Long Island Decoy Collectors Association “The Decoys of Long Island”

A vanity publication with little redeeming value for either the decoy collector or decoy historian

The next chapter of “Long Island Decoy Forum” was to be devoted to the so called “Blair decoys," but I feel that I must address Timmy Sieger and the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association’s latest agenda-driven project.  A small vanity book titled “The Decoys of Long Island," "A museum exhibit catalog" (from the “Decoy Magazine" ad found in the January/February 2010 issue).

First, the book is not a “museum catalog” and should not be considered as such.  I have never seen a “museum catalog” appear after an exhibit comes down.  Normally an exhibit catalog is available from the opening of the exhibit until the exhibit is removed.  After then, the leftover catalogs generally go on clearance sale.  This small publication was produced and funded solely by the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association after the exhibition of these decoys had been taken down at the Ward Museum.  The Long Island Decoy Collectors Association will be mostly referred to as L. I. D. C. A. hereafter.

From the June 1, 2010 e-mail response from the Ward Museum to my question as to who was responsible for writing both the text accompanying the photos and the biographies found in the publication: “The Long Island catalog was based on the Ward Exhibit, but the book was produced by the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association after the exhibit came down. The photographs were taken by Ray Graminski, and the text was written / compiled primarily by Tim Sieger, I believe."  Yes I believe so too.  The response from the Ward Museum clearly shows that the publication has only a superficial relationship with their institution and they neither claim nor state that they are responsible for the text found in what is clearly not a museum catalog, but an L. I. D. C. A. publication.  And if my guess is right, the rank-in-file members of the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association don’t have the foggiest idea that they have bank-rolled and what they have laid out for this rotten little egg Timmy Sieger has laid for the L. I. D. C. A. 

This is Dejavu.  Timmy’s last project using (losing ) the Association's money was the infamous "Gelston Print," a project spearheaded by Timmy.  Tim had persuaded the association members over objections of some of the more rational club members, to commission a painting of the imagined “Gelston workshop," which then would be translated into prints and sold by the club, for in Tim’s opinion, a great profit.  Timmy estimated eventually the club would realize over $20.000.00.  The profit would then be used to publish a book on the Long Island decoys and their makers.  Well Tim’s estimate of the profit was a tad too high.  The painting turned out to be flat-out God awful.  The so-called art was executed by Tim’s friend, local artist Vito DeVito.  The original painting was atrocious, but the most alarming element found in the work is a dog's head sticking up in the middle of the painting, rather like the gopher in "Caddyshack," but looking more like the “Wookie” from "Star Wars"; it’s a regular ET retriever.  Then the Timster had 300+ prints produced from this chromatic Titanic when the club had voted to fund only half that number.  However, without a revote from the club, Tim on his own upped the number of the run.  He got a great deal.  Timmy foresaw a huge fortune in the making; gold coins falling from the sky.  The original painting had cost the club $3,000.00 and was to have been sold at auction to recoup some of its cost.  The original to my knowledge was never sold and has mysteriously disappeared.  Where could it possibly be?  On who's wall does this hideous waste of paint now hang? In reality, how much money could the club have realized from the sale of the original?  It is doubtful any serious decoy collector would covet it.  It could only appeal to a person of undistinguished taste, say someone who might consider “Velveeta” a gourmet cheese.  On the other hand, it might appeal to a “Star Wars” collector, there’s that Wookie factor.  The print became the butt of jokes and was distained by the public and by most club members.  Not only did these prints represent some really bad art, they were way overpriced.  The club eventually sold only 30+ of the total run Timmy had insisted on buying. Ultimately, club members were forced to take them for free as a Christmas present; some present.  That must have made the other members of the club who had paid the full $100.00 price very happy.  Buy one get one free, don‘t buy one get one free.  At every show for years after, a print was one of the raffle prizes taken home by some unlucky winner.  The proverbial bottom line is, Tim’s project did not produce the thousands of dollars he predicted that it would.  In point of fact, it did exactly the opposite, it lost thousands of dollars, as had been predicted by some of the more astute members of the club who had counseled our young Einstein on this unwise project, but to no avail.  To this day, L. I. D. C.A. should still have enough of these un-sellable prints to wall paper the Empire State Building, unless someone has mercifully cremated the incriminating evidence of Timmy’s last great idea.  And I believe the L. I. D. C. A. publication, as with the great Gelston print, will be one of the raffle prizes at the annual L. I. D. C. A. shows for years to come. 

I do believe that sometime in the future, I will have to devote a chapter to this group of knuckleheads. An overview of some of the past antics of L. I. D. C.A.’s crew of whackos.  As a former president of this collection of miscreants, I know of which I speak.  Who by the way could be central castings dream team for the remake of the classic “One Flew over The Cuckoo’s Nest."  I can just hear the dialogue as they take the L. I. D. C. A. fishing trip, “This is the esteemed Dr. Murphy.”  But that little funfest will have to wait for another day.  It will suffice for the reader to know that in my opinion, most members of L. I. D. C.A. should not be allotted any credibility whatsoever in the identification or knowledge of who the real decoy makers were of Long Island’s most well-known decoys.  Timmy Sieger, as far as I know, has never done any personal research on the subject of Long Island’s decoy carvers.  He has never produced any research or proof for his claim for the “Seabury golden plover decoys” (see Long Island Decoy Forum, the “Seabury Fabrication”).  This publication has been Timmy’s great opportunity to fully establish his claim for the “Seabury Family”(and the decoys they did not make).  Now all he has to do is say read “The Decoys Of Long Island” with the Ward Museum’s logo.  Here is his proof the plovers were made by the “Seabury family."  It‘s in the book!  Nevermind the only source for this undocumented claim for The Seabury's is Tim Sieger.

 In this thin book brilliantly titled “The Decoys of Long Island,” we find the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association and a museum once again duplicitous in the perpetuation of myth and fabrication over fact, as was perpetrated in Gunners Paradise in 1979 by the Museums at Stony Brook.  This time it’s the Ward Museum who will supply the perceived academic aroma for the acceptance of non-documented carver attributions, and more than a few fabricated ones.  Not to mention the birds who's authenticity or factual condition are more than highly questionable, which includes the well-known so- called “Henry Ellison Herons.”  These last two birds look curiously just like the two herons that used to grace the front windows of the Combs' Bait and Tackle Shop in Amityville in the 1970's.  And even more curiously, they came from the George Combs' collection.  What are the odds? 

Back in the 70’s George Combs Jr. proudly said he had made the herons that look remarkable like the so-called “Ellison Herons,” And this is known by some of the older collectors from Long Island.  In fact, when I mentioned it to collector Dick Cowan that I thought the “Ellison herons” were really Combs' herons, he exclaimed, "How did you know that?!"  No denial of the theory.  An Ellison sidebar; there are also a pair of terns (not pictured in the L. I. D. C. A. publication ) that are said to be made by Henry Ellison, out of the George Combs Jr. collection.  Both were auctioned by Guyette & Schmidt in two separate auctions.  After I saw the first bird, lot #553 in the July 2002 auction, I informed many collectors that the tern was not made by Ellison, that they were really made by George Combs Jr., and that was confirmed directly to me in a conversation I had with him around the year 2000 at the Ward Museum‘s annual October event.  As far as I have been able tell, the Ellison name came from Richard Baldwin’s “Verity Family” book, and I have so far not found any documentation of Henry Ellison’s carving of decoys in my research of the man, who yes, really lived.  Anytime you showed George Combs a decoy, he would come up with the name of the maker.  Bud Ward used to jokingly say, “George Combs Jr. found his decoy maker's names in the phone book."  But these terns were fakes made by George with an "HE" carved on them.  The first time I saw them was when George had installed an exhibit of his birds in the L. I. D. C. A. display case at the Ward Museum.  As I looked at the case, it became quite apparent that about half the birds were by George Combs Jr. and were not old. The most glaring examples were a pair of terns listed as by “Henry Ellison."  When I saw Gorge outside, I said why are there so many new birds in the case, and what was the deal with the terns.  He was busted.  He got sheepish and stuttered that his dad had made the terns.  I thought to myself, your dad was better than that.  I said, "George, they look like your work."  He then said he just needed to fill the case.  No matter who made the birds, George Jr. or Pop Combs, George knew that they were not by Henry Ellison.  The second “Ellison tern” came up at the G&S November 2002 auction, lot #281 listed as a rigmate to lot #553 in the July auction.  Unlike the first bird, this one did not sell because by then many collectors had been informed of my information that they were really Combs' terns.  George had sold off most of his good decoys prior to his death.  What was left after his passing were for the most part the dregs, and birds he himself had made.  Many were sold by G&S and entrusted to collector Frances Murphy with their disposal.  Interestingly, at recent L. I. D. C. A. meeting, Frances had what he called a “Henry Elliston tern."  If I was to guess, it‘s the “Combs' tern” that did not sell at the November auction in 2002. 

Unfortunately, for the collector the Ward Museum's participation in the L. I. D. C. A. publication, no mater how minor, will tend to indicate to the reader an aura of scholarly knowledge, which with the exception of Geoffrey K. Fleming‘s chapter titled, “Long Island And The Decoy,” this is not the case.  A reader should justifiably assume that the catalog bearing the museum's logo and crediting the Museum’s Curator, would indicate that the reader would find documented research between the pages of the publication, or at least some statement that there are questions of the attributions of some of the decoys due to new published research.  What you do find in the publication is a rehash of previously published myths and fabrications, eventhough my recently published research has at the very least called into question many of the old attributed names that have been used for Long Island's decoy carvers in the past.  This recent research that has been published on the misattributed makers is totally ignored and not even mentioned in this publication.  And of course what is the most obvious slanted act in the book by Timmy is the use of the name, “William Bowman.”  Here we find the Ward Museum has played exactly the same roll that the Museums at Stony Brook did in 1979 in their catalog Gunners Paradise in the spreading the Gospel of Bill Bowman.  But somewhat to Stony Brook's credit they do state, “The Identity of William Bowman, decoy carver has not been firmly established," and it never has been.  This is not the case in Timmy’s little vacuous publication.

This is an agenda-driven vanity book pure and simple, by and for Timmy, at club expense where he not only gets to promote his Seabury nonsense, he acquires for himself, at little layer of prestige by being listed as “Guest Curator."  And by his slanting the entire publication to the side of those who want to retain the status quo of the mythical decoy carvers from Long Island, it’s the literary equivalent of covering yours ears and going,  "Lalalala, I can’t hear you."  But this will make Timmy the darling of the decoy power elite; the high end decoy collectors, auction houses, museums, etc., who have taken a stand in opposition to any new research that would upset their world order of Dilley, Bowman, Verity, etc. In this publication we find no mention of the recent research done on Charles Bunn, the true maker of the decoys Timmy lists as the work of a mythical William Bowman.  And unfortunately for the Ward Museum, no matter how minute their actual involvement was in the publication, by allowing the use of their logo they are aiding and abetting in the distortion of Long Island decoy history and the agenda of perpetuating the listing of mythical decoy makers over relevant recent research that refutes past attributions.

And it is not I think by accident that the cover bird on the the dust jacket is a Bunn curlew also found on the inside cover, and of course it is listed as a “Bowman."  A Bunn Redhead from Alan Haid’s collection is on the opposite page of the "Forward” which is a weakly written waste of paper by collector, dealer and Bowman cheerleader, Alan Haid.  Give me a B, give me an O, shake those Bowman pom-poms.  On page 9, Alan as usual touts non-decoy makers, Verity, Bowman and Dilley, and what a great exhibit it was. Alan has been one of the people who is violently apposed to the reattribution of the so-called Bowman decoys to their real maker Charles Sumner Bunn from the Shinnecock Reservation.  And no matter what evidence is presented for Bunn as the maker, he has ignored it.  Yet Alan has never presented and evidence for his beloved “Old Bill Bowman” nor has anyone else to date.

It could be said of this publication and to the Bowman supporters what was said to Guyette & Schmidt in the Maine Antique Digest in 2004 by the late decoy auction reviewer Jackson Parker. “It seems Guyette & Schmidt has not caught up with the latest research on who made the Bowman decoys."  In "Decoy Magazine" he said, “Bunn or Bowman” makes a case for Charles Sumner Bunn as the maker, but the Guyette & Schmidt catalog credits its yellowlegs to Bowman.”  It is a shame we lost Jackson Parker.  He was a person who had no agenda and could think independently.  Jackson went on to say that “until the disagreement was settled he would refer to the birds as Bunn/Bowman locating the maker to Long Island, New York," removing the trumped up Maine location from the equation.  In the same year, 2004, Jackson wrote of a Bunn short-billed dowitcher in Harmon’s July auction. “Recent research indicates the shorebirds credited to Bill Bowman may have been made by Charles Sumner Bunn of the Shinnecock Indian reservation on Long Island New York."  He went on to say that “Guyette & Schmidt said they needed more evidence to sell these birds as Bunn's rather than Bowman's."  He also says Ted Harmon used the name “Bowman” with quotes to show the “difference of opinion."

Eventhough there never was any evidence at all for Bowman as the maker, we were told we needed to provide more evidence for Bunn.  The fact that we have a photo of Bunn with his duck stool is not good enough, along with other documentation, and again there is no documentation for Bowman.  In point of fact, after our article on Charles Bunn was published in "Decoy Magazine," I had accumulated much more evidence for Bunn as the maker.  But I could not get "Decoy Magazine", "Hunting & Fishing Collectibles" or "Sporting Classics" to consent to publish the research.  It seems they were getting pressure to drop the whole question of Bunn as the maker and stick with status quo “Bowman.”  In fact, I was pretty much blacklisted when it came to publishing if it had anything to do with Charles Bunn. With no outlet to disseminate my accumulating research I decided to start the “Long Island Decoy Forum” where the only pressure I have is to get the facts right and present them no matter where the evidence leads.

I will sum up my review of Timmy Sieger's publication "The Decoys of Long Island” by saying if you want to purchase a picture book, then by all means buy the book, but I would wait until it goes on sale, which should be very soon.  Howeve,r if you want to avail yourself of relevant documented information on the decoys of Long Island, save your pesos and read Long Island Decoy Forum for free, presented for you to evaluate and comment on, and if a reader disagrees with my conclusions, please present your documented evidence that is contrary to what I have published.

As Val Kilmer’s Doc Holliday said to Johnny Ringo in the movie "Tombstone," “I’m your Huckleberry.”

The next chapter was to be on the so-called “Blair decoys,” and that will be included in the next chapter titled. “ Long Islands Greatest Decoy Carver.”