shipaholic

Today I made and fitted the netting for the staysail

I have got all the masts done and painted now. Spent today making the Jeer blocks. I am using single blocks for both the upper and lower jeers, like the replica has

Nice work Dashi, those bumpkins look exactly right, they are the same angle as the ones in Parkinsons sketch, you might have convinced me now about the existence of bumpkins. But I think the knightheads are little too tall for my eye.

Cheers

Steve

Spent a couple of hours today finishing off the topmast trestle trees and making the caps

Hi Dash

Wow, I haven't seen that watercolour by Parkinson before, it definitely shows the blue only on the top part of the stern.

Nice work on your stern too, looks good.

Thanks Dash and thanks for the likes Pat, Slog, Greg and Ron

This pic shows how the Endeavour with the taller mizzen and with all the lines and dimensions right looks like a normal 1770's sailing ship

Hi Dave

I have been going almost six years on mine!

Cheers Steve

Mizzen topmast and main topmast trestle tree completed today.

Hi Dashi

Yes I have long suspected that 3814a might have actually been drawn for the refit after Cooks voyage at the same time as the October 1771 deck plans

However the 3819 deck plans (October 1771) are signed by William Gray, but the 3814a Draught is signed by Darren Hayes.

I remember reading somewhere that Darren Hayes worked at Deptford.

Anyway, I have just been studying all the draughts and both those signatures appear to have been added later - they are written in different ink and the writing style does not match the writing on the draughts. Interestingly both 3814 and 3814b do not have signatures and they are the two draughts that appear to be authentic and agree with each other. Nor do the deck plans dated July 1768 have signatures.

And yes it's very interesting why 3814a only has those marks showing where the mast steps for the mizzenmast yet 3814 is missing the marks only for the mizzenmast.

I just had another look at the AOTS and the references to the original draughts are wrong (much like a lot of other things in that book)

Oh and your build is looking really good Dash, I was wondering why all the deck fittings are gone in the last photos, were they just sitting in place in the previous pics?

Are those quarter window badges the ones supplied with the kit? They look great.

Hi Dashi

One of the reasons I am following the "as fitted" draught is that the arrangement of the quarter deck rail stanchions and the swivel gun posts concurr with Parkinson's sketch. The gunpost next to the stern transom is upright in Parkinson's sketch just like draught 3814 and 3814b, whereas 3814a has the stern gunpost angled back. The number of rail stanchions in Parkinson's sketch matches 3814 and 3814b but not 3814a.

For clarity;

3814 is the April 1768 as fitted draught

3814b is the Earl of Pembroke with proposed changes

3814a is the draught which has the date July 1768 but this date was written on it later in different ink and writing, the original date is unreadable

3814c is that linen one which is a composite reproduction believed to have been done much later

Cheers

Hi Dash and Robin

I have just had a close look at my draughts, both 3814a and 3814b have the asterisks and ticks as you described Robin and show the mizzen stepped in the keelson. But there aren't any visible for the mizzen mast on draught 3814, just for the main and fore masts

Cheers

Steve

You are welcome Robin. I also thought it was an insult to call your wonderful painting a sketch.

That picture was used in almost every media story here in Australia

Cheers

Here is 3814c from Karl Marquardts website, apparently it is drawn on linen and it is a composite of the three real draughts and includes deck plans 3819

and the disputed stern view

Hi Dash

I have a draught marked 3814 which is the "as fitted" one

I have a 3814a which is the second one in the above post

The one marked 3814b is the Earl of Pembroke with proposed changes - first one in the previous post

I dont have 3814c - it is the one that many believe to be a much later reproduction

None of the draughts indicate where the mizzen mast was stepped

Cheers

Steve

Hi Dashi

I have three draughts of the Endeavour, this one is the "as fitted" one with the longer mizzen chain plates, superimposed over enlarged copies of the AOTS mast drawings. This draught is the one I am using for my build. The other two draughts have shorter mizzen chain plates. Very confusing. If you look at the main chain plates there are huge differences in the angles of the chains. If you extrapolate the "as fitted" draught the main mast would be much taller than proposed in the AOTS, the case is the same on the Earl of Pembroke draught. I can only assume that the Earl of Pembroke's lower masts were taller than the refitted Endeavour's

Cheers

Steve

Hi Dashi

I want to weigh in on the argument. To me the main piece of evidence for a taller mizzen is the shrouds and channels. Here is a picture of my AL Endeavour with the shorter mizzen and normal width mizzen channels and the shrouds foul against the quarterdeck rail. The other photo is of the Endeavour I am currently building with the taller mizzen mast and normal channels, the shrouds sit out from the rail like they do for the fore and main mast. To me my Endeavour with a taller mizzen just looks right.

Whilst we are at it, I believe that my AL Endeavour has the correct length bowsprit, the fore stays are at a slightly steeper angle than the main stays like you see on many contemporary models, but not as steep as the fore stays on the replica vessel and as depicted in the AOTS

Hi Cabbie

I built the AL Endeavour and found that the stern decorations were very hard to get to fit right. I built the stern as per instructions and then later found the decorations would not follow the shape. Bad kit design

The vertical planks you put under the woman are wrong, sorry, that was never done.

I wish I could offer some advice but I can't

Cheers

Steve

Yeah no rush, I have been building mine for 5 years so far, but I am doing a lot of scratch building and I only work on it on the weekends when I am not doing other stuff.

I remember when I built my first wooden ship - a Corel Victory, it took me two years and I was working on it most nights

Just ask if you need some advice, just send a personal message on here, or if you post a question on your build you will usually be flooded with advice from lots of people. Great site this!

Lovely work dashi, nice pumps and I like what you did with the tiller after all that debate. While we are talking about debate, I disagree with the skylight (companion) shape (see my log) I especially disagree with how it is depicted in the AOTS with the iron bars on it, it's like something out of the 19th century. The two remaining questions I have in my mind about Endeavour are the arrangement of the "platform over the tiller" and the much debated bumpkins. So I left both off my build.

Cheers

Steve

Robin, This is this your painting they use in the story, and they have called it an undated sketch. Hope you are getting royalties for it!

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/archaeology/captain-cooks-longlost-ship-hms-endeavour-may-have-been-found/news-story/d73c78733b3784ff77b2a1e547645dd0

Yes I agree Robin, this is old news, maybe now they have some funding to do some recovery of the wrecks. Hope so, they might find the remains of those elusive bumpkins

Wow, Siggi52 just posted som pics of the Royal George in the gallery and if you open the hi-res pics you can see the skylight on the poop deck a bit clearer. It shows a skylight exactly how the Endeavour one is described in the refit documents - with a sash all round and a grating on top.

Thanks Mike I look forward to seeing more progress on your great build

Fantastic work on the sails and a great innovation for the ensign, love it. Your attention to detail is superb, this is one of my favourite models on this forum.

Yes I agree with the others Ron, those sails look great. Cheers