Bob Cleek

I've heard of ships carrying grindstones as ballast to places where they might be sold, but I've never heard of jettisoned grindstones being recovered over the course of my forty-plus years of familiarity with maritime archaeology in the S.F. Bay Area. During the last of the Nineteenth and beginning of the Twentieth Centuries, the large "ocean carriers," mainly four-masted barks and ships such as Balclutha, primarily carried grain grown in the Central Valley of California to Europe and, finding cargoes wanting on the return leg from Europe to California, required balasting. They would carry cobblestones quarried in Europe, called "Belgian block," that were off-loaded at San Francisco and used to pave the streets of the City. Many are still in place, though often now covered in asphalt. They are pulled up when streets are rebuilt and were once resold as construction material. I once owned a home with a twelve foot high living room wall built of them. Today, the City realizes their value and has an ordinance requiring all cobblestones removed from the streets to be retained for reuse by the City itself for historic restorations and the like.

Most people find using a much finer sanding grit than 150 for final finishing work, usually at least 320, and do not attempt to finish coat open pored wood species like walnut without first using a filler. That produces a perfectly smooth "furniture grade" finish, if that is what one is shooting for.
 

I agree with Bob. 150 grit leaves a lot of scratches in the wood, especially if you rub really hard. These scratches may be hard to remove with 300-400 grit, but you will eventually get a much nicer surface. I then use #0000 steel wool to get a nice satin finish.
 
Be sure to wipe the surface with a clean cotton rag (or brush it with a stiff soft brush) after using steel wool or sandpaper. Sanding can leave grit on the wood and steel wool will leave tiny steel fibers. You should remove these before applying the next coat of paint or sealer.
 
If you want to seal a porous wood, especially a dark wood like walnut, save the dust from sanding. Then mix it with a clear paint (whatever type you are using) to make a sanding sealer. You might want to dilute the paint 1:1 with thinner to get a thin sealer. Apply a light coat and let it dry. Then rub it with #0000 steel wool to remove the paint from the surface and leave the paint/dust in the pores. Repeat applications of the sealer until you get the surface you want. A final light rub down with #0000 steel wool will give a satin finish.
 
Caution: commercial sanding sealers usually have talc powder in them. It dries white, and will make pores in dark wood stand out like a sore thumb. However, if you are going to paint the sealed wood with an opaque color the commercial sealers are easier to use than mixing your own.

Most people find using a much finer sanding grit than 150 for final finishing work, usually at least 320, and do not attempt to finish coat open pored wood species like walnut without first using a filler. That produces a perfectly smooth "furniture grade" finish, if that is what one is shooting for.
 

You are correct. The "Irish," "Galway" or "Connemara Hooker" is a type of boat and those are broad generic terms for the type. Locally, however, they are referred to by their size classes, Bad mor ("bad more"), leathwad ("la-wad"), gleoiteog ("glow-chug"), and pucan ("poo-con.") They were never built to plans and each has it's own unique details, but what they have in common is their general shape, rig, and construction details. The only accurate plans in the modern form are those taken by researchers from existing tradtionally-built vessels. Joe Murphy has done a set, as has Richard Scott, who's now deceased. If you can find a used copy of Scott's The Galway Hookers at a price you can stomach for a small paperback, I'd urge you to get it because there's a wealth of information in it.  Unfortunately, the drawings for two hookers in Scott's books are printed very small and would have to be enlarged and then redrawn to get much use from them for building anything.
 
The Galway Hooker Association has a good website that's worth keeping an eye on. https://www.galwayhookers.ie/ Someone in the association may be able to connect you with a source of accurate traditional hooker plans, as this association has been involved in building new hookers in recent decades but, as I mentioned, they never were built to plans, so they may be doing it the old fashioned way, since the "hooker revival" is all about the revitalization of Irish culture and language following centuries of British colonial oppression.
 
Most valuable to you would be a copy of a small book called The Galway Hooker (Huiceir na Gaillimhe in Irish, it's text is in both English and Irish on facing pages.) It is one of a three volume set called Shipwrights (Na Saora Bad), the others being on types of currachs. This book is self-published by Cian de Buitlear.  In a pocket within the book is a set of 3 drawings of complete plans, 16 inches x 24 inches at 1/2 inch to the foot scale, with a narrated step by step DVD video of Joe Murphy's building of the gleoiteog, Star of the West, from start to launch. It was published in 2005. I couldn't find it anywhere online. You might want to contact the publisher and see if you can get a copy: Cian de Buitlear, Sruthan, An Cheathru Rua, Co Na Gaillimhe, Ireland. Telephone number: 087 2557 444. Email: ciandebuitlear@eircom.net  This is the only available set of accurate construction plans for an Irish hooker to be found published anywhere.
 
I did notice that there is a new "coffee table" pictorial book out, Huiceiri / Galway Hookers which is described as "mentioning the main building features of this craft, but is probably more "boat porn" than a building manual, although there's nothing wrong with boat porn. At $25 euros, it wouldn't break the bank, but I do have to email them to inquire if it is bilingual or not. ("Huiceiri" means "Hookers" in Irish.)  Check it out if you want: https://www.seanchaieditions.com/our-publications/books/huiceiri-galway-hookers

Very clever approach to planking first and removing the bulkheads! Your hull has a nice shape.
 
I'm not sure to what extent you are planning to display your framing, but you might want to take a closer look at the framing detail. While there is one set of construction drawings on the internet done by Nick Branson (https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/26ft-galway-hooker-pucan-to-build.40781/) which shows a simple half-lap scarf to join futtocks to create a single frame, these plans have been "modernized" and do not employ the traditional, and very distinctive, framing and other construction methods and scantlings of the traditional Irish hookers. There are no steamed frames in a traditionally-built Irish hooker.  Hookers have sawn frames.The molded depth of the frames is perhaps twice their sided width.  Peculiarly, the futtocks are staggered. There is a floor timber (no keelson) from which which three overlapping futtocks rise, alternating to one side or the other.  Their ends are cut at an angle and fastened with a bolt and four nails holding them where they overlap. These overlaps are lined up in a fair line fore and aft. Frames far forward and far aft are canted and, where their shape allows in the bow, may be sawn from a single timber. One might overlook this detail for the sake of "artistic license," but as it is so distinctive a construction feature, and one that reaches back in a straight line perhaps as much as 300 or more years to its likely Basque antecedents, you may wish to depict this feature accurately in your model. 
 
This series of three videos contains a fair amount of detail on the construction of the traditional hooker. You can hit "pause" when you see a hooker in frame and study how the futtocks are placed. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3R4ZdW3trY
 
 
 
 

I will be following your gléoiteog build with interest. I have a Galway Hooker on deck for my next build, a larger gleoiteog or a smaller leathbhad, if i ever can get my shop reorganized. I've done the research and, compared to other types, there's precious little available on the hookers, really, and some of the sail plans published aren't accurate at all. I can count the number of reliably accurate published plans drawings on one hand. (Notably, Chapelle's "Boston Hooker's" sail plan is nothing like the distinctive rig of the hookers and, contrary to his description in American Small Sailing Craft, there was no difference between the Galway Hookers and the Boston Hookers, the latter being built at Boston by a transplanted hooker builder from Galway.) If you can afford the astounding prices they're asking for a used copy (as much as $675 for the out-of-print 160 page paperback, but it can be found for much less if you search for it) Galway Hookers: Working Sailboats of Galway Bay, by Richard J. Scott, will be found invaluable. It is the only authoritative source detailing the methods employed for building these boats, for which no plans were ever used. They are built "basket style," by setting up four molds: a midship mold and one forward and aft of midships, a transom mold and the stem. These molds were made from patterns handed down through the generations, perhaps as far back as the mid-Eighteenth Century, by the handful of boatbuilders on the coast of County Galway and enlarged or reduced to suit the size of  the vessel to be built. Scott's book gives all the other proportional scantlings and measurements which were dictated by oral tradition, all being derived from the length of the vessel. (e.g. "the mast is as long as the boat is long; The bowsprit is half the length of the boat," sort of thing.)
 
With the backbone laid down, the patterns were set up and battens run from stem to transom and the frames were then built to fit inside the "basket" formed by the battens which, together with the patterns, The framing method of single futtocks alternately lapped was unique to our experience until the recent archaeological find of a Sixteenth Century Basque fishing boat, which more strongly evidences that the evolutionary genetics of the Galway Hooker may have been Iberian than was previously known.
 
Traditional Boats of Ireland, History, Forklore, and Construction is another great book, but it only briefly covers the hookers, giving them equal space along with all the other Irish working watercraft, of which there are many. While the hookers have enjoyed a resurgence of popularity in recent decades, they remain something of a local phenomenon. The best connection is probably the Galway Hooker's Association: https://www.galwayhookers.ie/  Padraig O'Sabhain's 304 page thesis The centrality of the Galway hooker to dwelling in the island and coastal communities of south west Conamara is linked on the Association's home page and, while I haven't had time to read it all, looks to be a something fun to curl up with on a rainy night.
 
One catch about researching the Irish hookers is that everything about them, from the names of their variants to the parts of the vessels are expressed in Irish Gaelic which uses Roman letters, but does not have the same phonetics as English. While I grew up in a home where Irish was spoken, we never learned it as children because it was the language my grandmother and mother spoke as "code" when they didn't want the kids to know what they were saying! That was only natural for my grandmother from "around the corner" from Galway in County Cork. When she was growing up, the British did all they could to stamp out the language. Children were forbidden to speak it in school. In today's Irish Republic, Irish is taught in all the schools and far more widely spoken than during the British Colonial period. Who'd have ever thought I'd have had any need to learn it later in life!
 
(I figure you know this stuff, but others who may have an interest in modeling the hooker might not.)
 
I plan to build a static model to a larger scale, perhaps 1:24, to permit depiction of all the classic details. 
 
Good luck with your build!
 
 

You are correct. The "Irish," "Galway" or "Connemara Hooker" is a type of boat and those are broad generic terms for the type. Locally, however, they are referred to by their size classes, Bad mor ("bad more"), leathwad ("la-wad"), gleoiteog ("glow-chug"), and pucan ("poo-con.") They were never built to plans and each has it's own unique details, but what they have in common is their general shape, rig, and construction details. The only accurate plans in the modern form are those taken by researchers from existing tradtionally-built vessels. Joe Murphy has done a set, as has Richard Scott, who's now deceased. If you can find a used copy of Scott's The Galway Hookers at a price you can stomach for a small paperback, I'd urge you to get it because there's a wealth of information in it.  Unfortunately, the drawings for two hookers in Scott's books are printed very small and would have to be enlarged and then redrawn to get much use from them for building anything.
 
The Galway Hooker Association has a good website that's worth keeping an eye on. https://www.galwayhookers.ie/ Someone in the association may be able to connect you with a source of accurate traditional hooker plans, as this association has been involved in building new hookers in recent decades but, as I mentioned, they never were built to plans, so they may be doing it the old fashioned way, since the "hooker revival" is all about the revitalization of Irish culture and language following centuries of British colonial oppression.
 
Most valuable to you would be a copy of a small book called The Galway Hooker (Huiceir na Gaillimhe in Irish, it's text is in both English and Irish on facing pages.) It is one of a three volume set called Shipwrights (Na Saora Bad), the others being on types of currachs. This book is self-published by Cian de Buitlear.  In a pocket within the book is a set of 3 drawings of complete plans, 16 inches x 24 inches at 1/2 inch to the foot scale, with a narrated step by step DVD video of Joe Murphy's building of the gleoiteog, Star of the West, from start to launch. It was published in 2005. I couldn't find it anywhere online. You might want to contact the publisher and see if you can get a copy: Cian de Buitlear, Sruthan, An Cheathru Rua, Co Na Gaillimhe, Ireland. Telephone number: 087 2557 444. Email: ciandebuitlear@eircom.net  This is the only available set of accurate construction plans for an Irish hooker to be found published anywhere.
 
I did notice that there is a new "coffee table" pictorial book out, Huiceiri / Galway Hookers which is described as "mentioning the main building features of this craft, but is probably more "boat porn" than a building manual, although there's nothing wrong with boat porn. At $25 euros, it wouldn't break the bank, but I do have to email them to inquire if it is bilingual or not. ("Huiceiri" means "Hookers" in Irish.)  Check it out if you want: https://www.seanchaieditions.com/our-publications/books/huiceiri-galway-hookers

Very clever approach to planking first and removing the bulkheads! Your hull has a nice shape.
 
I'm not sure to what extent you are planning to display your framing, but you might want to take a closer look at the framing detail. While there is one set of construction drawings on the internet done by Nick Branson (https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/26ft-galway-hooker-pucan-to-build.40781/) which shows a simple half-lap scarf to join futtocks to create a single frame, these plans have been "modernized" and do not employ the traditional, and very distinctive, framing and other construction methods and scantlings of the traditional Irish hookers. There are no steamed frames in a traditionally-built Irish hooker.  Hookers have sawn frames.The molded depth of the frames is perhaps twice their sided width.  Peculiarly, the futtocks are staggered. There is a floor timber (no keelson) from which which three overlapping futtocks rise, alternating to one side or the other.  Their ends are cut at an angle and fastened with a bolt and four nails holding them where they overlap. These overlaps are lined up in a fair line fore and aft. Frames far forward and far aft are canted and, where their shape allows in the bow, may be sawn from a single timber. One might overlook this detail for the sake of "artistic license," but as it is so distinctive a construction feature, and one that reaches back in a straight line perhaps as much as 300 or more years to its likely Basque antecedents, you may wish to depict this feature accurately in your model. 
 
This series of three videos contains a fair amount of detail on the construction of the traditional hooker. You can hit "pause" when you see a hooker in frame and study how the futtocks are placed. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3R4ZdW3trY
 
 
 
 

I will be following your gléoiteog build with interest. I have a Galway Hooker on deck for my next build, a larger gleoiteog or a smaller leathbhad, if i ever can get my shop reorganized. I've done the research and, compared to other types, there's precious little available on the hookers, really, and some of the sail plans published aren't accurate at all. I can count the number of reliably accurate published plans drawings on one hand. (Notably, Chapelle's "Boston Hooker's" sail plan is nothing like the distinctive rig of the hookers and, contrary to his description in American Small Sailing Craft, there was no difference between the Galway Hookers and the Boston Hookers, the latter being built at Boston by a transplanted hooker builder from Galway.) If you can afford the astounding prices they're asking for a used copy (as much as $675 for the out-of-print 160 page paperback, but it can be found for much less if you search for it) Galway Hookers: Working Sailboats of Galway Bay, by Richard J. Scott, will be found invaluable. It is the only authoritative source detailing the methods employed for building these boats, for which no plans were ever used. They are built "basket style," by setting up four molds: a midship mold and one forward and aft of midships, a transom mold and the stem. These molds were made from patterns handed down through the generations, perhaps as far back as the mid-Eighteenth Century, by the handful of boatbuilders on the coast of County Galway and enlarged or reduced to suit the size of  the vessel to be built. Scott's book gives all the other proportional scantlings and measurements which were dictated by oral tradition, all being derived from the length of the vessel. (e.g. "the mast is as long as the boat is long; The bowsprit is half the length of the boat," sort of thing.)
 
With the backbone laid down, the patterns were set up and battens run from stem to transom and the frames were then built to fit inside the "basket" formed by the battens which, together with the patterns, The framing method of single futtocks alternately lapped was unique to our experience until the recent archaeological find of a Sixteenth Century Basque fishing boat, which more strongly evidences that the evolutionary genetics of the Galway Hooker may have been Iberian than was previously known.
 
Traditional Boats of Ireland, History, Forklore, and Construction is another great book, but it only briefly covers the hookers, giving them equal space along with all the other Irish working watercraft, of which there are many. While the hookers have enjoyed a resurgence of popularity in recent decades, they remain something of a local phenomenon. The best connection is probably the Galway Hooker's Association: https://www.galwayhookers.ie/  Padraig O'Sabhain's 304 page thesis The centrality of the Galway hooker to dwelling in the island and coastal communities of south west Conamara is linked on the Association's home page and, while I haven't had time to read it all, looks to be a something fun to curl up with on a rainy night.
 
One catch about researching the Irish hookers is that everything about them, from the names of their variants to the parts of the vessels are expressed in Irish Gaelic which uses Roman letters, but does not have the same phonetics as English. While I grew up in a home where Irish was spoken, we never learned it as children because it was the language my grandmother and mother spoke as "code" when they didn't want the kids to know what they were saying! That was only natural for my grandmother from "around the corner" from Galway in County Cork. When she was growing up, the British did all they could to stamp out the language. Children were forbidden to speak it in school. In today's Irish Republic, Irish is taught in all the schools and far more widely spoken than during the British Colonial period. Who'd have ever thought I'd have had any need to learn it later in life!
 
(I figure you know this stuff, but others who may have an interest in modeling the hooker might not.)
 
I plan to build a static model to a larger scale, perhaps 1:24, to permit depiction of all the classic details. 
 
Good luck with your build!
 
 

As said, it's a matter of scale. You can get away with it, barely, at 3/4" to the foot, as below, if you use very fine thread and the closest stitch setting. but corners hand stitched with the same thread produces a bit cruder results and bolt roping is a real challenge. On this model, I didn't sew the panels together, but rather simply stitched through the single sheet of fine cloth. There's no seam overlap on the panels, but the line of stitching does produce an impression of reality.
 
I didn't have any better close-ups of machine-sewn sails, but these shots of a three-quarters inch scale catboat give some idea of as much as one might expect of a home sewing machine. Below that, I wouldn't recommend cloth sails at all. (The copper fittings were left to develop a natural "penny brown" patina on their own, thereby simulating bronze. The photos were taken before that process had taken place.)
 
 
 




 
 
 



 
 
 

The list or the Admiral?  

The list or the Admiral?  

The list or the Admiral?  

Thank you Bob for your answer. Very good hints, particularly the "scale distance", I will try to take it into account as much as I can.
Indeed, overdoing some details beyond the "scaled" visibility often makes model looking more detailed and more  precisely build, disregarding how far it matches the reality. Something similar to be often seen in case of weathering plastic model kits for example
 
 

I believe you are actually referring to coverning boards, not margin planks. Covering boards are simply as long as the wood stock available to the builders at the time. Because they curve the length of the vessel, wood of sufficient width doesn't exist.  As you accurately mentioned, covering board joints may be butted or scarfed, generally depending on the "fit and finish" of the vessel. Joints aren't caulked. Their faying surfaces are payed with bedding compound and they are fastened together using butt blocks, scarf wedges, or whatever other method is appropriate to the connection method used. Those seams should be barely visible under any circumstances, although, in the case of a butt, the butt would usually be beveled to form a caulking seam and the seam caulked and payed in the same manner as the adjoining deck seams.

As Jon's photos accurately depict, metal fasteners (often in this size construction galvanized square-cut boat nails are countersunk and plugged with a wooden plug of the same species of wood set into the planking with the plug's grain running in the same direction as the plank's grain (to prevent the plug working loose as would tend to occur when the wood and the plug otherwise swelled in different directions.) The purpose of the plugs is to minimize corrosion and to permit sanding the deck fair and clean now and again ("holystoning.")
 
Plank fastening is done with wooden fasteners ("trunnels.") Trunnels have their grain running the length of the trunnel and are often of a different species, frequently locust in the time period discussed here. Given that the end grain of a trunnel is exposed at the plank surface and often is of a darker colored wood, they can appear somewhat more visible than the fastening plugs, which show their face grain at the surface and are nearly invisible.
 
In "real life," the hull and deck planking will be painted an opaque color, or oiled, which eventually results in a near-black color, so the trunnels will not be visible unless the hull planking is bare, as it would be when the vessel was under construction. 
 
These facts apply to appearances "up close" on the prototype vessel. A model depicts what the viewer would see from a scale distance. The scale distance is the distance a viewer would have to stand away from the prototype vessel to see the same scope of the vessel he sees when viewing the model. In other words, "How far back to you have to stand to see the whole vessel from stem to stern?" At scale distance, detail is lost (and colors tend to fade with gloss nowhere to be seen.) At scale distance deck fastener plugs are invisible and black deck seam stopping barely visible. At scale distance, even bare hull planking trunnels will be barely visible, if at all. 
 
Exaggerated depictions of fastenings, plugs, treenails, and deck seam stopping, not to mention over-scale coppering tacks and plates, are affectations embraced by some modelers for reasons I don't entirely understand. This is particularly so in cases where plugs and trunnels are colored black to accentuate their appearance, an occurrence that never existed on any prototype vessel anytime or anywhere. Where real pegging is employed to fasten model planks to frames, the same wood material should be used and the pegs faired to the planking surface if the wood is to be left unpainted. That practice will depict the scale trunnels accurately as to color and they will be barely visible. When such practice is followed, it is essential that all pegs are placed in the same positions as would be the case with the prototype vessel, i.e. at proper scale distance from each other running over beams and frames at locations accurate to the original vessel. Note that the second picture you have posted above is of a modern era faux laid deck without fasteners or plugs, being instead laid down in adhesive, frequently epoxy, as a veneer over a substrate, frequently metal, plywood, or fiberglass, and not relevant at all to the present discussion of traditional wood construction practices. Particularly, the layout of the decking pieces around the base of the winches and fittings is a pure fantasy which glaringly clashes with what appears to be an otherwise beautifully done traditional-looking yacht. Such oddities have no place on a traditionally built, or built-to-appear-traditional, vessel and, where encountered, are the mark of an owner with more money than knowledge.

Being as sandpaper was almost certainly not available in their place and time, I'd say scraping was a safe bet.   

As Jon's photos accurately depict, metal fasteners (often in this size construction galvanized square-cut boat nails are countersunk and plugged with a wooden plug of the same species of wood set into the planking with the plug's grain running in the same direction as the plank's grain (to prevent the plug working loose as would tend to occur when the wood and the plug otherwise swelled in different directions.) The purpose of the plugs is to minimize corrosion and to permit sanding the deck fair and clean now and again ("holystoning.")
 
Plank fastening is done with wooden fasteners ("trunnels.") Trunnels have their grain running the length of the trunnel and are often of a different species, frequently locust in the time period discussed here. Given that the end grain of a trunnel is exposed at the plank surface and often is of a darker colored wood, they can appear somewhat more visible than the fastening plugs, which show their face grain at the surface and are nearly invisible.
 
In "real life," the hull and deck planking will be painted an opaque color, or oiled, which eventually results in a near-black color, so the trunnels will not be visible unless the hull planking is bare, as it would be when the vessel was under construction. 
 
These facts apply to appearances "up close" on the prototype vessel. A model depicts what the viewer would see from a scale distance. The scale distance is the distance a viewer would have to stand away from the prototype vessel to see the same scope of the vessel he sees when viewing the model. In other words, "How far back to you have to stand to see the whole vessel from stem to stern?" At scale distance, detail is lost (and colors tend to fade with gloss nowhere to be seen.) At scale distance deck fastener plugs are invisible and black deck seam stopping barely visible. At scale distance, even bare hull planking trunnels will be barely visible, if at all. 
 
Exaggerated depictions of fastenings, plugs, treenails, and deck seam stopping, not to mention over-scale coppering tacks and plates, are affectations embraced by some modelers for reasons I don't entirely understand. This is particularly so in cases where plugs and trunnels are colored black to accentuate their appearance, an occurrence that never existed on any prototype vessel anytime or anywhere. Where real pegging is employed to fasten model planks to frames, the same wood material should be used and the pegs faired to the planking surface if the wood is to be left unpainted. That practice will depict the scale trunnels accurately as to color and they will be barely visible. When such practice is followed, it is essential that all pegs are placed in the same positions as would be the case with the prototype vessel, i.e. at proper scale distance from each other running over beams and frames at locations accurate to the original vessel. Note that the second picture you have posted above is of a modern era faux laid deck without fasteners or plugs, being instead laid down in adhesive, frequently epoxy, as a veneer over a substrate, frequently metal, plywood, or fiberglass, and not relevant at all to the present discussion of traditional wood construction practices. Particularly, the layout of the decking pieces around the base of the winches and fittings is a pure fantasy which glaringly clashes with what appears to be an otherwise beautifully done traditional-looking yacht. Such oddities have no place on a traditionally built, or built-to-appear-traditional, vessel and, where encountered, are the mark of an owner with more money than knowledge.

Being as sandpaper was almost certainly not available in their place and time, I'd say scraping was a safe bet.   

Ernestina and old schooner lovers...
 
I went back through some photos on the deck.  This post will not totally resolve the questions, but it does shed some light.
 
  in this photo one orients himself as to the decking coming onto the waterway
 
  In this blow up one can see pegs over fasteners .  Also note the linseed oil compound that blackens the whole deck.
 
  In this photo we see similar plugs following a pattern that is obviously a deck beam.   the Douglas fir decking and plugs make it difficult to see in an unfinished condition and totally unlikely to see in an oiled condition.     From my reading it is likely that the plugs are cut from the same material that make them act the same, as to expansion, and seem to disappear.   Wood trunnels on the other hand would be hackmatack or other harder material than the planking and thus stand out in hull planking.
 
This may not be a complete answer and I will look forward to reading here the yard's answer.   
 
cheers 
 
jon

Which just fortifies my compulsion that joints should be clamped as tightly as possible, but no crushing of wood fibers.
Planing and scraping produces a clean surface - good for gluing.  Sanding fills the pores, which is not all that good.
I think it was an old Sci Am, or the short lived popular edition of Science  article about either Stradivari or Guarneri that noted that their violins were probably scraped - the pores were free of wood flour under the clear finish.
Take home was that scraping was a good thing to do as a final step.
 

Yeah, as the sayings go, in full-size boatbuilding, "You can never have enough clamps." and in ship modeling, "You can never have enough research!." at some point, you just have to start building. You're way ahead of me on that score.   I enjoy the research as much as the building, though. 

You are correct. The "Irish," "Galway" or "Connemara Hooker" is a type of boat and those are broad generic terms for the type. Locally, however, they are referred to by their size classes, Bad mor ("bad more"), leathwad ("la-wad"), gleoiteog ("glow-chug"), and pucan ("poo-con.") They were never built to plans and each has it's own unique details, but what they have in common is their general shape, rig, and construction details. The only accurate plans in the modern form are those taken by researchers from existing tradtionally-built vessels. Joe Murphy has done a set, as has Richard Scott, who's now deceased. If you can find a used copy of Scott's The Galway Hookers at a price you can stomach for a small paperback, I'd urge you to get it because there's a wealth of information in it.  Unfortunately, the drawings for two hookers in Scott's books are printed very small and would have to be enlarged and then redrawn to get much use from them for building anything.
 
The Galway Hooker Association has a good website that's worth keeping an eye on. https://www.galwayhookers.ie/ Someone in the association may be able to connect you with a source of accurate traditional hooker plans, as this association has been involved in building new hookers in recent decades but, as I mentioned, they never were built to plans, so they may be doing it the old fashioned way, since the "hooker revival" is all about the revitalization of Irish culture and language following centuries of British colonial oppression.
 
Most valuable to you would be a copy of a small book called The Galway Hooker (Huiceir na Gaillimhe in Irish, it's text is in both English and Irish on facing pages.) It is one of a three volume set called Shipwrights (Na Saora Bad), the others being on types of currachs. This book is self-published by Cian de Buitlear.  In a pocket within the book is a set of 3 drawings of complete plans, 16 inches x 24 inches at 1/2 inch to the foot scale, with a narrated step by step DVD video of Joe Murphy's building of the gleoiteog, Star of the West, from start to launch. It was published in 2005. I couldn't find it anywhere online. You might want to contact the publisher and see if you can get a copy: Cian de Buitlear, Sruthan, An Cheathru Rua, Co Na Gaillimhe, Ireland. Telephone number: 087 2557 444. Email: ciandebuitlear@eircom.net  This is the only available set of accurate construction plans for an Irish hooker to be found published anywhere.
 
I did notice that there is a new "coffee table" pictorial book out, Huiceiri / Galway Hookers which is described as "mentioning the main building features of this craft, but is probably more "boat porn" than a building manual, although there's nothing wrong with boat porn. At $25 euros, it wouldn't break the bank, but I do have to email them to inquire if it is bilingual or not. ("Huiceiri" means "Hookers" in Irish.)  Check it out if you want: https://www.seanchaieditions.com/our-publications/books/huiceiri-galway-hookers

This seemed to make sense, but I've only ever been concerned about "tooth" in adhesive applications when using epoxy adhesives. When a good epoxy bond is of paramount importance, I use a preliminary application of penetrating epoxy sealer (Smith's "CPES") and then the epoxy adhesive, not clamped too tightly to avoid "joint starvation." (The penetrating epoxy soaks into the wood and the epoxy adhesive then creates a molecular bond with the penetrating epoxy so long as the two are joined within 48 to 72 hours. (See: tech data at: http://www.smithandcompany.org/) I've used a lot of PVA in woodworking applications and, generally speaking, I'm a "planer," not a "sander." I was taught that "the tighter the joint, the stronger the joint."  I've never given a second thought to joining smoothly planed surfaces with PVA and I've joined a lot of them without ever noticing any problem. This got me thinking. Well, not thinking, as much as googling, and at the risk of falling victim to the comedy of errors known as the internet, I looked it up and found an interesting and credible answer in an excerpt from Popular Woodworking quoting the Senior Technical Specialist for Franklin International, the makers of Titebond PVA adhesives:
 
"Our work has shown that a smooth surface will always have higher strength than a rough surface.  Two-hundred grit or higher sanding to get flat or tight-fitting joints works well."
 
The Titebond tech expert gives one caveat: PVA will not bond well to burnished wood. While I doubt wood is intentionally burnished by many modelers, burnishing may inadvertently occur when wood is sanded with dull sandpaper and when sanding dust builds up between the abrasive sheet and the worked surface, especially with high speed power sanders, or when dull circular saw blades and other rotary cutting tools rub against wood surfaces, even to the point of burning. Titebond's expert says wood can be tested for burnishing by placing a drop of water on the surface. If he water soaks into the wood, it's not burnished. If water doesn't soak into the surface readily, the bonding surface must be sanded enough to remove the burnished surface. I have little or no experience with laser-cut parts, but I wonder if the heat to which laser-cut surfaces are exposed may create a burnishing effect which might extend to some depth below the "char" into the wood. Perhaps those using laser-cut parts might do the "water drop test" and report back on this question.
 
The article can be found at https://www.popularwoodworking.com/techniques/best-wood-glue-surface-smooth-or-rough/ and is quite informative. What I found of particular interest upon reflection was the fact that the strength of a PVA glue line is in great measure affected by high clamping pressure. This I knew, but never gave any thought to in the context of modeling. The general woodworking maxim is "except when using epoxy adhesives, glue joints should be clamped as tightly as possible until cured." The way I employ clamping in most modeling applications, when a part is clamped at all, is more to hold the part in place than to apply strong clamping pressure. I do try to mechanically fasten parts as much as possible, using pins and pegs, and I'm even more convinced now of the merit of that practice than before. In so many modeling applications, it's just not possible to clamp a part strongly because of its shape, location, the strength of the part itself, or a combination of the above. It would appear that without strong clamping pressure, PVA may not be any better than any other kind of "stickum."
 
As the saying goes, "Your mileage may vary." but I'm buying what Titebond's in-house senior tech says.