Rich
I seem to be missing a couple of posts here..? not sure what has happened. Read the sometimes animated discussion about bent or straight deck planks. Personally my preference is to honour the original when the original is well understood, but of course it frequently isn't. BN1 is clearly a case of that, so it just makes no sense to take up entrenched positions. Building the Endeavour was helped by the existence of a book dedicated to the ship by Karl Marquardt a local Melbourne man who was a design modeller and draughtsman at General Motors here. He was instrumental in the plans for the Endeavour replica which lives in Sydney and is very accurate ( except for the clanger of a white bottom which is certainly wrong) .He also wrote a book 'Global Schooner" but curiously didnt mention the American and Canadian boats...no idea what that was all about..? Anyway his Endeavour book in the Anatomy of a Ship series was based on the only set of drawings extant from the second Deptford refit between voyages 1 and 2...so there is no documentation at all on the first voyage to the Pacific other than orders for spars and other things. Some of the detail is derived from a couple of very inadequate scenic sketches by the ship's artist Sidney Parkinson...the main bones of contention are whether the bow bumpkins existed or are just a stray line in Parkinsons drawing..? and the height of the mizzen. This bumpkin argument (Marquardt is a bumpkin man) has taken on the importance of a nuclear treaty in Endeavour world...so if you want to waste a couple of weeks Google the bumpkins on the Endeavour. Much more acrimonious than straight or bent deck planks on BN1. I really do enjoy trying to identify original aspects of a model ...until I find something I cant do..LOL
John