos are no longer able to be shown, as will be explained.
I had been invited by a research student to offer assistance in identifying this sample model. My thoughts are that it is very likely of Lakefield, Ontario, origin, and possibly even made by Lakefield Canoe Co. In fact, I lean to believing it could be even earlier, and to possibly be by the hand of Strickland, prior to 1904, when he joined forces with Thomas Gordon to form the Lakefield Canoe Co. Although I have searched over the years to find a display sample by Lakefield Canoe Co., I have been unsuccessful. I was told some years ago, by an older, experienced antiques dealer, that he had once seen a Strickland sample. On seeing the model at PMA, and having been provided with some photos of it, I began to wonder whether this might be the elusive sample I had been seeking. Coincidentally, I noticed the posting, here, of the 'find' of the possible Strickland full-size canoe in UK, now owned by Alick. I posted pics and comments here about the sample which also had just come to light. My hope was to elicit comments from others possibly leading to a better identification of the PMA model.
Alas, I have just been told that the photos of the sample, which were sent to me without reservation, were meant to be private and not to be shared. I was asked to take down my post, and I have complied; thus the post and pics are no longer present. I confess that I am totally dumbfounded by what I believe to be extremely myopic policies on the part of some museums and cultural institutions, the supposed guardians of public property, who do not allow the public dissemination of information or photos describing this supposedly public property. I especially do not understand or agree with such policy when the whole object of my exercise in alerting members of the WCHA to the existence of this hitherto unknown Strickland (?) sample was to disseminate information about it to the most relevant consuming public one could serve, as well as to solicit comment and critique from this very exceptional and knowledgeable audience as to whether or not WCHA members, in their collective wisdom, could shed any light upon whether or not this might be a Lakefield or Strickland model. In my view, such policies do more to further ignorance and injure the public than they do to serve its best interests. Anyway, that is the reason for the missing post which previously appeared between #6 and #7.