The History of the Silly John Dilley Decoy Myth
When it comes to the myth of John Dilley decoy maker, as with many of the early decoy misattributions, I am reminded of the famous line by Claude Raines in the movie Casablanca, “Round up the usual suspects.” In this case, it would be Joel Barber, Bill Mackey and Adele Earnest, their early books on decoys are once again the starting point of the investigation. And of course, Barber’s book leads off the lineup, but in his book there is no mention of John Dilley.
In Wild Fowl Decoys (1934) by Joel Barber, on page 68, plate 54, we find a Plover that would later be called a “John Dilley decoy” beginning in the early 1970‘s. On page 86, we have the description, “The group in plate 54 shows several decoys from different localities, The Black-breasted plover loaned by Mr. Frederick Becker, comes from Long Island.” Mr. Barber gives the location of the decoys as Long Island, but does not link the decoy to a particular carver or town (Fredrick Becker lived in Babylon Long Island).
Then along comes Bill Mackey. In his book American Bird Decoys (1965), Mackey is all over the place on the decoys that he would eventually attribute to “John Dilley." In color plate IV, “This Black -bellied Plover (left); Ruddy Turnstone (second from left); and two Dowitchers, in fall plumage and spring plumage respectively, represent the “Jess Birdsall type”of shore birds." There is a question as to their origin, but here he links them to New Jersey (Barber had placed a bird by the same maker on Long Island 31 years earlier). Barber and Mackey both knew each other well and Mackey had Barber's book on his shelf. But Mackey does not mention the Barber bird in his book? Mackey (1965), “There is no question that the detailed, stylized painting is unsurpassed. They are beautiful examples from the hand of a fastidious workman.” On page 124 Mackey tries to explain why he is not sure who really made the decoys. He tells of receiving a group of six shorebird decoys from the widow of Captain Jess Birdsall of Barnegat N.J. in 1941. Mackey tells of how awestruck he was with these beautiful mint shorebird decoys and says, “This unprecedented find left me excited to the point of paying less attention than usial to historical details.” In reality this is typical of Mackey’s less than stellar documentation and it seems evident that he is trying to cover his tracks on his off the cuff, no frills research, as seen below.
“The fame of the “Jess Birdsall snipe” became established and for years there was no reason to doubt their origin." Yes, and it was Mackey who established the fame and origin of the “Jess Birdsall snipe."
“Fifteen Years ago in 1956 a batch of identical decoys were discovered at Amityville, New York” (the town where Mr. Fredrick Becker lived). It would appear Mackey never seems to make the obvious connection between the birds he had first called Jess Birdsall shorebird decoys and the bird in Barber’s book. Mackey says the Amityville birds were not pristine, but well shot over and he concludes as they had no documentation, “they could have been from Barnegat." And of course, Mackey never had any documentation for his original stated Barnegat, New Jersey origin.
Mackey finishes the page by saying that it was becoming apperent that most of these shore bird decoys were being uncovered on Long Island, not New Jersey. “Call them what you will, but I now have doubt that the able Captain Jess Birdsall ever carved them. By what ever name they are called, their paint patterns are superb and their interest is enhanced by the fact they were made as working decoys, not as mantel ornaments.” So Mackey does not know who made the birds, but he his looking for a new name, someone from Long Island, and it will be a Dilley of a name.
Adele Earnest’s book also published in 1965, the same year as Mackey's, presents two plates in her book showing the shore bird decoys that would be called "Dilley’s” on Page 60, plate 41, KNOT SHOREBIRD, text page 202, “By Jesse Birdsall, Barnegat New Jersey (Collection of Lloyd Johnson, Bay Head, New Jersey).”
Page 156, plate 156 KNOT, RUDDY TURNSONE, AND PLOVER
Text page by, “Jesse Birdsall,” same as above description.
It seems Mr. Mackey did not notify Ms. Earnest of his doubts on the Birdsall connection to the shore bird decoys, or for some other reason, she still refers to them as New Jersey decoys.
The next major step in the Dilley legend comes six years later with the publication of the portfolio, “Classic Shorebird Decoys” by American artist Milt Weiler (1971), Text by William J. Mackey Jr. This is where Bill Mackey inserts the most enduring pillar of the Dilley myth, a totally made out of whole cloth fabrication that if it existed, would not prove or give evidence as to who made the decoys. In the last paragraph below of the entire text found on plate No.7, we find the first mention of the non-exsistent, never seen, half dozen shorebirds with name Dilley stenciled on them in a box with “John Dilley Quogue" stamped on it. I will address the subject of the half dozen birds and the box that never existed, all so the stated location of Quogue as Dilley’s home town. But before I progress further, I will tell the reader that there has never been a “John Dilley” recorded in any association with the Village of Quogue, Long Island.
The late Mrs. Pat Shuttleworth of Quogue, was the Quogue town historian for many years. Mrs. Shuttleworth was a very sweet and intelligent lady who searched repeatedly and diligently for any information or documentation on both the names of “John Dilley" and "Thomas H. Gelston" at the request of decoy collectors/researchers, including Fred Reaver, myself, and many others. Her conclusion was that neither “Gelston” nor “ Dilley” had ever lived or had any documentable association with Village of Quogue.
Plate No. 7
JOHN DILLEY
Quogue, New York
In 1944, I purchased six mint examples of Dilley birds from Jess Birdsall’s widow in their Barnegat, New Jersey, home. Ever since then, handsome birds of this type have been in the forefront of the collectibles. The birds I bought from Mrs. Birdsall showed very little evidence of use, and each one had been reverently tuck in an old black cotton stocking for protection. Since Captain Jess was a dandy decoy maker, it was hastily concluded that he had surely made these. The obvious fact, that no documented decoy of his resembled these little gems, was ignored by most of the collectors. The myth grew. Rumor had it that he made them on his long ocean voyages, using skins he had taken aboard for that purpose.
These decoys had real class and were envied by fellow collectors such as Joel Barber and Edgar Burke, who left my house walking on air because I had given them each a snipe. My monopoly of four didn’t last long, though, for here and there others showed up---many on Long Island. However, when collectors are hot on a new trail, inconsistencies like this don’t deter them. The decoys began as Birdsalls, and Birdsalls they stayed. For two decades, every now and again, someone would find another on Long Island. The six in the black stockings from Barnegat were the only ones ever found in New Jersey.
The birds---plover, ruddy turnstones, yellowlegs (one size), dowitchers and knots---have unmistakable characteristics of finely carved plump bodies all in the one pose shown. Some have lightly carved wings but only one, the yellowlegs, has a split tail. The bills do not penetrate the head but are well-shaped and nicely fitted. Most pleasing are the paint patterns, which are incredibly correct in color tones. Note especially the white areas, which are feathered by texturing white paint over a base white. It almost has to be seen to be believed. Another feature is the delicate feathering, evident on all the areas, which extends under the tail. This is a time-consuming gesture that pleased only the artist and the collector. Once the decoy was staked out to lure counterparts, the time spent on such frivolities was wasted.
These incredibly well-painted birds have an origin that is still vague and uncertain. Some have a stencil using green ink and the word DILLEY. One collector saw six in a box that indicated they were sold as a commercial item. The box was also stamped JOHN DILLEY. The cost of such a rig must have made any widespread use prohibitive. Even a reasonable profit placed on the carving and especially the detailed painting would put them far beyond the means of the average hunter. Mason decoys from Detroit retailed at $4.50 a dozen; Bill Bowman’s were bartered for the cup that cheers; Harry Shourds soaked the sports six bucks a dozen. If the real John Dilley is around, please stand up; we’ll offer him a deal similar to the California gold rush.
From Classic Shorebird Decoys, a Portfolio of paintings by Milton C. Weiler, Text by William J. Mackey, Jr. 1971.
These shorebird decoys will be called Dilley’s by most auction houses, decoy dealers, museums, and collectors from then until the present, based solely on Mackey, who now out of the blue, begins attributing them to a John Dilley, from Quogue Long Island. All based on a half dozen decoys and a box that has never been seen. It will be trotted out in almost every article written on the subject.
Eight years after the Milt Weiler Mackey print text, in 1979, once more enter the Museums at Stony Brook with their myth enabling, non-scholarly book, Gunners Paradise, again we see they have the ability to walk two roads at the same time. On page 115, #187 “Black bellied Plover," page 124, #209 “Robin Snipe," both listed as by “John Dilley, Long Island,” and on page 150, “Index to Decoy Carvers and companies in the Decoy Collection of The Museums at Stony Brook, John Dilley, 115, 124."
The Museum's publication expresses no reservations as to crediting John Dilley as the carver, yet when you read the description on page 115, we find this statement, “To date there is no documentation on this carver who may have been dubbed John Dilley either because a box containing decoys by an unknown carver was labled “John Dilley, Quogue” or simply because a collector on seeing a fine decoy exclaimed, “That’s a Dilly!” On page 124, we are told the Knot is branded “Henny and Squires, N.Y.” It seems no one has ever investigated the brand found on this bird, though I have no evidence the brand suggests the name of a store or Business.
It is a shame that the Museums at Stony Brook, in their various name incarnations, their past and present stewardships, have consistently shown a total lack of professionalism in their presentation, research, and curatorial approach to the historical objects in their decoy collection. It is a failure on their part to live up to their mission statement and a disservice to the people of Long Island and it’s history.
In 1980, one year later, we find the first book singularly devoted to shorebird decoys, their use, the times, and their alleged makers, by my friend, Henry A. Fleckenstein Jr. Unfortunately the book is very disjointed and as to the “carvers,” none were researched or vetted to substantiate any evidence or facts to support the claim that the names stated to be the carvers are in fact really the carvers, and not just names. This is the standard “documentation” used by decoy writers past and present. The most rewarding part of Henry's book is the abundance of photographs and the historical information on the shorebird gunning era.
On page 15 Henry writes, “There are almost as many great unknowns who, like Bowman and Dilley, may one day be identified and their history recorded in a later publication.” It is evident at least at the time that Henry wrote his book, not unlike decoy writers past or present, don’t have the foggest idea what the meaning of “identified” and “their history recorded” means. There is no recorded history for either “Bowman” or “Dilley”and neither one was ever identified as a decoy carver using any form of evidence or documentation. No, it’s quite the opposite. Henry presents no facts, no documents are produced from his own independent research, all to the contrary. Henry writes on page 37, plate 40, “Willit decoy- made by John Dilley, Quogue Long Island, New York. Little is known of John Dilley and the attribution is suspect to many collectors. Other collectors are just as certain Dilley made decoys. Who ever may be correct, all agree that these decoys are superb examples of the art." As nonsensical as it sounds, Henry like most other decoy writers, never seemed to understand the incongruities between writing that decoys have been “identified” and in the next sentence pointing out that they really have not been identified.
On page 49, plates 50-51, “Plovers by John Dilley” Text with plate 50 tells of them being once identified as “Jess Birdsall’s" and “Birdsall type." Plate 51, Color photos XIX& amp; XX plovers, “Little is known of John Dilley, but the exquisite paint pattern found on his decoys speakes for itself.”
This is more of the decoy writer's flim-flam, Henry says “little is known of John Dilley,” when in truth he should have writen NOTHING IS KNOWN OF JOHN DILLEY. And the paint found on the birds can not in any way document who the painter was, if you don’t know who the painter really was to begin with. Henry’s book adds nothing of substance to the identifacation of the true maker of the shorebird decoys, but it does point out that there is no evidence for “John Dilley” as the maker of the decoys. This will be the mantra repeated by every writer on the subject, yet none ever question why they and others are calling them “ John Dilley” decoys.
Over the next decade, the “Dilley myth” will bump along like a round stone in a swift stream. Never acquiring or presenting any evedience for Dilley as the maker, but he will continually be listed as a maker in all the books and articles written on the subject, as found in The Great Book of Decoys (1990), chapter eight, “LONG ISLAND by Long Island Collector Fred Dombo, There is very little information about the maker of the shorebird that are referred to as John Dilley’s” (if nothing is a little information then I guess it’s as little as it gets). He gives a synopsis of the Weiler/Mackey text, complete with the phantom box. Then he goes on to say, “There is no proof that this person made the decoys and there is no information on who this person was." Then he like all the other decoy writers, he does a tap dance about how wonderfully they are painted, etc. In the next sentence he says that “In collecting circles, they are generally accepted as 'John Dilley.'" This points out the problem with decoy collecting. If collectors feel the birds are “John Dilley” decoys based solely on the only consistent fact presented that there is no proof that “John Dilley” made the decoys in question which means, sadly, most decoy collectors don’t really don’t care who carved the decoys in their collections. They don‘t seem to feel that the real artist deserves the credit. Just as long as they and their decoys have someone's name attached to it, they are happy as clams. No matter how illusory the gossamer claim for the name is, they can boast that “This Decoy was made by” and also sadly, most of these so-called decoy collector/experts can’t tell the difference between a real untouched decoy, a repaint, reworked, re-headed or out right fake bird. As well you often find these self proclaimed “decoy experts” are many times rather pompous in their supposed knowledge. Equipped only with the knowledge found in the unrehearsed books and articles that have been printed, but never fact checked and all so the knowledge of older pompous decoy collectors who generously share their great wisdom with the neophyte collectors, which is also based on the same unreaserched books and myths. All having drank from the same Cool Ade tub they can now all nod knowingly to each other as to the "names" of the carvers who made the birds. As in"Yes that is a"John Dilley decoy" . It has been said that around half the “Ward” decoys on the market today are fake and some swear Crowell is making far more birds today than when he was alive. This is the sad state decoy of decoy collecting today (what’s in your collection?)
Books like The Collectors Guide to Decoys Volumes I (1991) and II (1992) by Bob and Sharon Huxford and Collectors Guide to Decoys (1992) by Linda and Gene Kangas state no opinion on the existence of “Dilley” or his invisible box. They just list him as the maker of the shorebird decoys.
In 1991 the second book devoted to shorebird decoys and their alleged makers was published. This one will be a typical evidence lacking non-researched decoy book, a heralding of names of America's greatest decoy carvers (who never carved, existed or both), SHOREBIRDS, The Birds, The Hunters, The Decoys by Somers G. Headley and John M. Levenson. On page 71, plate 5-14, is a Red Knot listed as a “John Dilley Quogue, Long Island c. 1890” (since John Dilley does not exist, it seems it would be hard to date his work). On page 72, plate 5-15, is a Yellowlegs and Black-bellied Plover also with the same description.
The accompanying text found on page 70 says, “For many years, William Bowman, Thomas Gelston and Obadiah Verity were considered by most collectors to be the three most prominent Long Island decoy carvers, but since the late 1970s another name has surfaced." They are correct a name surfaced and nothing else, and the other “names” the authors mention as “carvers” have now been proven not to be the real carvers. They like “Dilley” are all myths or fabrications. But do go on. “In decoy collecting circles they are generally accepted” as the carvers." The text then goes on to say, “John Dilley is thought to be the person who carved and painted certain exceptional shorebird decoys about 1890.” The authors say Dilley is “thought” to be the carver/painter. What would that thought be based on? Mackey’s never seen invisible box. A thought might be, “I thought I left my keys on the desk," but the fact might be that they are locked inside the car. That is the difference, but most decoy writers never let facts get in the way of the story, so thoughts are good enough.
Authors Levinson and Headley go on to say that “Figure5-14 shows a Red Knot with feather painting so realistic that you want to reach out and touch it.” “Figure 5-15 contrasts well the essential anatomical differences in a yellowlegs and the black- bellied plover. Both decoys have German glass eyes the black bellied plover in early spring plumage has carved wings. Minimal wing carving is noted in the wings of the yellowlegs.”
“For many years Dilley’s were identified simply as “Jess Birdsall type," because the first six known came from Mrs. Jess Birdsall at Barnegat New Jersey and were thought to have been made by her husband, the late Capt. Jess Birdsall. Although there is no real documentation on the carver, the superb workmanship is evident.” The authors say there is “no real documentation for the carver” yet they still list him as the carver(?) Then they pull this old chestnut out of the fire. “It is possible that the name John Dilley came from the expression, “That’s a Dilly”! At any rate, these birds were carefully carved and often exquisitely painted.”
Let's address this often mentioned “That’s a Dilly” "It a Dilly” story. First “Dilley” and “Dilly” are spelled differently and the most likely reason or the only reason they are called “Dilley’s” is due to the fact that a few of the decoys have the name “Dilley” written in script with green ink on their tails( not stamped). That is the only connection to the word Dilley which most likely means someone with the last name Dilley once owned them at an undetermined date. Now can you conceive naming decoys after adjectives expressed in praise and admiration of the workmanship or artistic ability exhibited in a decoy? Shouldn’t we expect to have other decoys by such carvers as “John Wonderful,” “John Beautiful” or “John Fantastic” decoys? As to where the first name “John” came from is anybody’s guess. Once again the only conclusion to be drawn from this book is there has never been a logical reason to credit the decoys to a John Dilley from Quogue, and the authors definitely say so, as they merrily go on to credit him as the carver. And it is exactly the same with our next publication, the Dr. James McCleery’s Call to the Sky (1992), catalog/book accompanying the exhibit of the decoys from the James McCleery Collection presented by the Houston Museum of Natural Science, Houston, Texas. The catalog text is by Robert Shaw. It would appear again we find an author unwittingly undermining the claim for “Dilley” while still referring to the shorebird decoys as by “John Dilley.” He writes, “John Dilley, of whose life virtually nothing is known." Once again we here it repeated nothing exists for Dilley other than the name. However, he still goes on to say he was “among the most technically skilled of all decoy painters.”
Mr. Shaw goes on to say, “Whoever he was, Dilley had intimate and detailed knowledge of the complex and often confusing seasonal plumage phases of shorebird species.” He extols, “the great paint found on the birds." He writes of the complex painting techniques the (name) “Dilley” used on his birds. This would be considered clinically schizophrenic, yet this is what you find written in most, if not all the books or articles written about old decoys and their supposed makers, and readily accepted by most collectors. “Whoever he was” is most assuredly not documentation for a “John Dilley." This book, as with most decoy publications, merely regurgitates previously published erroneous information. No proof is presented for the great spectral carver/painter Mr. “John Dilley."
In 1992, the recently deceased pioneer decoy collector/writer Mr. Joseph B. French (1919-2009) wrote an article for Wildfowl Carving magazine. It later was reprinted with permission as the cover story in the January/February 1994 issue of Decoy Magazine titled. "The Dilley Shorebirds A collectors’ journey of discovery” by Joseph B.French. To his last day Joe French thought and was convinced he had discovered the proof that a “John Dilley” from "Quogue Long Island” had made the shorebird decoys, as he claims in his article. I believe Joe’s love for these beautifully painted shorebirds and his need to have the identity of their creator clouded his better judgment. When he wrote the article he was not only deeply entrenched in the “Dilley” attribution, he was the Chairman of the Board for the claim for “John Dilley” carver/painter. Other collectors openly snickered at the “John Dilley” story and they were responsible for the “It‘s a Dilly“ story. In point of fact, the only thing Joe may have proven in his article is that some of the shorebirds have the name “Dilley” written in green ink on their tails and that it was most likely written as he wrote “in the early ‘40s, before any collector had heard the name” (Dilley). Or at some other undetermined date that can’t even be guessed at. Why Joe thinks that it was “Most likely in the early ’40s is unexplained.
Joe’s article sheds no light on who made the shorebirds, including and most specifically, a “John Dilley from Quogue Long Island." However, there is a lot of information in the article, much of which strongly hurts his case for “John Dilley decoy maker," and as other decoy writers do, he will continually point out the glaring lack of proof for a John Dilley, decoy carver. Yet he appears not to see the proverbial forest for the trees as seen in what he says of the famous non-existent “Box and 6 decoys," that elusive magical mystery Dilley shorebird box and it‘s never seen contents.
From French's article Decoy Magazine,1994: “The first obvious clue to follow was the box Mackey mentioned. In checking with Long Island collectors I knew, I didn’t find one who personally knew anything about the green-labeled birds, nor have I ever seen one. If someone has one, I’d appreciate knowing about it.” What Joe should have written, and I am being charitable, is that the phantom box and the 6 decoys have never been seen and the story is more than likely a decoy myth masquerading as a fact. The myth most likely is built around a few birds with the name “Dilley” written in green ink script, on their tails. These few birds with the green ink “Dilley” written on them have been documented to exist, but not documented as having been made by a John Dilley from Quogue or even who or when or why the word “Dilley” was written on them.
But in the famous Sotheby’s/ Guyette & Schmidt January 22-23, 2000 Auction of the Decoy collection Dr. James (Doc) McCleery, on page 162 of the auction catalog we find this bio-description for “Dilley” under “LONG ISLAND SHOREBIRDS." Guyette & Schmidt drag out the old Dilley Box Story eight years after the French article was first published. They still are promoting the discredited “Dilly Box Story." As collectors know, the decoy auction house of Guyette & Schmidt is the largest of the house’s specializing primarily in American bird decoys and decorative bird carvings. They are considered by many collectors to be the pinnacle of expertise. Sotheby’s used them and their supposed expertise to write the regurgitated dreck found in the bio and descriptions found in the catalog.
From Sotheby’s / Guyette & Schmidt, James McCleery Auction 2000: “John Dilley is a cipher, little more than a name found on a single box of expertly carved and exquisitely painted shorebird decoys made in the decades of the nineteenth century" (The box does not exist but they even know the era it came from). It is said patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel that is true, but I think decoy catalog description writers might be the next step in scoundrel-dom. “The box of birds was also marked “Quogue” a town on Long Island's south shore near Eastport.” Guyette & Schmidt never mention that out of all the decoy related material they have handled that they have never seen the box.
They go on to say “it is assumed that their maker worked nearby, but no substantial proof exists” (to see the full text see the page 98 of the catalog). And if you remember a certain episode of the TV series “The Odd Couple” we all know where assumptions can lead us, or should I say led Guyette & Schmidt. In fact they are led there quite frequently. And once again, I should reiterate that traditionally auction houses exhibit less defined moral bearings than most politicians, shyster lawyers, or slicked backed pinky ringed used car salesmen. They just wear tweed instead of shark skin.
If the strongest evidence they have to present for John Dilley carver/painter is the fallacious, vaporous box that has never been seen and has never existed to anyone's knowledge, and the only real fact that is presented is that there is no evidence in any form of documentation for a “John Dilley” decoy maker from Quogue, then it would seem there would be no reasonable or rationale reason to refer to these decoys as anything other that “by unknown maker." At least by a rational thinking person, or just a thinking person.
Time after time the Joe French article points out how he and other collectors could never find any information or proof for a John Dilley to have ever lived on Long Island, let alone in the repeatedly stated Quogue, and none could find proof that the non-existent Mr. Dilley carved at all. How could they (HE DOES NOT EXIST, he is fiction ) as my youngest daughter used to say “A-da."
To get the full benefit of Joe French’s seemingly insanely written article, one should read it entirely, however I will present some quoted highlights to show how decoy writers like Mr. French never seem to see their irrational statements as being irrational. They try to prove the existence of the non-existent by pointing out how there is no evidence for his existence. I swear I can almost hear Patsy Cline in the background singing “Crazy.” From Page 9 of the French article, Joe French tells how our mutual friend, the late well known Long Island collector/dealer, Charles “Bud”Ward, had not been able to locate any information by calling “anyone listed on Long Island with the name of Dilly or Dilley with no success.”
I don’t know how many people with those names existed on Long Island when Bud supposedly did his telephone research, but in the Suffolk County telephone directory in 1994, the year Decoy Magazine published the French article (Suffolk County the claimed home of “Dilley is the largest county in the United States), it lists one person with the last name “Dilley,” A Mr. Thomas W. Dilley Jr from Commack. Today's directory, 2009/2010, lists not a single person bearing either last name “Dilley" or "Dilly." So how many phone calls could Bud have made in his exhaustive telephone research for the elusive Mr. “Dilley.” And once again Joe French points out there is no link found to a John Dilley or any Dilley family members found in Quogue (or on Long Island).
Joe says” he now takes up the hunt for Dilley," and he says one of the things he did was to contact “Elinor Lindsay in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office." Joe ask her to look for a John Dilley between the years 1890-1920. Ms. Lindsay “searched all buyers and sellers in the whole county ( all the area from which Dilley was rumored to hail) between those dates. She also searched for a Dilley or Dilly in surrogate files and found only one, an Alexander Dilly who died in 1980 (Dilly not the Dilley spelling found on the shorebird decoys). Once more the search goes nowhere, no John Dilley or John Dilly found. He goes on to write, “She was kind enough to call the Suffolk Historical Society as well. Their contribution was they had a copy of a book by the Stony Brook Museum (Gunner's Paradise) featuring two Dilley’s but nothing more."
Joe of course already had a copy of that book himself and he also had nothing more. Yet he does not mention the book's name. He seems to infer that the listing of the name “Dilley” in this unnamed book somehow proves the existence of “John Dilley." If they are listed by a museum, they must be “Dilley’s” yet he leaves out the part about the name “Dilley” having ”no documentation on this carver” also found in the unnamed mystery book. It’s the decoy writer's little friend, the sin of omission, just use what part of the truth that will in some way support your agenda and leave out any facts that might hurt their agenda.
Next Joe says he went through decoy auction catalogs from Bourne’s, Oliver‘s, and Julia/Guyette, and he made a list of their sales, then asked them to identify where the birds had originated, of which he says they complied. He also says he was unable to “pinpoint any specific region that they came from." Once again, a dead end and no connection to the stated Village of “Quogue.”
Joe adds more and more subterfuge to the article that leads only to more questions and no answers. He mentions that “Bud Ward and others” which includes myself and well known carver, collector, dealer living legend Bob White who had a theory that there is a connection between the so called “Blair “paint" and the so called Dilley paint. In fact I believe without a doubt that whoever made one group made the other and the maker's names are not “Blair“ or Dilley." Joe never expressed his opinion on the subject of the two groups of birds having been made by the same person in his article. In reality, he was vehemently opposed to this theory and the mention of it brought down his wrath without hesitation (once again there is no proof for a “John Blair” decoy carver either).
The thought that an artist possessing the skill to create both groups of decoys being called “Blair” or “Blair school”who only made floating decoys, and that a name “Dilley”only made shorebird decoys, is a strange concept. And the fact that both groups look like they were painted by the same person. Any normal rational observer would be able to see a connection between those two groups of decoys. Another factor to consider is that neither group has a documented maker. Again would this would lead the rational person to deduce they may very well have been made by the same unknown person. Fortunately for them, most decoy collectors are not overburdened with logic or rational thought in the critique of most decoy writer’s unsubstantiated claims.
In the next chapter of Long Island Decoy Forum I plan to address more of the “Blair" myth and its connection to the “Dilley” myth, and the intriguing possibility of who may be the real carver of both groups of decoys.
In an e-mail sent to me by Joe Engers from February 23, 2004, between Joe Engers, editor of Decoy Magazine and Jon Frank, of Frank & Frank Decoy Auctions we find Jon speaking frankly and unguarded in his reference to the research we were doing on Charles Sumner Bunn at the time (Bunn is the true maker of the decoys misattributed to another phantom carver, William Bowman; see Decoy Magazine Nov/Dec.2004). Jon speaks of the absence of research used by self-anointed decoy writer/experts. “Good work. I'm glad to see that there is investigative work going on, and not just matter of fact, take it for granted attribution. Bob White swears that the Dilley decoys are Blairs, if Blair made decoys. But as you know, you could say anything back then and it stuck like glue. Probably because there was no scholarship, and anyone that had written a book was in fact a scholar.” Wrong attributions still stick like glue as has been pointed out in the recent Seabury fabrication. The reason for the Blair/Dilley discussion in the e-mail was because of my expressing my theory to Joe Engers that I felt the so called “Blair’s” and the “Dilley’s” were made by the same person.
Joe French also says in his article, “Another theory was that the carver sent the birds to a school or group of artists to be painted.” There is another theory that has been around that is known to decoy collectors Dick Cowan, Ron McGrath, myself and others. It is a misty rumor that the art school where the shorebirds were painted was in Southampton, Long Island at William Merritt Chase’s “Shinnecock Summer Art School” at his “Art Village” just across the road from the Shinnecock Indian Reservation. Where this theory’s origins spring from I have not a clue, but it has been circulating at least since the 1980’s. I find it very interesting that while the shorebirds are said to come from Long Island's East End, the Blair’s have been said to come from Philadelphia and a rumor says they were the painted by a “Philadelphia portrait painter of considerable note." Coincidently, a city where once William Merritt Chase also established an art school. I find the possibility of a William Merritt Chase connection to the decoys intriguing and it is something that I have been working on for a few years.
As we progress to the conclusion of Joe’s article, I would ask the reader to notice that as I have pointed out repeatedly, there has been total absence of documentation and only vague unsubstantiated pseudo-facts have been presented for the late Mr. French’s false claim to have proven “John Dilley” was the maker of the decoys. It is just more of the typical decoy writers subterfuge presented in place of verifiable research based facts. Joe French, page 10, “Getting closer” “Bud Ward came up with a story.” “Bud Ward came up with a story,” this would not be my definition of research. Joe French, “Through a friend, he (Bud) made an appointment to see a man who lived on the eastern end of Long Island. Bud said that this man had a “Dilley that for years had been in the house owned by this very family.” What is with all the vague references. Who was this man? What was his name? "He lived on the East end." In what town? What “very family”?
Joe French, “this was what I was looking for in order to establish that Dilley was actually the maker's name, I had to find a bird and prove that Dilley was written on it prior to the late 50s when the name Dilley became known to collectors. Whether it had been written it had been written on there by the owner or by Dilley was inconsequential -just so it could be dated before 1955.” In what demented “bizzaro” world would this prove who carved and painted the shorebird decoys? The only thing this would prove is that at sometime in the decoy's history, someone unknown wrote Dilley on the underside of its tail, also at an unknown date.
Joe goes on to tell of his tracking down two decoys with the name “Dilley” written on their tails. They are shown in a photo on page 11 of his article with this accompanying ridiculous illogical text, “Dilley’s written signature on two decoys. The signature on the bottom bird proved that Dilley was there carver.” Now again, how does this prove a someone named “Dilley was the carver”? It doesn’t of course, but Joe couldn’t see it, he was way too invested in the maker of decoys being his beloved “John Dilley.”
Joe French, “Success!” Eureka! Here was proof the carver of these birds was named Dilley, as Mackey had deduced years before.” Joe tells that he located a total of three decoys with the name Dilley written on them and that "They all came from original owners.” Were any of the “original owners named Dilley”? Of course not, and if as Joe assumed, Dilley was the maker, how could the three guys who had the three birds be the original owners? And if Joe meant they were the original collector/owners, then this also sheds no light on who really made the decoys, for he presents no documentation from the “original owners” that “Dilley” was the maker.
Joe tells that all three signatures were by the same hand. “And I was sure the signatures were by Dilley himself because the three shorebirds came from different owners.” And this last pronouncement of course makes absolutely no sense on any level. Joe goes on tell what a great discovery he has made. “I felt like Columbus must have when he sighted land. I now felt confident in calling these exquisite shorebirds Dilley’s. For me this is the grand finale of the mystery, but certainly not the end of the love story.” Joe it appears was easily satisfied. Love is blind, as they say.
The final quote from the French article I will use is by Bob Shaw, at the time curator at the Shelburne Museum, Shelburne, Vermont. It is a fitting quote from this insipid imbecilic article by my friend Mr. French, who by the way I knew and had great affection for. Mr. Shaw, “John Dilley of Quogue, Long Island. Nothing is known of John Dilley except that he created what are arguably the most exquisitely painted of all decoys. Dilley's attention to plumage detail was in-comparable.”
That pretty well sums it up; “Nothing is known of John Dilley." But he was one hell of a painter. As with the other legendary decoy carvers from Long Island that have been enshrined in the hallowed halls of decoy-dumb; Gelston, Verity, Southard, Seabury, and Dilley that have been researched and featured on Long Island Decoy Forum has shown that there is absolutely no reason to identify any of these decoys any way other than as by “an unknown maker."
The only conclusion to be drawn from the Silly John Dilley decoy story is that someone else is the maker of the decoys, not a non-existent John Dilley of whom all the writers profusely and repeatedly proclaim the absence of documentation for as a decoy carver, or even (existing) on Long Island. I do however have a very good candidate for the real maker of both the shorebirds and floating decoys that have been assigned to “Dilley “and “Blair." He is a documented decoy carver of unsurpassed ability, and he can be found in Suffolk County where he really lived. He has real birth and death dates. In fact he was a real person. I realize that is not normal for great Long Island decoy carvers they being mostly fabrications or myths and all, but let's try something new, someone who really existed. Let’s see if we can link a real decoy carver to some Long Island Decoys. How radical!
Oh yes I forgot, we did do that with Charles Sumner Bunn and William Henry Bennett in Decoy Magazine articles, didn’t we? But if I remember correctly, the real documention we presented was not enough evidence for the same people who believe in mythic carvers like “John Dilley.” The next chapter of Long Island Decoy Forum will be “Searching for the real maker of the so- called “Blair” and “Dilley”decoys.
