Update: Response from Geoffery K. Fleming on Seabury Fabrication

As with Dick Cowan, Mr. Fleming felt the need to respond for my request for documentation, yet provided no documentation or evidence for his stated position on the decoys in question.  I will not spend a lot of time on all the content of our e-mails (however, if anyone wants copies, I will be only too happy to send copies to you).

I will give you a sample of what Mr. Fleming feels is documentation for the Seabury story: "Richard Hendrickson, who is almost 100, recalled Seabury as well."  Mr. Hendrickson was born after Lafayette Seabury's death.  How well could he have known him?  Mr. Fleming ignored questions he had no answers for. He said what is found in the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association newsletter about when the decoys were sold is wrong and says he never said what is in the newsletter.  Mr Fleming said he had never seen the newsletter even though I do believe he is a club member and the Southold Historical Society Vice President, Melvin Phaff, was president of L.I.D.C.A. when he gave the "Seabury Talk."  He also claimed not to have ever seen Tim Sieger 's feature in Hunting & Fishing Collectibles magazine which is also hard to believe that Mr. Fleming would not have read Tim's feature in H & F Collectibles magazine before making his presentation (if you don't see it, it does not exist).

Mr Fleming's last remarks were, "Though I have never seen a period piece of paper stating the Seaburys carved decoys, such as a ledger, receipt, order form etc., I also have never seen items for most carvers from Long Island" (thank you for making my point JR), "Oral history is often the best alternative when little (or no JR) written record is offered and when supplemented by original items from the family, it's hard to deny" (of which, none of the items from the Seabury family, tools, etc. had anything to do with decoys or carving decoys or documenting the decoys as Seabury decoys).

Fleming charges on into the abyss of absurdity with his last statement, "As I have seen no evidence that disproves the belief that the decoys were made by Seabury, I see no reason to entertain such a notion."  Belief is defined as: conviction that certain things are true, religious faith, trust or confidence, creed or doctrine, an opinion, etc.  Nowhere do you find the word fact defined under the word "belief."

Bottom line, he presented no documentation for the Seaburys as the makers of the plover decoys Tim Sieger said were made by Lafayette Seabury or any other Seabury family member.  The decoys are connected to the Seaburys begining in 1999 without one small piece of evidence, fact, or documentation.  Mr. Fleming seems to be doing nothing more than defending some very bad judgement in his acceptance of the "Seabury Story" with no proof presented.

Jamie Reason

A Personal Note Of Thanks

I would just like to thank all the people who have read this blog and who have contacted me to express their appreciation for the research I have presented.  I have been told, "It is refreshing to see someone who cares so much about real history and not its myths.  Keep up the good work.  Looking forward to the next posting."; "Intelligent, insightful and humorous.";  "Thank you.  Best decoy stuff ever written."; "Love the blog.  I look forward to more education."; "Very interesting and much I had never heard before."

It is nice to see that some people out there get it.  It really makes it all worth while.  Thank you all once again.

Jamie Reason

The Seabury Fabrication

Over the years plover shorebird decoys have been found in different locations on the extreme east end of Long Island’s south fork.  The decoys are carved in a distinctive style that would indicate a single maker. They are of a fairly simple design, but were undoubtedly very effective.

The first example I have found of a published photograph of one of the decoys is in Decoy Magazine March/April 1991, article on the “Annual Mid-Atlantic Wildfowl Festival,” Virginia Beach, Virginia.  On page 35 are photographs of the winning birds in the “Vintage Decoy Competition” of which one of the “categories chosen by the show committee” that year was “Best Unknown Species Any Area.”  The 2nd place winner of the category was “Long Island Golden Plover, late 1800s, Bob Gresham Collection."  This is one of the decoys that would later bear the fabricated title of “Lafayette Seabury plover.”

The next appearance of one of these decoys by an unknown maker is an ad in the July/August 1997 issue of Decoy Magazine.  The ad was placed by Long Island Decoy Collectors Association founding member, Frank Murphy.  Along with the photo of the decoy it says, “Collector seeking Golden Plover decoys by this unknown Long Island maker,”  with Frank Murphy's address and phone number. So in 1997, the maker of the decoys remains unknown.

By 1999, two years later we have the real beginning of the Seabury fabrication with the Guyette & Schmidt April 22 & 23 “NORTH AMERICAN DECOYS AT AUCTION,” lot 103, “Very Early Golden Plover, Circa Mid to Late 1800s from the Seabury Family (Bridgehampton New York).”  Lot 350- Lot 354 gives the same description as for the bird above.  However, we have a caveat with Lot 360.  This bird is obviously by the same maker as the previous decoys, yet here the description reads, “EXTREMELY EARLY AND LARGE PLOVER believed to be from the Seabury family (Bridgehampton N.Y.) This bird may date back to the mid 1800s.”  Lot 802 reads "EXCELLENT AND EARLY GOLDEN PLOVER CIRCA 1890 BELIEVED TO BE FROM THE Seabury family, (Bridgehampton N.Y.)."

Why are there discrepancies in the origins of the decoys; “From The Seabury family," “believed to be from the Seabury family,” and where did this information on a purported Seabury family connection come from?  Why are they no longer referred to as being by an unknown maker and changed to “Seabury” without any proof?  It is the willing acceptance by auction houses and collectors, etc. for undocumented names for unknown carvings that makes establishing a new identity for decoy makers so easy for charlatan researchers and the lemming-like collectors.  Apparently no questions were asked about the evidence for the supposed discovery of the carver of the here-to-fore unknown carvings.

It was around this time that Bridgehampton collector Timmy Sieger began to spread the gospel of the “Seabury Plovers.”  According to Tim, he began collecting decoys in high school.  He liked Hurley Conklin’s work and I remember him telling how his mother would drive him to New Jersey so he could visit with and buy birds from Mr. Conklin.  For a period, he also collected Wildfowler Company decoys.  As he became more affluent, he began to buy more up-market birds.  He shifted from the Conklin and Wildfowler’s to Illinois River birds, and Long Island decoys by well known “names.”  He sold off much of his early collection as he entered the world of the high-end decoy collector.  He attended many of shows and decoy auctions.  He set up at some shows as a dealer and traded birds room to room, etc.  In 1997, as president, I appointed him Show Chairman for the annual Long Island Decoy Collectors Show.  At the time he was not considered as a particularly knowledgeable collector by many of the older collectors, dealers and auction houses, but as he bought increasing more expensive birds, his knowledge exponentially increased.  One’s expertise on decoys is evaluated among high-end decoy collectors, as well as collectors at the lower end of spectrum, by how much money you spend on decoys at auction or private sales.  Tim had been beating the Seabury decoy drum for a couple of years telling those who would listen that the plover decoys had been carved by a member of the Seabury family.  Later Tim would identify exactly which of the Seabury’s was the carver of the birds.  Tim would present his “research” in the September/October 2001 issue of Hunting & Fishing Collectibles magazine on page 62 in a feature titled “Decoys-My Favorite Five” by Timothy R. Sieger. Once again we find this magazine printing unsubstantiated, non-researched imbecilic drivel as fact.  Tim’s Favorite Five: (1) a pair of “Gelston” Mergansers (read the Gelston Myth); (2) “Raynor family geese” (another example of Timmy’s detective work that I will address in the near future); (3) “Bert Graves Canvasbacks”; (4) “Seabury Golden Plover”; (5) “Thomas Gelston Yellowlegs.”

I don’t know about the Graves Birds but of the other four picks he identified, he is 0 for 4.

In the article Tim says number (4), the Golden Plover in the photograph was made by “Captain Lafayette Seabury of Bridgehampton, Long Island, N.Y.”  Lafayette Seabury was born around 1825 according to the 1850 Federal Census.  He is listed as a “Farmer” in 1880 and he lists himself on that census as a “carpenter.” Unless Timmy sees the plow or tool chest as a nautical covance, I don’t see the title of “Captain” being used or applied during his lifetime.  However, “Captain” is more colorful than farmer or carpenter, and I am sure Tim never thought anyone would research his little Seabury tale because he like most decoy collectors /writers, etc. never ever research anything.

As far as his home in Bridgehampton, Seabury also spent much of his time in Southampton.  In 1850, he and his mother Julia and his wife Priscilla lived with the Smith Topping Family in Southampton.  Around 1854, he has his first son Orlando.  The 1860 Census shows his mother and 6 year old son, but his wife is absent.  In 1870, the Seabury family moves with the Topping Family to Bridgehampton.  His mother, age 78, and his son, age 14, once again are listed.  I believe it is a safe assumption his wife either died or had left the family.

In 1880, he is head of the house, no longer living with the Topping family.  He has a new young wife, Emma, and a new son, Egbert, 9 months old.  His son Orlando, age 25, is listed as a border and his occupation as a mill worker.  The Old Mill in Bridgehampton known as the “Beebe windmill” was first erected in Sag Harbor by Whaling Captain Beebe.  Lafayette Seabury was one of the many owners of the old mill and that is most likely why his son was a "mill worker” (see Hamptons.com, Around Town Bridgehampton, May 11 2008).

In the book “Memorials of old Bridgehampton" by James T. Adams, he gives the death date for Mr. Seabury as “August 19th 1910."

But what we don’t find is why Tim feels he has any proof that the plovers were made by Lafayette Seabury as he claims in the 2001 Hunting & Fishing Collectibles feature. Tim offers the following infantile explanation of his research on the subject of the “Lafayette Seabury Plovers:”

“This Shorebird is a Golden Plover carved by Captain Lafayette Seabury of Bridgehampton, N.Y., circa 1850 (Note: Tim even knows when they were made with no documentation included).  My first encounter with these Seabury shorebirds was in 1978 while removing a chicken coop from the property of my mother-in-law who is a great grand-daughter of Lafayette Seabury.”  He goes on to say “Tucked away on the plate of the building, the decoy had fallen into the soffit area.  It was 2” thick flattie, with no head.”  However he happened to acquire the headless bird, he took it to local carver Don Law to have the head replaced.  Don not having seen a bird from this rig with an original head, had no way of knowing what the original looked like.  So even though he did a good replacement job, it did not match other birds from the rig, as Tim found out after he bought another bird from the rig.  At this point Tim ask me to replace Don’s replacement head with a more acceptable head, based on his later acquisition of the rigmate.  I took the two birds from Tim, but as I had too many irons in the fire, I gave them back without fixing the bird's head.  I believe he has since sold it.

Tim goes on to tell us of his research.  "Upon further questioning, I found out whom they were carved by."  There you go; that is the research, beginning to end. “Upon further questioning,” he found out who the maker was?

One can only speculate whom or what he questioned to get this valuable information.  Would he have questioned the chicken coop (if that story is even true).  Did he question the decoy, or perhaps the spirits of the Ouija board helped out, or maybe a Crystal Ball, or better yet, The Magic Eight Ball, or did he just pull it out of where the Sun don’t shine.  I am betting on the last one.

Tim goes on to say he had acquired more of the birds from this rig and that he knew where more were held by other people that he hoped to add to his collection.

That is it, Timmy’s research, you have it all, there is no more.  There is no research.  There has never been any research by Tim or anyone else for these decoys except for what I have presented in this blog.  And I have found no documentation that Lafayette Seabury carved the decoys Tim Sieger claimed he carved all based on his “questioning.”

But the acceptance of this fabrication of the “Seabury” plovers by the auction houses, collectors, etc. derives from their not “questioning” the source of the story and asking for some evidence for Tim’s claim.  They had a new name from a high-end buyer, and that’s good enough for most in the decoy collecting world.

Tim’s contribution in Hunting and Fishing Collectibles magazine is just one of the many fact-checking-free, unintelligent articles to be found in many of the issues of the magazine.  Publisher/Editor Stanley Van Etten apparently did not question Tim’s “questioning,” whatever he questioned in place of research and documentation to identify the maker of the decoys.  He just printed what Timmy said as if it were fact.  This makes Timmy the anointed discoverer of the “Seabury decoys.”  He will be enshrined in the hallowed halls of decoy buffoonery along with many others who came up with names for unknown decoys.

In the next step in the Seabury tale, Tim is aided in his establishment of his claim for Seabury by The Ward Museum at the “Chesapeake Wildfowl Expo” held on October 4, 2003.  In the “Antique Decoy Competition” a “Lafayette Seabury Golden Plover” takes a second place in the “Long Island Decoy” category and who was the owner of the decoy?  None other than Tim Sieger.  How about that, what are the odds?

Tim begins to acquire more of the plovers, as did other L.I.D.C.A. members.  Tim, along with collectors Bob Liehr and Frank Murphy (Frank Murphy finally found the carver of his unknown decoys thanks to Timmy‘s questioning).  The three began to exhibit their decoys as “Lafayette Seabury decoys” at different venues like The Historic Mill in Watermill, Long Island where Bob Liehr was on the board, the L.I.D.C.A. show, etc.

At the L.I.D.C.A.’s meeting in May 2006, the guest speaker featured was Long Island Historian Geoffrey K. Fleming, director of the Southold Historical Society Museum, Southold Long Island.

Mr. Fleming’s talk was on Lafayette Seabury and his brother Ichabod.  Not having been at the meeting, I can only go by what is in the L.I.D.C.A.’s newsletter. Typical of most Long Island Decoy Collectors newsletters, it is a substandard publication with very little references to what was said at the meeting by Mr. Fleming in his talk.  My only other source for what transpired is Club Member Stephen Mikle who was at the meeting.  Photos of the meeting can be found on the L.I.D.C.A. website.  In the photos listed as “May Meeting Lafayette Seabury Decoys” we find five members exhibiting decoys that Tim Sieger says are L.S.D., “Lafayette Seabury Decoys”; Dick LaFountain, Bob Liehr, Frank Murphy, Melvin Phaff and Tim Sieger, and also a photo of Mr. Fleming in a gray sweater.

The newsletter says Mr. Fleming talked about the Seabury brothers’ occupations repairing the windmill’s sails, The Life Saving Service, fishing nets and cabbages and kings.  Yet the only mention of decoys is found in the sentence following this one which is very pertinent, “The brothers made every tool they owned and marked each tool (branded each tool) my emphasis, “with either IS Seabury or LWS Seabury.”  Then it says, “They made a rig of decoys together for their personal use and did not mark these decoys in any way.”  According to Steve Mikle, Mr. Fleming provided no proof the brothers made any decoys and he certainly did not provide any proof they had made the plover decoys Timmy said they made, and Timmy did not provide any corroborating research at the meeting. What was so pertinent about the brands is that when he finished his talk and ask for questions from those in attendance, only two hands rose; one was Frank Murphy and the other, Steve Mikle.  Mr. Fleming took Frank's question which was why all their tools, including their pencils, were branded yet not the decoys. It would appear Mr. Fleming had a moment of "Deer in the Headlights” stare then pulling himself together, he blurted out “The decoys were for using.”  That would seem to be an incredibly stupid response to the question.  The tools were not for using?  What were they, show tools?  The response was in reaction to a question that Fleming was not prepared for.  If he had researched the decoys, it should have been an obvious question he should have ask himself.  He obviously just  took the word of L.I.D.C.A. members that the plover decoys were made by Lafayette Seabury. After his absurd answer to Frank Murphy’s question, he next turned to Steve Mikle for his question.  Steve said his question was the same question that Frank Murphy had asked.

The obvious conclusion is Tim Sieger is responsible for the Lafayette Seabury fabrication.  He has been aided by others like Guyette & Schmidt,The Ward Museum, Stan Van Etten, many L.I.D.C.A members, Geoffrey Fleming of the Southold Historical Society Museum.  But all roads lead back to Tim’s headless plover and Tim’s “questioning” in place of documented research.

As with Dick Cowan and the “Gelston Myth,” I e-mailed Mr. Geoffrey Fleming at the Southold Historical Society on August 12, 2009, prior to the posting the “Seabury Fabrication.”  In the e-mail I told Mr. Fleming that I had been researching the “Lafayette Seabury decoys."  I queried why The Southold Museum had the Seabury hand tools, etc., and how the plovers were identified as the work of Lafayette Seabury.  I told him that I did not think any of the decoys had come from his estate.  I told him that before I posted my next blog that "I would be very interested in what evidence you have for Mr. Seabury as a carver of decoys.”

Mr. Fleming’s response: “Mr. Reason, The Society does not own any of the material on Seabury.  All the materials continue to be owned by the Seabury family which is the material I based my talk on. The decoys in question came through his family and were sold by family members long after his death. G. Fleming.”

My response to this was to thank him for his response, but that I didn’t believe the plover decoys being called Seabury’s” had been documented as coming from the Seabury family.” “That I had found no documentation for Seabury as the carver” of these decoys found in “the East Hampton area” And "were you able to document L. Seabury as a carver.”  His response: “I met with the Seabury Family. They knew their ancestor, knew he carved and made a rig, and knew it was eventually sold and divided up.  The decoys were, as I recall, sold by one of the descendants in the 1960’s/70’s and divided up piecemeal amongst a variety of dealers-collectors.  Again as I recall, the largest grouping of the decoys were not found in East Hampton, but in the Watermill-Bridgehampton area.”

We have seen that retired teachers like Richard Baldwin and Dick Cowan don’t understand the meaning of “research,"“documentation,” or “evidence” and it would appear some historians don’t understand the meaning of these words either. The only question Mr. Fleming answered was that the Southold Historical Society held none of the “Seabury material.”  He said he talked to Seabury family members?  Who were they?  L. Seabury died in 1910.  Who could Fleming have talked to who would have known him?  Once again, Mr. Fleming presents no documentation or evidence for what he says and what he says are vagueries, no specifics.  Nothing he says is backed up with any evidence.  Mr. Fleming may have history degrees, but he is no historian.  He is a tool in the fabrication of the Seabury fable.  I have found many of the Historical Societies on Long Island do more harm to history than benefit history.  Fleming and the Southold Society are just a small part of a big problem.  I was not satisfied with his response for my request for documentation.  I wanted a simple yes or no; had he every seen any documentation for his inference to Seabury made decoys and that he made the decoys Timmy Sieger said were carved by Seabury that Fleming was blindly going along with.  So I e-mailed him a third time trying to get a yes or no to the documentation question.  I received no response. I e-mailed him again pressing him for a yes or no on documentation and once again Mr. Fleming has not responded.  This always seem to happen any time you press for documentation. They first respond with smoke and mirrors, no documentation and hope I go away, somehow satisfied with not having my questions answered.  Mr. Fleming has no documentation for Seabury.  You can’t have documentation for a fabrication. It is shame that he cares nothing for what should be his passion, namely Long Island’s History.

There is only one conclusion that can be reached.  No one knows who made the plover decoys, but it is a certainty it was not Lafayette Seabury.  Now if Tim Sieger, Geoffrey Fleming, the Seabury family, or anyone else has any “DOCUMENTATION” for Seabury as a carver of decoys, please feel free to contact me and present your research, which I will gladly post on my blog.  But you may want to look up the word documentation, just so you know what it really means, since obviously so many do not.

In the next blog we will evaluate the “Name” “John Dilley” and whether there is any reason to attribute a group of shorebird decoys to the “Name,” which of course, there isn’t.

Update

Dick Cowan's response regarding my request for documentation for Gelston as a carver (July 29, 2009 e-mail from Mr. Cowan):

"I have some new information on Gelston which I plan to put in our next article. We have found who he stayed with in Quogue and where he hunted. I have not added to the information that was published by Stony Brook in 1977 about his family history. I purchased a group of decoys in the late 1980's from an old man who claimed to have purchased 48 black duck decoys from Gelston about 1918. Perhaps they were bought at Abercrombie and Fitch, but my notes indicate that he bought them directly from Gelston. This Gentleman gunned a great deal on Long Island, frequently with George Pennel as a guide. The Gentleman, a banker from Newburg. N.Y. also bought all the Gelstons remaining at the Abercrombie and Fitch store in NYC right after Gelston died in 1924 (I think)."

Well there you have have it. Dick Cowan has no documentation for Gelston as a carver. I am perplexed that decoy writers don't understand what the word "documentation" means(?) It does not mean "an old man who claimed" he bought decoys from Gelston. If Dick discovered "where Gelston stayed in Quogue" it would not document him as a carver of decoys, and I can only wonder what his evidence for this will be. Nothing in Dick's e-mail is documentation for Thomas H.Gelston (decoy carver) but at least he did respond.

The Gelston Myth

Over a decade ago Joe Engers of Decoy Magazine and I had discussed the idea of me writing two articles; one on Obadiah Verity and the other on Thomas H. Gelston. After doing a small amount of research, I came to the usual dead ends and lack of documentation. I decided not to do the articles primarily due to the fact that I could not find anything new to add to the “stories” of the two supposed carvers, and I had not at that time done any serious research. The only thing I could add from what I was able to discover was that things did not add up and at that point in time I was not ready to point out the the discrepancies in the stories presented for the supposed histories of the “Verity”and “Gelston”decoys. However, this small amount of research opened my eyes a bit and I became increasing skeptical about many of the decoy stories being told.

In the book Modern Research by Harry F. Graff, he writes “It is from historical study that writers at large have learned to sift evidence, testimony, and demand verification.” He goes on to state “Journalism has adopted the ways of historical research.” "Magazines like Time and Newsweek employ corps of persons who bear the title of researcher and whose function is to verify every statement made in the stories turned in by those whose title is reporter.” Unfortunately, fact checking has never played any meaningful roll in decoy journalism in either the books, magazines or in museums such as the Shelburne Museum in Shelburne, Vermont and The Long Island Museums at Stony Brook on Long Island, both of which have extensive decoys in their respective collections.

The Gelston myth is just another glaring example of fiction presented as fact, beginning over sixty years ago and by now is totally ingrained as fact in the minds of today's decoy collectors. The latest update on the Gelston legend came in 2002 when writer/author Richard Cowan wrote a cover article in the January/February issue of Decoy Magazine on Gelston (The article I was unable to write). Mr. Cowan, as with most decoy writers, has never suffered from a need for “verification” as seen in his article aptly titled “Thomas H. Gelston, the Name Behind the Legend" (Legend: story, fiction, fairy tale, fable, folklore). This obtuse article is just another culmination of myth, legend, misdirection and omission. It is a fable filled with unfounded so-called facts. The article is in fact an assault on Long Island decoy history by a repeat offender, but he is not alone.

In the not to distant past yours truly was guilty of passing on unfounded myth as fact (see Decoy Magazine May/June 1999 page 24 “1899 A Look Back”). In this article I used non-researched material presented as facts that I had gleaned from earlier publications, just as most decoy writers have done in the past, and still do today.

Once again we begin our story of the legend of the name “Thomas H. Gelston, decoy maker” with Joel Barber and his book Wild Fowl Decoys. On page 50, plate 43, we find a Barber watercolor of a “CORK BLACK DUCK by Thomas Gelston Quogue L. I. 1897." On page 124, he writes the following, “Progress in the making of cork decoys is indicated by the Thomas Gelston black duck shown in Plate No.83 made at Quogue, L.I. about 1897." This is the springboard for the Thomas H. Gelston name to be used in association with decoys said to have made by him in Quogue, Long Island by Barber. It must be stated upfront that there has never been a Thomas H. Gelston residing in the town of Quogue, Long Island, period. He didn't own property in Quogue and the name has never been recorded on any Federal Census as having lived in Quogue. In Cowan’s article he states “The trail of the Legendary Thomas Gelston is easily followed." If by trail you mean the life of the man Thomas H. Gelston, born in 1850 in Brooklyn, NY, then I would agree to some extent that a researcher could follow where he lived, his occupation, who his wife and children were, etc. But you can not follow his trail as a decoy carver as Mr. Cowan would have you believe in this statement from his article.

“A Hudsonian curlew by Gelston sat on the top shelf in Joel Barber’s collection and he included that very bird in plate 53 of “Wild Fowl Decoys." “Likewise he shows a cork black duck captioned “made in Quogue, circa 1897." In the first part of this paragraph, we find a great omission of fact and smooth misdirection concerning the curlew decoy. True, the Hudsonian curlew is found in plate 53, however, it is not listed or attributed to Gelston. It is pictured with two other birds that are identified, one of which most assuredly is misidentified without any question or reservation. However, the Hudsonian curlew is not identified or even mentioned in the text, and it most assuredly is not listed as being made by T. H. Gelston. Mr. Cowan would misdirect the reader into believing the bird was identified by Barber in his book as having been made by Gelston. Yes it is “an easy trail to follow” if you omit facts like only the cork Black Duck was identified in the book as a decoy made by Gelston. But then it would be hard to write that “the trail was easy to follow” and in fact it would make it harder to write the article in a convincing way.

Why did Barber attribute only the black duck to Gelston and why did he attribute that particular black duck decoy to Gelston? It’s not explained in the book why he thinks Gelston is the maker of the bird. As a mater of fact, there is nothing about Gelston or his life in the book other than what is stated above. I don’t recall ever seeing the decoy so I can only speculate, which is something I don’t like to do, however, I do feel the most likely reason was that the decoy had the T. H. G. brand on the keel. These initials are said to stand for “Thomas H. Gelston." A man named Thomas H. Gelston may have hunted over the birds with that brand. Decoys with this brand may very well have come from a rig of decoys owned by Gelston. However, isn't it feasible the T. H. G. might stand for someone else with those exact same initials?

A Thomas H. Gelston did live in Brooklyn. This can, and to some extent has been documented. He may have even hunted duck in Quogue. But he most assuredly never lived in Quogue as has been stated in the past. There is no documented record of anyone with that name living there at any time during Gelston's life. The late Quogue historian Mrs. Pat Shuttelworth had searched town records for anything on Thomas H. Gelston and another Quogue decoy making legend/myth, “John Dilley." She came up empty on both names.

What would the brand T. H. G. mean anyway? As decoy collectors know a brand shows ownership, not necessarily the maker’s brand. In fact most of the time it is not the makers brand found on decoys, especially if the maker made birds for sale to hunters, as was pointed out by decoy collector Jim Doherty in a letter to Decoy Magazine September/October 2005, where he supports our assertion that most of the Bunn Decoys he wrongly refers to as “Bowman decoys” donated to the Museums at Stony Brook by the Herrick Family were first owned by a T. F. Norton and could not have been bought by “Grandpa” Herrick directly from the maker, as stated by the family legend. Doherty states, “I do not believe that the “T. F. Norton branded Bowman decoys symbolize anything other than ownership; they were probably owned by a 'T.F. Norton' before they became part of the Herrick rig.”

After Barber’s mention of Gelston in his book, we next find Gelston’s name associated with the duck decoys are birds said to have been made by him displayed at the 1959 exhibit “Wildfowl Decoys” presented by Suffolk Museum at Stony Brook. All the decoys that are attributed to Gelston in the exhibit are duck stool and all owned by Rab Staniford of Quogue. But the next real layer of the Gelston legend was laid down but by who else, but those great spreaders of decoy knowledge, William J. Mackey Jr. and Adele Earnest in their books printed in 1965. However, it was definitely Mackey who was doing the heavy lifting. It was he who built the foundation for all the rest of the the writers who would come after him to build their Gelston stories on. This text is found in the book American Bird Decoys by William J. Mackey (1965), On page 74, plate 53, is a photo of "two Yellowlegs” The lower bird in the photo is said to be “by a talented unknown maker.” It would be identified today as a “Thomas Gelston” decoy but not by Mackey in 1965 however on Page 99 plate 82 we find a wooden curlew that ia identified as a Gelston,on the same page in plate 81 is the photo of three cork Yellowlegs, Text: “Cork Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, the work of that excellent sportsman carver, Thomas Gelston of Long Island. Abercrombie and Fitch, the New York sporting goods store carried these birds as a stock item. The ones illustrated were purchased there in 1916.” Here we have more classic Mackey loose ends. Who was it that “purchased” the cork stool in 1916? This would be pertinent to the historical provenance of the decoys. And where is the documentation that a Thomas Gelston made these decoys and sold them to Abercrombie and Fitch (A & F)? I can locate no documentation for this claim. Abercrombie and Fitch sold new and used decoys in their store in Manhattan, so it is possible decoys with the T. H. G. on the keel or other non-branded decoys by this maker were sold in the Manhattan store.

In the 2002 Cowan article, he says empirically that A & F sold decoys by T. H. Gelston. “Thomas Gelston did, however carve decoys and sell them to Abercrombie and Fitch.” He goes on to tell of a rig of birds he and Bud Ward got in 1986 in Newburg, N.Y. he says were owned by “B. M. Higginsworth a Local Banker." Cowan says they were “originally purchased at Abercrombie and Fitch in 1920” By Mr. Higginson. These birds may have been purchased directly from A & F. in 1920, but that does not document them as being made by Gelston. Originally only the cork yellowlegs were said to be sold by A & F. Duck decoys were never mentioned as having been sold.

In 1986, when these decoys were acquired, most collectors called these birds “Gelston's” but to be able to tie them to Gelston you would need documentation from 1920 saying these decoys were made by Gelston. Another attempt to connect Gelston to A & F is this misleading sentence by Cowan, "A selection of Gelston decoys was part of 50th anniversary display at the New York store in 1965." Once again, nothing proves A & F knew of the “Gelston” carvings before 1965. Coincidentally, the same year the Mackey and Earnest books were printed. Cowan fails in his article to document a connection of a Thomas H. Gelston selling decoys to A. & F. prior to 1965.

This A & F display is first mentioned by Mackey in the text he wrote for Milton C. ( Milt ) Weiler, prints "Classic Shorebird Decoys", 1971 Plate 8, Thomas Gelston. The text Mackey wrote is of course totally unsubstantiated, as he offers not a single fact for why he believed Gelston carved and rasped these decoys. The text is filled with Mackey's flowery verbiage as in "Thomas H. Gelston to the manor born" (Guys to the manor born don’t carve decoys, they buy decoys). And his manufactured familiarity with Gelston as in “Even in Tom’s day” it is in this text that he says “Gelston carved many of his shorebirds from cork bark and apparently liked the result. Turning a hobby into a profitable sideline, he sold a stock of cork decoys to Abercrombie & Fitch, the New York sporting goods store, about 1915. They were greater and lesser yellowlegs in both running and conventional positions. At least one rig survived, and Abercrombie's celebrated a semi-centennial anniversary by placing them in their window in 1965.” Could it have been Mr. Mackey who alerted “Abercrombie’s” to the 50th year Anniversary of the supposed business relationship of A &F and Mr. Gelston? And Mackey appears to say Gelston only sold cork Yellowleg stool to A & F, no duck or goose stool. And where had this surviving rig of decoys come from that A & F used in their window display? On the same page in Mackey's book with the cork stool, we find a wooden Curlew plate 82, “Thomas Gelston carved some of the finest shore birds. Several of these Hudsonian Curlews are known to have been made by him. His ducks were well made and adequate,but not outstanding.” This text is the classic decoy writer’s flim-flam text. Still executed by today's decoy writers such as, but not by any means limited to, Dick Cowan. Mackey states that these Curlew decoys are “Known to have been made by him” (Gelston) but what is the documentation used to show why he is entitled to make this claim knowing Gelston made them? Mackey just states it as fact and that makes it so. On page 98 is found the “history” of Thomas H. Gelston by Mackey. “The name of Thomas H. Gelston occurs frequently when Long Island sportsmen are under discussion. Gelston lived the full, rounded life of a gentleman hunter. Sheepshead Bay was his home but the town of Quogue claimed his summers. Apparently a man of independent means, he enjoyed himself to the fullest and turned a hobby into a vocation, making some superb shore-bird decoys along with a goodly number of ducks. He combined a keen practical viewpoint with considerable artistic ability. He and the great Charles Wheeler were the two outstanding amateur carvers. Both of them worked with cork in making decoys for their personal use. For some qualities, such as light weight, cork is very practical. Tom Gelston turned to it when he made the yellowlegs in plate 81. With artistic imagination he happily carved and painted the white pine body of the curlew in plate 82. ( all of the "Gelston" Shore bird decoys that i have handeled were cedar not white pine ) His curlews with wooden bodies are tremendous examples of decoy making, and in original condition rate with the best. For a brief period in Tom’s life it is known he made limited numbers of shore birds which he sold through the New York sporting goods store of Abercrombie and Fitch. That being the case, examples of his birds could turn up in the most unexpected places.”

Mackey says he sold “a limited number of Shore birds.” Cowan omits this part in Mackey’s text, thus he is able to tie the “Gelston” cork duck stool to A & F. Where Mackey had said only the cork shorebirds were sold by the store. These duck decoys may have come from A & F, but this does not mean a man named Gelston carved them. A & F sold used decoys along with new stool. These decoys were gunning stool sold to hunters and early 20th century gunners who didn’t care who made the decoys, only that they worked, and if the gunner’s knew who the carver of the decoys were, they could bypass A & F. It would not be in A. & F.’s financial interest to let their customers know who their decoy makers were. This paragraph in Mackey’s book presents pronouncements that are both vague and unsubstantiated as in this description of Gelston, the man where he says he is. “Apparently a man of independent means." This would seem to indicate he did not know who the man Thomas Gelston really was. It would appear that what he presents as facts for Gelston the man is only hearsay picked up in his travels on Long Island and no verifiable documentation is provided the reader or researcher.

In the famous Mackey Auctions held by the Richard A. Bourne Company of Hyannis, Massachusetts in the early 1970’s following Mackey’s death, we find cork shorebird decoys listed by Thomas H. Gelston along with other birds that would be called Gelston’s today, that are not listed as by T. H. Gelston, as with lot 319 session III August 21 1973 “Fine Eastern Shore Curlew.” This bird would be listed by today’s collectors, dealers, and auction houses as a resting Thomas H. Gelston Curlew. In the fourth session on October 20, 1973, on the same page we find lot 200 “Rare Cork Greater Yellowlegs Decoy” “By Thomas H. Gelston.” Lot 206 “Rare Feeder Yellowlegs,” the maker of this decoy is not identified, however today it would be described as a Rare Feeding Yellowlegs or Willet by Thomas H. Gelston so in early 1970's what were identified as"Gelston Birds" had not fully solidfied.

In Adele Earnest's book The Art of the Decoy (1965), are found plates 36 and 37. Plate 36 is “Dowitcher Feeding By William Henry Weston Duxbury, Massachusetts, c. 1915 in the (Collection of Winsor White Duxbury Massachusetts).” This decoy would called a “Gelston” today. The same bird is pictured in American Waterfowl Decoys by Jeff Waingrow, (1985) twenty years later, listed as “Attributed to William Henry Weston Duxbury, Massachusetts c. 1890 Length, 8” (note the different date and it is only attributed to Weston). Plate 37 of the book is “Godwit and Yellowlegs.” The text reads they are by Thomas Gelston, Quogue, New York (Collection of William J. Mackey, Jr., Belford, New Jersey).

Over the years the bud of the Gelston Legend grew. In 1972 when Mackey’s Paramour Quintina Colio published American Decoys, she shows a photo of the Mackey collection cork shorebirds that had been pictured in Mackey’s book. Her text states “Though he painted and carved some of the finest shore bird decoys (see frontispiece), (the cover bird is a turned head curlew attributed to Thomas Gelston), she goes on “Thomas Gelston produced these primitive cork snipe commercially, for Abercrombie & Fitch and other sporting goods stores.” What other sporting good stores? Where did this come from? Cowan liked it and used it in his article as if it were an established fact, It's not.

In 1979 the bud of the Gelston Myth burst forth in full flower and again it is thanks to the Museums at Stony Brook’s publication Gunners Paradise where on page 24 in the section on “Long Island Carvers” we find “A Trio of Greats” listed as “Thomas H. Gelston, William Bowman and Obadiah Verity.” Strike three you’re out. This section on the “Trio of Greats”should condemn the Museums credibility on any historical pronouncement found in their book. For none of these hailed “Greats” have documentation showing they even carved decoys , which of course means there is no documentation for them carving the decoys that have been attributed to them in the past. I don’t know who made those attributed to Gelston or Verity but I have the documentation that shows the “Bowman Decoys” were in fact made by Charles Sumner Bunn from the Shinnecock Indian Reservation Southampton, N. Y. Mackey’s “Bowman” attribution is just one more example of Mackey getting it wrong in by bypassing real research for an easy attribution.

Mr. Cowan’s article references “Jane Townsend History Researcher” and author of the book “Gunners Paradise” in his article. He writes “Jane Townsend in her catalog of the Stony Brook exhibit that opened in 1987 wrote a short account of what is known of the man himself. Her research was extensive and her correspondence about Gelston was voluminous. Unfortunately it is largely one-side. She received precious few responses to her queries and little information.” This lack of of information on Gelston should start the of bells of skepticism ringing for any researcher, including both Ms. Townsend in 1979 and Mr. Cowan in 2002, and all the other writers on "Gelston" in between.

So what does Ms. Townsend say about Thomas Gelston in “Gunners Paradise” after receiving so “little information” in response to her requests for one of her “A Trio of Greats” Obadiah Verity, William Bowman, and Thomas H.Gelston. Of “Thomas H. Gelston…she says “Of the three, considerable documentation exists only on Thomas H. Gelston (1851-1924)who's family can be traced to the Revolutionary War.”

If Gelston has the most documentation of the three it bolsters what my research has produced which is there is no evidence to link any of these “Names” to the decoys they are said to have made. Having lineage going back to the time of the American Revolution is not documentation that a descendent carved decoys. Thomas Gelston's ancestors are well documented, that he made decoys is not. She goes on to say he was the son of “George S. Gelston early resident and developer of Brooklyn’s Bay Ridge section, who married Marie Meinnell of Oyster Bay.” A constant feature in the Gelston legend is the hotel story, “The Fort Hamilton Hotel” the family was supposed to have owned and operated in Brooklyn. I have found no evidence of the Gelston family owning a hotel in Brooklyn, New York, and I have found no evidence there was a hotel called The Fort Hamilton Hotel in Brooklyn.

Townsend states in Gunners Paradise (1979), “They lived in a large Tudor mansion overlooking the Narrows. The Fort Hamilton, a resort hotel owned by George Gelston, was patronized by New Yorkers wishing to escape the city and it’s summer heat for sea breezes.” Gene & Linda Kangas state in their book Decoys A North American Survey (1983), “Thomas H. Gelston (1851-1924) of Bay Ridge grew up in a family-owned resort hotel on the South Shore of Long Island.” In the Sotheby’s /Guyette & Schmidt catalog of the Dr.James M. McCleery Auction 2000, the following information is listed, “Thomas Gelston (1851-1924), his parents owned the Fort Hamilton, a seaside resort hotel." Later we find “He carved brant, black duck, merganser and shorebird decoys for his own use and apparently sold some cork- bodied shorebirds through New York’s Abercrombie and Fitch in his later years.” In Cowan's Decoy Magazine article in 2002 he states, “George married Marie Meinell of Oyster Bay, Long Island and appears to have been a very successful business man. He operated a resort hotel named the Fort Hamilton and aquired considerable property in Brooklyn.”

Each one of the above quotes mentions a Fort Hamilton Hotel owned by George S. Gelston, however if you read George's obituary of March 7, 1890 in the New York Times it says "George S.Gelston largely known in real estate circles and extensive owner of real estate in the town of New-Utrecht died yesterday at his residence in Fort Hamilton." It goes on to tell that a large section of the Village of Fort Hamilton ”While in his possession it was laid out and sold in small parcels.” Also found in the New York Times of June 23, 1918 is the sale of Gelston Estate It says that “the Gelston Estate of 123 lots and several private dwellings including the old homestead will be sold at public auction." It says “George came to Fort Hamilton in 1836 and bought the property on which was located the old Hamilton House.” It says the House was used during the Revolutionary War by both General George Washington and British General Lord Howe. It also says the house burned in 1852 and that “the Gelston homestead was erected near the same site. It has been the home of the Gelston family ever since."

In the February 2, 1860 Brooklyn Daily Eagle we find an article stating that George S. Gelston sat on a review board accepting bids from contractors for the grading of Third Avenue New Utrecht from Bay Ridge to Fort Hamilton (Brooklyn). The Brooklyn Eagle Feb 4, 1900 “Property On The Water Front” Tells of the Gelston Family’s Holdings in The Fort Hamilton section of Brooklyn and it describes their residence as “the family mansion." The Brooklyn Eagle August 20, 1901 “Surface Sewage Creates A Nuisance." “The chief complaint emanates from Mrs. G. S. Gelston a well known resident of Fort Hamilton, who owns and occupies a beautiful home, on the Shore road at the foot of Third Avenue.” It would seem highly unlikely that the Gelston home was a hotel and there is no mention in any of the articles about George Gelston running or owning a hotel in the area. The article states “the home” George built was where the family lived so, Thomas could not have grown up in a hotel owned by his parents. George S. Gelston made his money in real estate. If George ever owned a hotel, I have not been able to find the proof for this claim or even that a hotel named the “Fort Hamilton” ever existed in Brooklyn. Just as with the Abercrombie & Fitch story, no documentation can be found. And if the Gelston’s did own a hotel in Brooklyn that would not have any bearing or offer any proof that Thomas H. Gelston from that family of Gelstons carved decoys.
What may have been the germ of the hotel story is most likly"The Gelston House" tavern, hotel, and dineing establishment in East Haddam,Connececticut.From Gelston Archives by "Sean M.Gelston" "The site of the Gelston house dates back to 1736 when Jabez Chapman was granted a tavern licence." It goes on to say that the grandson of Hugh gelston a William Gelston bought the place and recived a tavern licence in 1785 it passed from the family in 1826,It "was repurchased in 1853 by a group of investors"one of the investors was "George Sears Gelston son of the above William Gelston." (William is a listed well known Silversmith who once had a shop in Manhattan) To day you can dine at the eligant Gelston House in Haddam Connecticut . So it would appear the only association the family had with a hotel was in Connecticut not Brooklyn and not the "Hamelton House" The Gelston House, and none of it has any thing to do with the making of decoys.
As you dissect The Gelston legend you find many facts about the Gelston Family’s history, but nowhere do you find any evidence he carved decoys. Why is it that I believe Thomas Gelston was not the carver of the decoys in question? The primary reason for my skepticism is the total lack of any evidence indicating he carved decoys, other than undocumented and unreliable sources, the overall shoddy research done in the past and present, including including the 2002 Cowan article for Gelston. Secondly, it’s Mackey’s lack of credibility when it comes to identifying decoy makers which is totally lacking in verifiable research. This is evident in all his published works. He attempts to gild the un-gilded lily with a “story” and most likely in the Gelston case, by manipulating and omitting facts so as to be able to cobble together a vague story, as have all the other writers who have followed using Mackey’s shaky foundation myth for their writings, adding little undocumented pieces of myth to the legend. Thirdly, all the articles as well my research points to Mr. Gelston being rather well off. Generally wealthy people don’t carve decoys, they buy decoys from people who are less well off or from companies like Mason. And fourth, there are a lot of “Gelston” decoys on the market today I can not imagine how many oyhers were destroyed over the years. Many are found without brands, others are found with brands. I know of at least three other brands found on the floating stool other than T. H. G. These factors would indicate that who ever made the decoys we have called “Gelston’s” spent a lot of time making decoys and whoever made the decoys that we have attributed to Gelston would have been someone who made a good portion of his income making hunting decoys to sell to gunners. A wealthy Mr. Gelston is in my openion an untenable candidate. And the amount of decoys made flies in the face of Mackey's statements of the low amount of decoys he was supposed to have sold though A & F. It would not make sense that the wealthy Mr. Gelston carved all the other decoys on the market. He was busy being wealthynot carving.

On February 24, 2002 at the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association annual decoy show featured the decoys of Thomas Gelston in the annual exhibit billed as “First in a Series: The Long Island Masters, Thomas Gelston.” Along with the “Gelston decoy” exhibit, the association had commissioned local artist Vito De Vito to create a painting of Gelston working in his workshop to be made into prints to be sold, along with the original painting, to recoup the money spent on the original painting, the price of the print, and raise funds to print a book on Long Island decoys. There were two major problems with executing the work; no one knew what Gelston looked like, there were no photos of him known to the members of the association. The second problem was no one knew what his “workshop” looked like or if he even had a workshop. At the time I was carving a lot of “Gelston Style”shorebirds. Somehow it was decided I would be the model for the painting. Vito came to my shop in Eastport, Long Island with fellowLong Island Decoy Association member Ray Geminski. Ray who photograph me working on a “Gelston Style Yellowleg.” I had prepared for the shoot by bringing a bunch of “Gelston style” birds I had started along with sheets of natural cork, white ceadar blocks, shot boxe's, and an old basket with some of my finished “Gelston Style" shorebird decoys. We arranged everything and as I started to carve. Ray Geminski took many photos of me at work from every angle. Vito did the painting and it was made into prints. Since Gelston’s features were unknown, Vito painted me with most of my face covered by a straw hat. To see the final results see Decoy Magazine, March / April 2002, page 16 or the Guyette & Schmidt auction catalog for April 25 & 26, 2002. I believe the print is rather awful, but most of the blame should not be put on the artist. The painting was built by committee with association members demanding features be added that they thought should be incorporated into the painting. I feel the worst of these elements is the last minute slipped in dog (more like a dog head) that someone in the club had insisted on. The non “Gelston” duck stool used in the background interior of the shop is perplexing to say the least . This project was Show Chairman, Timmy Seiger’s brain child and it was a financial disaster for the club. Few prints were ever sold, the original was never sold, and appears to have disappeared. The association eventually forced members to take prints for free just to get rid of them which upset members who had paid the original unrealistic retail price of $100.00 for something the officers were now giving away.

So who was this Mr. Thomas H. (Henry) Gelston? The documentation printed below on the Gelston Family of Brooklyn will only be more documentation on Thomas Gelston and his relatives. It will not contain any documentation on Thomas Gelston hunter, decoy user/owner, or carver. The reason for this is no documentation that pertains to any of the above-mentioned activities could be found in my research. My searches turned up nothing other than circumstantial "evidence", namely the “T. H. G.” brand found on some duck decoys to indecate any relationship between the man and the decoys with that brand brand .The man Thomas Henry Gelston came into the world on the 22nd of August 1850. In October of 1875 he would marry Elizabeth De Baun Van Blarcom. His daughter Lillian was born in the same year. Their son George S. (Sears) Gelston, name for his Grandfather came along on October 23, 1879. Thomas H. Gelston would pass away on February 20, 1924. His services were held at the home of his son George S. at 467 82nd Street, Brooklyn, Sunday March 2nd at 5:00 P.M., Service Private (from the New York Times). Nothing apears in his obituary to tell us of his life or work.

Here is presented some more documentation of his life. He does not appear on the 1850 Federal Census due to his birth coming after the Census had been completed that year, but we do find him on the 1860 census age 10. He really would have not have turned ten until later in the year, but he is listed as Henre T. Gelston. This is where his documentation begins. His father is George S. (Sears) Gelston. On the census he is listed as a “Gentleman.” The stated value of his property is $90,000 and the value of his personal estate (liquid assets?) is valued at $15,000. His family was definitely well off in 1860. The 1870 census finds his father George S. Gelston listed as retired. Thomas is not shown to have a job and he would have been nearly 20 years old at the time. On October 6, 1875 he marries Elizabeth DeBaun Van Blarcom. The 1880 Census has him listed as head of the house, married with two children, and his occupation is listed as Inspector Civil Servant. He has two live in servants. The family also had a home addres in 1888, 1892 and 1896 in Manhattan at 640 Madison Ave. Another address was listed at 1225 Broadway, also in Manhattan.

Mrs. Thomas Gelston (Elizabeth) spent much of her time in Europe. Documentation shows she and her daughter (Lillian) age 5 were issued passports on October 8, 1888. The family lived at 640 Madison Ave New York, N.Y. at the time. She and Lillian traveled back again in 1892 and in 1893. In 1906 she sailed to Europe once again, and from 1906 to 1918 she lived in Belgium, England and New York. By 1918 she returned home because of America’s entry in to World War I. She stated she would living at her Brooklyn residence. In 1920 she applied once again for a passport. Mrs. Gelston was a well traveled.

I have only been able to document Thomas Gelston applying for a passport one time on May 22, 1895, as did his wife Elizabeth. Here he lists his occupation as “Merchant.” He writes that he plans to return about October 10th of the same year. His passport had no photo. Though I was the model for that ill-favored turkey known as “ The Gelston Print” I now know that I in no way resemble Mr.Gelston. A description of him on the passport reads he was 6 feet and 1½ inches tall, gray eyes, nose long and straight, hair light, complextion blond (I think the last two were put on the wrong lines), oval face, forehead medium high. The passports were to be sent to number 6 Bowling Green Street in Manhattan which was and is a part of the financial district. Mrs. Gelston listed her occupation as “Lady” on one of her applications. For Mrs. Gelston to have spent as much time in Europe as she did it would once again to point to people of means.

In the New York Times on Wednesday, January 6, 1896, appears the announcement of the coming out of Thomas Gelston’s debutante daughter Lillian, “Mrs. T. Henry Gelston of 640 Madison Avenue to give a reception on the afternoon of Jan 11 for the purpose of introducing her daughter Miss Lillian E. Gelston." Gelston’s daughter is a debutante and we are to believe this wealthy man is a decoy carver and not only that, but he would have had to have been a professional carver to have produced all the decoys attributed to the him. In the same year on August 6th, we find in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle that George “son of Henry Gelston a wealthy resident on Shore Road” had lost the annual “jib and mainsail” yacht race. George had held the championship for the three previous years. In 1910, Thomas is listed as 59 0n the federal census as living with his mother who is 89. She is listed as head of the house. His sister Maria is 64 and they have one servant. Mrs. Gelston was in Europe at the time. It does not list an occupation for Mr. Gelston. The 1920 Census has his son George listed as head of house. He is 42 and his occupation is ”Clerk Insurance." Thomas is 69 his occupation is as “Clerk Factory." His marital status is listed as widowed (which may be wrong).

The 1922 Brooklyn Directory lists Mr. and Mrs. George S. (Elizabeth Mott) living at 467 Eighty Second Street Shore Road and listed as having a phone. His Father Thomas Henry Gelston is at 9486 Ridge Road, Bayridge. He will be dead in two years. It may be that after T. H. Gelston’s death that a rig of birds he had once owned were sold by his son, maybe to A & F. This is one plausible scenario that could explain the story of his son selling his father's decoys to A & F. but it is only an unfounded possibility. The 1930 census shows George S. Gelston living in New Canaan, Fairfield, Connecticut, age 48, with his wife Elizabeth, also 48, their daughter Lois M. Gelston, and a 24 year old Swedish maid. His ocupation is listed as Senior Engineer, Travelers Insurance.

And so ends this addition to the story of Thomas Henry Gelston. I could present more documentation for the Gelston family and undoubtedly uncover even more information on Thomas H.Gelston however I have found absolutely no evidence for him making or selling decoys, period. He was a man of means and most likely hunted as many did at the time, but like other wealthy sports of his era, he most likely did not carve decoys. A man of means like Gelston bought his decoys from non-wealthy carvers or companies like Mason as previously stated.

The one thing Dick Cowan got right in his Gelston article is found on page 11 in the last paragraph. “Early collectors often left the details in forgotten boathouses in their eagerness to collect the artifacts. And many of the details we know were unsubstantiated tales carried as birds changed hands through those early years. Legends abound paticulary on Long Island legends Bowman, Verity, Southard, Dilly and Thomas Gelston. We can surely enjoy the decoys. Yet the discovery of long forgotten fact can provide nearly as great a thrill to today’s collectors and historians as finding a snipe under a boathouse floor provided Joel Barber’s generation.” This should have been Dick's opening and closing paragraph in his article, after which he should have written I could find no facts to link Thomas H. Gelston to the decoys that Barber and Mackey attributed to him. But then he could not have written his article. And as I told him in the past “Do your own research Dick don’t just rewrite what everyone else has written before you. You do the research yourself and see what you find.” Dick didn’t like what I had said and responded, “I though I was doing the research." No Dick, if you had done the research or evaluated the previous writings on Gelston, you would have realized there is no evidence that Mr. Gelston was a carver of the decoys.

So as with the “Obadiah Verity decoys” I don’t know who made them but I am fairly certain it was not the “wealthy” Mr. Thomas Henry Gelston. As I was finishing up this Gelston piece, I emailed Dick Cowan to ask him if he could provide me with any real documentation for Gelston as a carver of decoys. So far he has not responded. My guess is he never will because he can’t provide that documentation.

Jamie Reason

For the next chapter I will unravel the short history of the fabrication of the “LaFayette Seabury” shorebird decoys. This one won’t take long as this is a fresh to the market sham.

The Names

The origins of the names attributed to many of Long Island decoys and how they came into being

The person most responsible for setting the stage for today’s “antique” decoy market would be a legendary collector, trader, dealer, and author William J Mackey Jr., a very familer name to most decoy collectors. Some stories of his exploits can be found in the September-October 1991 Decoy Magazine.
For decoy collecting, Mackey has been a double-edged sword. On one hand, he single-handedly saved a huge percentage of the decoys in today’s collections and on the market. At a time when most people gave little or no value to the old wildfowl hunting decoys that Mackey sought out, he was able to acquire a huge amount of decoys in his travels at little real cost. Among collectors in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, it was common to trade decoys with each other or sell them for just a few dollars in most cases. Thousands of birds passed through Mackey’s hands and were retained in his collection at his death on July 2, 1972. He had energetically championed the decoy in many different forums, including a 1965 traveling exhibit. One of the exhibits stops was at The Long Island Museums at Stony Brook, where he was introduced to the Herrick brothers, setting the stage for the famed “discovery” and the subsequent launch of the “Bowman” story in 1965, later printed in “The Decoy Collectors Guide” in the Winter 1966/1967 issue.

However, the other side of the Mackey sword was the fact that he apparently did little or no research into the true makers of the decoys. It seems he would accept whatever someone told him without any verification or follow up research (as it is still done today by so called decoy researchers). Granted it was a different time, the decoys didn’t enjoy the respect they do today, now seen as great American folk art, with some commanding high monetary value. Over the years, Mackey and others would practice this form of so called “research,” giving a pedigree’s to decoys formerly credited to an “unknown maker,” or another non- researched “name,” as in the example of the Osborn decoys becoming Obadiah Verity decoys, without showing any proof or published research as to why the maker's name changed. That is the way it has been done for decades and it continues today, including some outright fabrication for some of the names used as the supposed maker, as in the case of the "Cuffee" decoys.
I have been a long time decoy carver, collector, dealer, appraiser, auction catalog description writer, decoy gallery/shop owner, and writer for Decoy Magazine. As with many collectors, I saw discrepancies in many of the decoy maker stories presented in print and if you looked closely at the evidence used for the claims of makership, you found holes you could drive a truck through. But I never openly disputed much of it. In fact, I used it like most collectors do in place of real knowledge. That was until the year 2000, when I was prodded into doing some real research by friend and collector David Bennett of East Hampton on a group of decoys made on Long Island’s East End that had wrongly been attributed to Shinnecock Indian Eugene Cuffee (1866-1941), which as stated turned out to have been a fabrication. Dave’s research proved beyond any doubt that the carvings had really been carved by William Henry Bennett (1867-1954) from Springs in East Hampton, not Cuffee in Southampton. Dave did 99% of the original research. I mainly reviewed and analyzed the research that he was finding on William Henry (Uncle Henry) Bennett. This led to my research into trying to discover what were the decoys Cuffee had carved, as some had claimed, which led me not to Cuffee, but to his first cousin and the rediscovery of Charles Sumner Bunn, Shinnecock/Montauk Indian, the maker of the decoys that had wrongly been attrubited to "Bill Bowman" by the Herricks and Mackey. This led to the three articles in Decoy Magazine on William Henry Bennett and Charles Sumner Bunn. Early on in our research, we were joined by fellow Long Island decoy collectors Joseph Jannsen and Steve Mikle, and the research began to expand.

I for one became very interested in what was the true history behind the names said to be the carvers of many well-known decoys from Long Island. It did not take long for it to become apparent how very little true research had actually been done on identifying many of the decoy makers from the past. What you find for the most part are stories completely void of any real documentation. Unraveling the history of the names associated with many of these well-known decoys found in today's collections, auctions, museums, and featured in books and magazines, inevitably lead to faux histories, dead ends, hearsay and spontaneous “history,” which is usually a mixture of a small fact connected to lots of fiction, passed on and added to over time, evolving from one publication to the next like a snowball rolling downhill, which under the scrutiny of any real research will also melt just like a snowball. The simple fact is it is far easier to prove the names used for the makers of these decoys could not really be the makers than it is to find the true makers of the decoys, which is undoubtedly why it’s done. A name linked to a decoy adds instant monetary value to any decoy left wanting for a maker’s name. And any name will do no matter how tenuous, ridiculous, or outright silly the “evidence” presented for the so- called “research” might be. And most people don’t look too close. They just accept what they're told. Most humans are followers, wanting to fit in and not rock the preverbal boat. They defer to those who are deemed “experts” in their field of interest. This was never more so than in decoy collecting, a true case of the blind, deaf and dumb following the blind, deaf and dumb.

Long Island has many famous “names” that are said to be the carvers of decoys known to collectors today as Verity's, Southard's, Dilley’s, Bowman’s, Cuffee’s Watts', and many more, one of the latest is the fabricated decoy carver “Lafayette Seabury".

The first two names to be dissected will be that of William J. Southard of Bellmore L .I. and Obediah Verity of Seaford. These names were linked together in the mid 1970’s as the makers of the birds formerly attributed to H.F. Osborn of Bellport L. I. and Osborn Style, and also Captain Ben Verity Gilgo Beach, Captain Dan Havens of Moriches and others.

Obadiah Verity and William Southard (William J. Southard)

The first time that I have able to find the names William Southard (no middle initial) and Obadiah Verity listed as decoy carvers is in the year 1965 in both Mackey’s book American Bird Decoys and Adele Earnest’s book The Art Of the Decoy. In Mackey’s book, on page 101, second paragraph, is a list of early decoy “makers” (names) from Long Island. Among the names can be found those of “Nelson Verity (1865-1954) of Seaford,” “Obadiah Verity Ca. 1870-1940 of Massapequa and “William Southard of Bellmore,” "working early in the present century, made one large rig marked 'JB'. They are of the best quality.” In the paragraph referenced above on the same page, he says “The Group in plate 85 are in the style of H.F.Osborn, a pioneer Bellport gunner and decoy maker.These attractive and practical patterns found many imitators, and decoys with minor variations in the carving and plumage patterns have turned up all along the South Shore.” On page 102 are plates 85 and 86, each plate shows a photo of four shorebird decoys. In the lower plate are at least two birds that would later be called “Southards”. The other two if not called “Southards”would today be called Verity family or attributed to a “known” Verity family carver. The four decoys in the top plate would all be called Obadiah Verity decoys by today’s decoy collectors, auction houses, etc.

Mackey’s caption “Plate 85 (Top). Three Typical Long Island Black-bellied plover, with a tiny sanderling on the left. Birds of this style and quality are attributed to H.F. Osborn of Bellport. They are well designed and durable. Plate 86 (bottom), A black-bellied Plover rises over three yellowlegs. They are proof that the classic “Osborn” Style influenced other Long Island carvers. Paint patterns and carvings followed the basic tradition. This group comes from the western end of Long Island.” The statement "Classic Osborn style "would lead one to believe that Osborn had really been established as the carver of decoys, and nothing could be farther from the truth. Page 58, plate 38, shows a Tern decoy “said to be made by Nelson Verity”. On page 96, plate 78, is a preening Broadbill. Both of these birds today are called Obadiah Verity‘s.
Mackey appears to say he knows of Southard and Obadiah and what they made on page 101. Their names are listed with other names said to be decoy carvers from Long Island, but there are no photos of the birds they are said to have carved, and he certainly did not say they made any of the birds that would latter be attributed to Obadiah Verity and William Southard. Mackey clearly lists them as Osborn’s or Osborn style. Curiously, Mackey states "Southard only made one rig branded "JB".

Adele Earnest was an early American folk art collector, dealer, gallery owner, author, and one of the founders of the Museum of American Folk Art, New York, New York. She approached decoy collecting more on an artistic level. She also had other folk art interests. Unlike Mackey, she did not concentrate solely on decoys. Mackey was into accumulation and being considered the Emperor of the decoy world; she was more concerned with aesthetics and the romance of a bygone era, and the leather skinned watermen folk artists who carved them.

In her book published that same year as Mackey's, on page 48 we find “(22 Sandpiper) (Text Reference) Sandpiper. Long Island, New York c. 1880”Henry F.Osborn”style collection of the Author.” On page 153 she wrote, “Henry F. Osborn is the most controversial name among the nineteenth-century Bellport Carvers. A few decoys are known to have come from his hand, but many shorebirds---yellowlegs, plover, and sandpipers---have been attributed to him with very little proof. All are similar type; they are charming and deftly carved.” She goes on to describe the carved eyes and wings meeting in a V at the tail and the ridge found in the center of the tail, now said to be a Classic Obadiah Verity signature.

She also says, “My attempts to trace these fine carvings lead me to guess that a number of men working in a similar style created this regional Long Island decoy. " She mentions in passing the controversy over the name of Osborn. She suggests that the slight difference in those called Osborn’s and Osborn type or style indicated different people working in the same area. She wrote “Many carvers lived in the vicinity of Bellport and hunted along the same shore. Their names read like a cast of characters from an American frontier novel: Ben Hawkens, Caleb Carman, Daniel Havens, Rastus H. Post, and 'Obediah Verity' (Bellport is about forty miles east of where Mackey said Verity lived”.

She goes on, “My investigation of Osborn produced two interesting discoveries. Some years back, at an auction at the old Osborn place, several bushel baskets full of shorebird decoys were dragged out of the woodshed and the birds sold for fifty cents apiece. At least someone in the household made snipe decoys, and presumably it was “Henry F.”

That is a pretty big presumption that Henry F. was the carver. Many decoys have been found, mostly in houses where no one carved decoys. And she does not say where the information of the auction comes from? It would seem she was not in attendance. In Dr. George Ross Starr’s book Decoys of the Atlantic Flyway (1974), he writes that he has in his collection a Blackbellied plover made by “Henry F. Osborn of Bellport.” and that “it was made in 1830," “Repainted by Captain Wilbur A. Corwin who authenticated the date." And Dr Starr goes on to say Osborn died in “1873” and “made all his snipe stool before he was twenty-one and there after stuck to ducks and brant.” The problem with this statement is Wilbur A. Corwin would have been eight years old in 1873 and it would be highly doubtful he could authenticate who carved the decoy with any authority. You can find a man by the name of Henry F. Osborn living in Bellport in 1870, age 59, listed as a farmer, married with two daughters, though I can find nothing to indicate he was a carver of the decoys in question. Adele Earnest only says the “auction was held some year’s back” she does not gave a date for the said auction, nor does she give her source or sources for this “information“. We have no timeframe to work with, but it would have to be before 1965 if it had taken place twenty years before. There would have been over eighty years from the time listed for Mr. Osborn’s demise for the birds to find their way into the “woodshed” using Dr. Starr’s given date for his death. All of this should call into question the story of the auction at “The Osborn Place.” Once again, as with most of the so-called early decoy research, it contains vague references, no facts and no tangible proof for Osborn as the carver.

She even posulates that “Albert Laing” dates listed (1811-1886) said to be born in New York and died in Stratford, Connecticut might have been the real maker because she found an “Osborn yellowlegs” ” in the Shelburne Museum's Collection “That had 'Laing' written on it” (See Decoy Magazine July/August 1995 for article on Laing).

To add to all this confusion, enter Mr. Newbold Herrick. In a letter to Jane des Grange, Director at the Museums at Stony Brook, dated April 18, 1959, cc: to Mr. and Mrs. Ward Melville, from Mr. Newbold Lawrence concerning a donation of old Long Island shorebird decoys passed down from his grandfather.

Two of the decoys are “Black- breasted plovers” he said were “made by Capt. Ben Verity U.S. Lifesaving Station, Gilgo Inlet 1850.” These are the type also called “Osborn’s” by many collectors, including Mr. Mackey in his book. Two of the decoys he said were “Big Yellow-leg made by Capt. Dan Havens, Moriches L.I. 1880.” And these are ones most collector at the time were calling “Osborn style” or “type." These four decoys today are listed in the Stony Brook Museum's collection as made by respectively “Obadiah Verity” and “William J. Southard". Interestingly, in 1966 Mackey prepared a letter of appraisal for the Herrick’s decoy donation to the Museums at Stony Brook collection; a total of thirty-three shorebird decoys. Mackey does not challenge the names of “Ben Verity” or “Dan Havens” used by Newbold Herrick to identify the birds he had listed as “Osborn’s” and “Osborn Style“ just the year before in his book American Bird Decoys.

In the early to mid 1970's among some decoy collectors, and especially the Long Island collectors, there was much speculation and discussion about whom it was that really had carved the snipe stool mostly called Osborn and Osborn style. In fact a group of founding members of the infant Long Island Decoy Collectors Association had two new names to champion as the makers, though there was also some who were not convinced the new names were the real carvers, and not Osborn. But the gospel of Obadiah Verity and William Southard was being spread, especially by three well- known Long Island collectors at auctions, decoy shows, Long Island Decoy Collectors Association meetings, and on the phone, sometimes quite hotly. As Gary Guyette had once told me, “Decoy people don’t like change.” However, the transition of the new names for the most part went very smoothly.

The decoys had been found in the past and were still being found all over Long Island, and even in other States. Many were said to come Long Island's South Shore in Nassau County. They had also been found out east in Suffolk County, i.e. Bellport.

As to the new names being ushered in, it was Obadiah Verity’s name that was first to appear in print in association with the decoys that had been called “Osborn” etc. in North American Decoys Part One (1977), the index listed on page 12 says “BILL BOWMAN SHOREBIRD DECOYS from a private collection”. On pages 12-13, is a color spread of four photographs from the Herrick rig. In one of the photographs you see three Black-bellied plover that for the first time that I have found are listed as “Plover by Obadiah Verity are shown with Bowman’s birds at lower right” with no text to explain how the decoys got their new maker’s name. Interestingly, in the winter 1978 issue of the same magazine, on page 32, we find a yellowleg decoy from “the Clingan Collection" carved by "H.F. Osborn, Bellport Long Island c.1846.” This decoy by the next year will be referred to as a “William J. Southard Yellowlegs.” Both names would become “official” in 1979 with the printing of Gunners Paradise, a paperback book published by The Museums at Stony Brook under the guidance of ”E. Jane Townsend History Researcher” (contact the Museum to obtain a copy).

On page 25, chapter VIII, “Long Island Decoy Carvers,” is the story of the discovery of Obadiah Verity and William Southard. The narrative tells that decoys had been wrongly identified as Osborn’s and Ben Verity’s work and how three wellknown Long Island decoy collectors had discovered the true makers. These three collectors had been championing the Verity and Southard “name” change starting in the early 1970’s.

All three collectors were from Nassau County’s South Shore and they believed the decoys came from their backyard, where they believed they had been carved, not out in Bellport. How they came up with the names can only be guessed, but the names are found in Mackey’s book, and that would appear to be the starting point.

The three collectors were George Combs Sr. (Pop Combs), George Combs Jr., and Charles (Bud) Ward. All three came from the world of water and marsh; fishermen, gunners, clam diggers, and crabbers, they were true baymen. The Combs’ owned a tackle shop in Amityville. Bud had a retail fish store in Oceanside. Two great places in the 1960’s and 1970’s to get decoys or leads on decoys, and both establishments openly advertised they would buy old decoys. “Pop” Combs Sr. was a very accomplished carver of gunning stool, slicks, and “Verity” reproductions that could and did fool many collectors, even as they do today. He was beloved by many. His son George Jr. was of a different cloth and never received the respect given his father by many.

By the late 1960’s and early 1970’s Bud Ward had become well known for his “knowledge” of Long Island decoys and his ability to come up with good birds from all over the country, but most of all the decoys found on Long Island, especially the shorebirds. They were his passion, and most of all, the ones collectors had called Osborn’s. Bud had a folksy earthiness about him; salty as brine, always the stub of a cigar held tight in his teeth. At a Long Island Decoy Collectors show some time in the 1990’s, they had passed a no smoking law in Suffolk County in public places and there was Bud at his table with his cigar, law or no law. I was president of the club back then and someone told me I should tell him he couldn’t have his cigar and I should tell him to put it out. I said, “You tell him to put it out.” Bud kept his cigar. Bud didn’t suffer fools well and he had a quick temper at times. For me he was always fun to be around and I really liked him. One thing that could bring distain or anger was someone calling the birds he loved “Osborn’s”. Of the three “researchers” Bud was the most respected in the world of high-end decoy collectors and auction houses. His opinion on whether a bird was right or not was the gold standard. A bird could be left without a buyer or pulled from a sale on the shake of his head or the look in his eyes and sneer on his face.

The “discovery" story of Verity and Southard that is told in Gunners Paradise is of the three collectors visiting Andrew “Grubie” Verity (1881-1976) at the nursing home where he was staying the year before he passed away. George Combs Sr. tells of showing him some decoys they brought with them and “He picked up one and and he says, ’Diah, Obediah.'” He picked up another and says, “William Southard.”

The text goes on to say ”Grubie’s identification clinched their previous research and established that an Obediah Verity, one of six living in the village of Seaford in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.” This clinches absolutely nothing, and there is no proof of any “previous research” at all.
William J.Southard of Bellmore (formerly said to be by “Dan Havens” or “Osborn Style or Type"), page 27 of Gunners Paradise states that William J.Southard was a “wheelright active from the 1880 to the 1920s” and that two of his decoys were among the first group of decoys donated to the Museum in 1959, ”Which were eventually credited to William J. Southard” (see Gunners Paradise for full text). In Mackey's book on page 59 plate 38, you find a tern decoy credited to Nelson Verity of Seaford, a rig mate to this bird from the Stony Brook collection (formerly from the Herricks listed by Newbold Herrick as a Nelson Verity) now listed in Gunners Paradise as the work of ‘Obadiah Verity“. On page 4 of Gunners Paradise in "Acknowledgments", Ms. Townsend says, “In my research, I am indebted to many people, one is Mr. Richard P. Baldwin, Patchogue." On page 5 she gives “A special thanks to the very knowledgeable members of the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association, members George Combs Sr. and Jr., Bob Gerard, Fred Kaseman, Ken Rohl (Judge Kenny Rohl who presided over the trial of Exxon Valdez captain), and Bud Ward were particularly helpful in sharing their expertise as the Museums decoy collection was identified, cataloged and researched.” It would appear that George Sr. and Jr. and Bud benefited more than the Museums did from this relationship. The three collectors now had found the perfect platform to launch the names of Obadiah Verity and William Southard. With the Museum's acceptance of their story, the changing of names of the decoy carvers was accomplished easly with the assistance of the Museum's unwitting staff who had no knowledge of the decoys, their makers or histories, and had relied on these collectors along with Mr. Richard P. Baldwin for their supposed expertise. All four had an agenda to establish the new names as the makers of the carvings formerly not associated with any of the Verity family or William Southard. However, many disclaimers are found throughout the book stating the identity of carvers have not been “firmly established” so the museum must have had some reservations about their "research", but it would appear that most collectors ignore these inconvenient statements. The appearance of the names in Gunners Paradise along with Bud’s and the Combs’ assurances that it was all true (absent of research, proof or evidence) was good enough for most decoy collectors, museums, and auction houses. No further research would be needed. They had “names”.

As with most of the “stories” of “discovery” in decoy collecting lore and legend, many questions go unanswered, many loose ends are never tied up, no real facts or corroborating research is ever presented as in the alleged “interview” with ninety-four year old Grubie, which is unquestionably a total fabrication. And I am not the only one to have thought or said this. Many collectors have expressed skepticism or outrightly scoffed at the story.

The fact that so many people respected Bud Ward is one of the main reasons the story was accepted so easily, however most of these stories are accepted if the right person tells them and there was no huge hard support for the claim for Osborn, Dan Havens, Ben or Nelson Verity as the makers. Collectors are all looking for decoys with a “name” and a “good story” attached to elevate there relevance and value to the collectors and a prominent collector to spin the yarn and put it over.
In the “story”of “discovery” in Gunners Paradise, it is George “ Pop” Combs Sr. who is quoted, not Bud. I personally only ask Bud about it one time outright, and he just made a face and grunted. I never thought he felt comfortable when people asked him about some aspects of the “story” as the reaction I received showed when I asked him about it. I believe he regretted being part of it later on. I do believe he really thought Obadiah and Southard had made the decoys and not Osborn, etc. I believe he went along with the fabrication to give credit to the carvers he believed had actually made the decoys. What his reason was for believing they were the real carvers is not known. Though it would appear that he thought the end justified the means to establish the new names. In an interview for the January/February 1989 Decoy Magazine by Gene and Linda Kangas titled “A conversation with Bud Ward” When asked who “his favorite Long Island carver?” was, he responded “Obediah Verity” (Bud's business card featured an illustration of a feeding plover by "Obadiah"). Bud tells of how he got some of his best Verity shorebird decoys from a friend named Herbert Golding who “had hunted with Nelson Verity as a kid." No mention of the ground-breaking Interview with Andrew Verity is to be found in the article, not one reference to the discovery of “Obadiah” and Willy.

When George Sr. or George Jr. was questioned by some collectors as to what proof they had for the interview with ninety-four year old Andrew “Grubie’ Verity, they claimed they had tape recorded the “interview.” Well here would be all the proof anyone could need that what they were saying was really true. All you have to do is listen to the recording they made with old “Grubie." However, the problem with this assumption is they never allowed anyone to hear the alleged recording they said they had in their possession. Not even Mr. Richard P. Baldwin, who would be the very first person you would share this ground-breaking information with. Mr. Richard P. Baldwin is a retired teacher and Verity Family genealogist, publisher of “The Verity Family of Long Island, New York” first printing 1976 ( 90 pages ) second printing 2000 (260 pages ). The book is primarily devoted to the Verity’s and their related families, of which Mr. Baldwin descends. Mr. Baldwin has put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this work and the publication may have great value to the family’s descendants, but is of absolutely no value to anyone as a source for serious documentation as pertaining to the researching of the Long Island decoys today said to be made by the “Verity Family Decoy Carvers.” It is a good possibility that none of these decoys were made by any Verity Family member. It is in this first publication of the book in 1976 that Mr. Baldwin presents a list of (nine) names of what he claims are the “Verity Family Carvers.” In his reprint in the year 2000 the list is expanded to a total of sixteen names. One name found on both lists is that of “Obadiah Verity” 1850-1906, (1976), with text stating that he ”lived in Seaford, perhaps the most well known of the Verity carvers…. perhaps a son of Obadiah and Arabella (Verity ) Verity.” In the 2000 reprint we find a totally different "Obadiah" is listed as the carver. Now we find “Obadiah Verity 1813-1901, son of John Henry (“Uncle John”) and Amy (Verity) Verity. See Long Island Forum, fall 1993, 4-12.” Another carver listed in both editions is “Benjamin Verity.” In the 1976 edition, “Ben Verity (?) said to at the Gilgo Life Saving Station in the 1860’s (was there a Ben)? In the 2000 edition, we find “Benjamin Verity, c.1852-? Son of Henry and Hanna Verity. Said to have served in the U.S. Life saving Service at Gilgo.”

It is expected that an updated edition of a researched, fact-based publication would contain newly discovered information as stated in the “Introduction” in 2000; “Since the publication of the 1976 edition my continuing research has resulted in the correction of some errors and the addition of much new material.” The problem with his “corrections” and “additional material” as far as the "Decoy carvers" is that he shows no evidence for his conclusions as to why the changes were made. He just states it as a fact, based on what? And strangely “Ben Verity” was the name used by the Herrick’s as the maker of the decoys they had donated to the Museums at Stony Brook, now referred to as the work of “Obadiah”. Of the sixteen plus carvers names listed in the two editions, I can find no evidence presented to indicate any linkage between the names on the lists and carvings attributed to the named carvers. The only exception may be Andrew Verity. And in the research I have personally done on the subject, I have not found any linkage of the “Names” listed in Mr. Baldwin’s book as well as all printed material that has used these names as the carvers to the decoys in question.

Mr. Baldwin uses as research reference articles found in the “Long Island Forum” founded in 1938. The publication was supposed to be dedicated to preserving the history of Long Island’s past heritage. The "Long Island Forum" has never been and should never be considered a serious publication by historians and never as a peer reviewed publication. The Forum editors printed whatever was sent in that appealed to the publisher, who tended to favor vapid romancicized views of history with little or no attention paid to facts. However, even if you read the references Baldwin sites as his proof for “The Verity Carvers” in the Forum issues, you find they contain nothing about the carving of decoys by any of the Verity’s he lists as carvers. The only exception are the articles written by Mr. Baldwin himself about who he says are the carvers, mostly just reprints from his book. In his book he also says some carvers were “identified by the Long Island Decoy Association” (the L.I.D.C.A. has been proven to be one of the worst places to obtain correct information from). Once again, no facts are given as to how they identified the carvers, just that they were “identified.” For the "Stephen Verity decoys" he cites a letter from ”Mr. Robert Shaw, Decoy Specialist, Shelburne Museum, he cites that decoys in the Museum were made by Stephen Verity, yet once again no facts are presented as to why they are said to be made by Stephen Verity, except this statement found in the letter that the decoys had originally been wrongly labelled with wrong birth place, birth date and death date, etc. I wonder if the “etc.” was a different name used as the maker? The rest of the names on the list have no references as to why they should be considered as a carver of decoys.

This is not the sloppiest “research” I have ever seen connected with decoys. It is in fact the norm. It is totally lacking in any true scholarly research and is completely void of any evidence for his assertion that these are decoy carvers. This is the type of so-called research that has established these ghost names as the makers of most of the decoys on today's market.

The three collectors and Baldwin had been working together somewhat helping with the Stony Brook Museum's Gunners Paradise project and establishing the “Verity Carvers.” Eventually they had disagreements over who “THE REAL OBADIAH” was. This dispute was mainly between Bud and Baldwin. Baldwin had never disputed that an Obadiah Verity was the carver of the decoys formerly attributed to Osborn, however he did question which of the many Obadiah’s from Seaford was the maker. And he questioned the “facts” that Bud and The Combs’ had used for the Obadiah they favored and the one Baldwin eventually favored, and of course neither presented any proof that either of the “names” had ever carved at all.
The original Obadiah clamed to be the maker of the decoys was said to be a brother to Smith Clinton Verity (1845-1920), Andrew Verity's father. What Mr. Baldwin had found fault with was that Smith C. Verity’s brother Obadiah had died young, most likely sometime between 1850-1860 and this would mean that Andrew could not have know this Obadiah and he could not have been the carver. Another thing that concerned Mr. Baldwin was an article written in “Long Island Forum” January 1969 “Recollections of Seaford” by George L. Weeks (1884-1977), a Town Historian of Islip, Long Island, writer and “native of Seaford”. The article tells of Mr. Weeks having known an Obediah Verity as a boy. He states, “Diah was a great carver of decoys of which I have about a dozen.” In this article once again he presents no proof for what he says about “Obadiah” and presents no photos of the decoys he says he owns made by him.

Mr. Baldwin believed he knew which Obadiah was the real carver by what Weeks had written, nevermind what the unsubstantiated content was, this is what he would hang his hat on. On page 185 of Mr. Baldwin’s book he states “In 1975 Andrew Verity then 94, living in a nursing home, during a taped interview, was asked questions by several members of the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association. Some of this interview is (related) in E. Jane Townsend’s Gunners Paradise”. "Related" would indicate that the tape was also not made available to Ms. Townsend. In Mr. Baldwin’s book (second edition) in the section titled “Who Was Obadiah Verity, the Carver of Decoys?” pages 184-193, he lays out who and why he feels he knows who the real "Obadiah” the carver was. His conclusion appears to be based solely on the short paragraph by Weeks in "Long Island Forum." It is interesting and took a lot of work to sort out all the “Diah‘s” however it's like all the other printed material on Obadiah Verity; contains no facts that would link the decoys in question to any “Diah” from Seaford. On page 188 Mr. Baldwin states in “ENDNOTES” “Most of the decoys identified as Obediah’s have been shore birds. An article by George W. Combs, Jr., Obadiah (sic) Verity, of Seaford, L. I. in the Newsletter of the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association, February 1984, page 2, states that ”He is known to have made 5 or so duck decoys-Bluebill with carved wings, 2 Sheldrakes and a black duck that is now in the Shelburne[VT] Museum.” This newsletter, in the opinion of this author, contains much undocumented and erroneous information about the Verity family. The very same thing can be said about Baldwin’s book at least when it comes to “The Decoy Carvers” from the Verity family.

Mr. Baldwin had personally told me that he had also visited Andrew Verity at the nursing home and got a much different reaction from Andrew than what Bud and the Combs’ described in their history-making visit. From what Mr. Baldwin told me, Andrew wasn’t even interested in talking about decoys and appeared to have no interest in the subject at all. I believe he told me he wanted to go sit with the Ladies and watch a ballgame.
I also find it interesting that in the section on Obadiah Verity page 25 in Gunners Paradise, it says “It was not until 1975, more than 50 years after his death, his decoys were identified as his work." Yet there is nothing found in print in the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association Newsletter about the “Discovery” of the “real carvers.” The Combs' and Bud were founding members of the club and all were members in 1975, yet nothing about the Great Discovery, and no articles were written for "Long Island Forum" or the Magazine “North American Decoys”. How strange.
The next layer in the creating of Obadiah Verity and William Southard decoy carvers and a plethora newly minted “Verity Carvers” came the next year in 1980 with the publishing of “Shore Bird Decoys” by Henry A. Fleckenstein Jr. This would be the first book devoted entirely to “Snipe Stool” or Shore Bird decoys. This was the first hardcover book to associate the names of Obadiah Verity and William Southard with the decoys formerly called Osborn’s and Osborn type etc. Yet there is no mention of the names being changed. It‘s as if they had always been referred to Verity’s and Southard‘s. No new facts are added in the book. The “story” of the interview with “Grubie” at the nursing home that is said to establish an Obadiah as the carver is not even mentioned.

In his book Henry thanks Bud Ward and his wife Carol for being his “host and hostesses” along with other collectors and their wives that he had visited with to obtain some of the highly dubious information found in the book and photograph some of the decoys in their collections. So without any fact checking or questioning of the “information” Henry lists Verity and Southard and the others as “Verity Carvers” in his book. It is all presented as fact and it all came directly from Bud. Having known both Henry and Bud, I know Henry had great respect for Bud and valued his widely accepted expertise, as did most collectors. On page 16 and 17 are photos of five peeps (sandpipers); four are said to be by Obadiah Verity of Seaford and one by William Southard of Bellmore. He gives dates of 1880 for the “Verity” birds, and the text with the “Southard” bird says, “Southard decoys at first glance are very similar to the Veritys and are sometimes confused with those of Obediah.” The way this is written makes it seem like the decoys had always been associated with the two new names. It also gives an applied assurance of knowledge. It would give the impression that there is an established traceable empirical pedigree back to Verity and Southard, and of course this is not the case. Page 25 shows a photo of a “Robin Snipe” (Red Knot) and points out the rarity of Robin Snipe by Obadiah Verity. On page 31 we find two tern decoys “c-1890” now by “Obadiah Verity” they are rig mates to the Stony Brook Museum tern decoy and the one found in Mackey's book both as “Nelsen Verity”. Page 32 has a rare “Ruddy turnstone c-1880 extremely scarce, only three or four turnstones by Verity are known.” Throughout the book are more photos of decoys said to be Obadiah’s work. On page 42 is a Black bellied plover, text, “This view shows well the stippled paint on the back of Verity decoys, accomplished by dabbing with a chewed twig.” This folksy legend is highly questionable. First how would anyone have the information of how it was accomplished? I personally have never been able get a twig to duplicate stippling found on these decoys but it can be accomplished with a paint brush and you can make a nice stiff paint brush from horse hair or hog bristle, as I have done. On page 66 we are introduced to Smith Clinton Verity (1845-1950) with a photo of a yellowleg decoy (no Evidence presented other that a Verity Family Name). On page 70 is a yellowleg said to be the work of “Andrew Verity, son of Obadiah Verity” (Andrew Verity was Smith C. Verity’s son, not the deceased Obadiah’s, who died in childhood).

Who was it that identified the decoy as a “Grubie” snipe? It goes on to say the decoy “was found screwed to the wall of Nelsen Verity's boat house.” On page 87 is an “Obadiah” curlew and one by another newly (named carver) from the Verity family, “John Henry Verity” (1788-1878). The list of Verity carvers begins to grow. It is astounding out of nowhere we have carver’s being “discovered” yet not one shred of evidence is ever presented, other than documented names from the Verity family tied together with undocumented so called “facts” and shadow evidence, as with the name “John Verity” which was pulled from the book The Birds of Long Island by by J.P.Gerard (1844). It tells of guide “John Verity” of him he writes “He will furnish you with a suitable boat and decoys, and accompany you and if you visit him at the proper season.“ This reference is found on page 188 of Mr. Baldwin’s book.

It says he will furnish you with decoys. It does not say whether he will be using live decoys or wooden decoys, and it does not say or document that he carved decoys, only that he used decoys and there is nothing at all that would indicate he made or was associated with the decoys attributed to him shown on page 87.

Another thing found in common with all these patchwork cobbled together decoy “histories” are words like "possible", "maybe", "perhaps" and "could have" are found sprinkled throughout. As on page 188 of the Baldwin book “The Obadiah born 1813, could have learned decoy carving from his father John (“Uncle John “) and perhaps his grandfather, Samuel (“Uncle Sam” ) Verity, as well Obadiah would have been thirty-six years of age when his grandfather died and fifty-three when his father died. Why couldn’t all three have worked together between say 1838 and 1849, providing their carved decoys and acting as guides for wildfowling parties?” Why couldn’t they have never carved decoys at all? Maybe they got their decoys from someone else? Perhaps they carved no decoys at all. They could have possibley gotten their decoys from the real carver. Those word work both ways and neither way present any facts, only questions.

On page 88 we find three Yellowlegs by “William Southard from Bellmore." No William Southard has ever been recorded living in Bellmore, though I have located many men with the name William Southard, none can be connected to decoy carving. It also states “He married Celia Verity, sister of Obadiah and Smith Clinton." The only sister I can find for Obadiah (who died in childhood) and Smith Verity is listed as Julia. We also find out that Southard “made mostly Yellowlegs." Also in the text it says that “Southards” decoys were "made from tree limbs.” Another layer is added to the myth. Most are not made from “tree limbs."

Color plate LXXII shows two “Obadiah” tern decoys from Bud Ward’s collection and are rig mates to the terns mentioned earlier.

It was Henry’s book that gave use Smith Clinton Verity and John Henry Verity and Andrew as “decoy makers” and the legend of the “Verity Family carvers” was expanding based on absolutely nothing but Verity family names attached to decoys, devoid of any research for the claim.

It is at this point that the new names start to become established with the decoy auction houses, collectors, etc. Many people put a huge amount of trust in auction houses and their supposed expertise. If you are interested in who were the true makers of the decoys, auction houses are not where you go for factual information. The truth is they don’t care whom the carvers really were. They mainly care about the money generated for them and their clients who consign and buy their “product.” They are “salesmen” plain and simple. Most deserve the respect given to “used car salesmen.” Their knowledge and expertise comes from books filled with misinformation and collectors who get their information from the same publications. They do no research of their own into who made the “product”they sell. And when it came to decoys, whatever Bud told them they went along with. There was none of those “Cousin Vinny” moments where Al Pesci asks Marissa Tomei “Are you sure” no questions were asked. No one would question what Bud said when what he said could help to make the auction houses and dealers money. In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s we find the auction houses switching from “Osborn” to “Verity” almost overnight, though some would still stick to “Osborn” for awhile, and some collectors would remain confused for years. As can be seen in the 1990 Shore Birds The Birds The Hunters The Decoys by Levinson and Headley, where they list decoys made by both Osborn and Obadiah, along with other Verity names found in the book. And as with most books and articles on decoys, no evidence is ever presented for any of the supposed “facts ’used. Each subsequent book or article is based on past undocumented claims and a few new unsubstantiated “facts” layer after layer, year after year, a tapastry is woven into a "history" of the supposed carvers.

The only conclusion that can be reached on the decoys that have been attributed to the ‘Verity” carvers and Will Southard, first attributed to them by the Combs', Ward and Baldwin in the mid 1970’s, is there is not now and has never been any proof presented that any of the decoys cited as Verity decoys were actually made by any of the Verity family members or William Southard.

Who the makers of these decoys truly were may never be known, but as long as collectors, etc. perpetuate the fabricating of makers for these great old touch stones of American history, it will be hard to correct the record and give credit to the true carvers, or drop the fabricated names for "Unknown Maker." If any reader should feel that I am wrong in my assertions, please feel free to present your evidence for your conclusions as to why what I have written is in error, with supportive documentation for your conclusion (real documentation), not what has been parroted in the past and paraded around as facts. Then I will look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Next update will be on the decoys attributed to “Thomas H. Gelston” and the decoys he most likely didn’t make.