Part 2-Hunting & Fishing Collectables Magazine's denial of Charles Sumner Bunn,Why?

In Part 2 of this series, I will address more of the inaccuracies and absurd speculations in Stan Van Etten's Hunting & Fishing Collectables Magazine, mostly written by Ronnie McGrath; their never-ending attack on valid research for the reattribution of the decoys made by Charles Sumner Bunn, which could not have bee made earlier than 1910.  
 

It is my firm belief that if Mr. Jackson Parker had lived jut a bit longer, he would have supported Bunn as the maker  All of the silly Bowman stuff would have been settled long ago.  I would bet many of the people reading this today don't have clue who Jackson Parker was.  Jackson Parker was no fool and was not afraid of research or change.  This is what he wrote not long after my first research was published on Bunn in 2003-2004, both in the Maine Antique Digest and Decoy Magazine in 2004 (See Decoy Magazine May-June issue).
                                                             

"Bunn/Bowman"

"It seems that Guyette & Schmidt has not keep up with the latest research on who made the Bowman decoys.  In Decoy Magazine "Bunn or Bowman" makes a case for Charles Sumner Bunn as the maker, but Guyette & Schmidt's catalog credits its greater yellowlegs to Bowman.  Until the disagreement is settled, I shall hedge by using the name Bunn/Bowman locating their maker on Long Island, New York . It sold under estimate at $40,700 perhaps because of the uncertainly about the maker."

Well 11 years later, and it's now the Guyette &Deeter auction house and they still have not kept up with the latest research.  Actually, I don't think thats true, they have kept up with the research.  They know Bunn is the maker and they don't care.  Their bottom line is their bottom line.  Gary doesn't really care who made the decoys as long as he gets his percentage.  If Gary Guyette is such an expert on decoys, and especially on "Bill Bowman" why has he not written an article on Bill Bowman using real documented facts, not that the Herrick's said Bowman made them.  Without a doubt, if Jackson had seen all our research then, not to mention our later research, he would have pronounced Bunn the maker, but was it the comment in this paragraph one of the reason's Guyette & Schimid dug in their heals on Bowman; where Jackson writes that the Greater Yellowlegs "sold under estimate" "perhaps because of the uncertainty about the maker."  Could this be the reason for unreasonable and unethical retention of the name Bowman for the Charles Bunn decoys that they sell?  Could it simply be greed?  Then it would be appropriate since the original fabrication by Newbold L Herrick was without a doubt based on greed; $27,000 in today's dollars is around $200,000.

In 2004, at the annual Long Island Decoy Show, during a private talk with Frank Schmidt of Guyette & Schmidt about my research, I had ask Frank when they would give Bunn credit for the decoys they were still calling Bowman.  Frank said, "We're good with your research, but you have to give us more time."  I pushed him to find out why it would take more time?  Also around this same time, I had a phone conversation with Gary Guyette as to when they would give Bunn credit for the decoys he made.  One things he told was, "Decoy collectors don't like change."  I think it was mainly Gary who did not like change because it means G&S didn't have a clue as to who really made most of the decoys they hawk to the gullible wealthy.  What research did Gary Guyette ever do, and that includes the decoys formerly called  "Bowman's" made by Bunn.

In the past name changes for makers of Long Island decoys are rarely ever challenged, even if they are based on fabrications or completely absent of  any evidence.  The fabricated "Bowman's" are famously identified as "Crowell's" in both Mackey's and in Adele Earnest books, both published in 1965.  But then Mackey writes his little fantasy article in 1966 for the Decoy Collectors Guide.  This article was based on absolutely no verifiable research or facts and is proven to be a complete fabrication written by Mackey.  At that point the decoys instantly become William "Bill" Bowman decoys.

Also at the same 2004 L.I.D.C.A. show, I went to visit decoy dealer Alan Haid to thank him for the use of his Bunn Black duck and Redhead decoys.  Both were used on the cover of the 2004 January - February issue of Decoy Magazine on Bunn.  To put it mildly, Alan was outraged that Decoy Magazine had used his decoys in the way it had and that if he knew what Joe Engers was going to use them for, he never would have allowed them to have been used in the article.  To say he was hot would be an understatement.  He literally wanted me out of his sight and said so as I tried to ascertain why he was so outraged at valid research.  Wow I thought, this was not what I had expected.  I was stunned at the backlash to both discoveries of the real makers of the "Bowman" and "Cuffee" decoys.

Joe Engers had told me that a prominent New Jersey decoy collector/dealer was also outraged and said that Joe and Decoy Magazine "had gone to far".   As he told this to Joe, he pointed out the photo of Bunn on page 11 of the 2004 Decoy Magazine Bunn article and said, "Look at those hands!  Look at those hands!  Do mean to say those hands could have carved those decoys?"  Joe told me that he had responded to him by saying, "Are you saying that a Native American could not have carved those decoys?"  The dealer said, "No, no.  But look at his hands."  Then Engers told me that he had asked the dealer, "Do you have a photo of Bill Bowman's hands?"  The answer is still no!

In Ronnie's May-June 2015 rebuttal out of nowhere he begins to use ( circa 1909) as the date for the 1906 photo of Bunn at the Madison Square Garden Show, sitting at his booth!  Ronnie most likely does not even know the meaning of the word circa.  Circa means around 1909 or approximately 1909. Approximately in this case is 1906 the real date of the photo.

Ronnie forgets about the Martinez' transcripts done in the mid-late 80's with Alice Martinez, Bunn's daughter.  This is long before I discovered Charles Bunn to be the maker, where she tells of her father selling his decoys at the annual Sportsmen's shows at Madison Garden (see page 13, Jan-Feb 2004, Decoy Magazine 2004).

The only reason for this new maneuver is to try to separate the 1906 photo from 1906 pamphlet where it says he is exhibiting his work.  Ronnie makes up so many scenarios that he gets lost in his own web of deceit.  Ronnie has come up with many fanciful explanations about Bunn's booth and the decoys on the table (see Decoy Magazine page 9, 2004).  This quote below is not accurate as to what Ronnie really said the night that I had shown him the photo of Charles Bunn and his decoys.  Ronnie unequivocally did not say what appeared in Decoy Magazine the night I first showed him the photograph.  He had restructured his words to fit his new changing agenda as the savior of the Bill Bowman legacy.  To end up as his original quote:

DM: "It appears you have discovered the carver of the photographed decoys, which until now we had credited to Bill Bowman is in fact Charles Bunn."  Ronnie goes on to say, "However I cannot dismiss Bill Bowman."  This is the beginning of Ronnie's hypothetical rambling speculations about Bunn's booth and his decoys on his table.  Here Ronnie wildly speculates, "That the Herricks had ordered a rig of unpainted decoys (from Bunn) and had their friend and seasonal tent- dwelling neighbor Bill Bowman paint the Bunn decoys."

Ronnie McGrath was the first person I had shown the 1906 photo of Bunn at the Madison Square Garden Sportsmen's show.  It was with the use of a flashlight which in fact highlighted the photo.The decoys were very visible and very identifiable with the magnifying glass I brought, and Ronnie also used his.  After a while he said, "You  got it!  That's it."  At that point I was happy to have Ronnie's confirmation of the discovery.
 
So the quote used in Decoy Magazine has no resemblance to what he really said when I first had shown him the photo, and since then he has presented many unsupported fanciful theories about the decoys he insists were made by Bowman.  In Hunting &Fishing Collectables Magazine May-June 2006 issue page 8, in Ronnie's first rebuttal he writes, "Months later after reviewing this picture many times I am not convinced that those decoys are not Bowmans."  Then he speculates, "Is it not possible that any of the men pictured could not be the maker."  Ronnie claims to have reviewed the photo "many times".  Strange that with all of Ronnie's scrutinizing of the photo, he did't notice that one of the "Men" in the photo is in fact a young boy.  He also speculates that the men could just be watching the booth for the real maker.  Bunn is prominently featured in the center of the photo sitting in his booth.  And once again, the photo came from one of Charles Bunn's daughter's home.

In Hunting & Fishing Collectables July-August "Letters" section Ronnie writes, "Mr Orson Munn Sr. no doubt purchased decoys from Mr. Bunn who I believe copied Bowman - style decoys". Ronnie's belief is based on what?

Two of the decoys that Orson Munn Sr. purchased from Bunn according to Orson Munn Jr. were the two shorebirds consigned to Julia& Guyette in 1985 (personal interview with O.M. Jr.).  He told me he had told the auction house that Charley Bunn was the maker when he consigned them in 1985, but that when he received the catalog, he was stunned to see them listed as William Bowman decoys.  He said he contacted the auction house and told them, "I have no idea who this William Bowman is.  The decoys were made by Charley Bunn from Shinnecock."  He also said they ignored what he said.  He cashed their check and moved on.

In Hunting & Fishing Collectables magazine July-August 2007, Ronnie writes, "No one denies Mr. Bunn made decoys. In my opinion, however, on many occasions he copied Bowman's decoys."
There is no documentation for any person named Bowman as the maker of any decoys contrary to what Ronnie says; none.  Ronnie's claim that there is documentation for Bowman as a decoy carver is not true. There is none and there never has been, and Ronnie has never produced any.  Oral history for "Bowman"; none.  The Herrick's claim for Bowman is a fabrication.  A fabrication is not valid oral history.  Photographic evidence for Bowman; none.

Ronnie also became the champion of the "Chief Cuffee" decoys.  It should be pointed out that Ronnie never ever had any use for the carvings said to have been made on the Shinnecock Reservation.  Ronnie, like most serious collectors, scorned them as worthless.
                                   

The Chief Cuffee Fabrication

First things first, there are no known Eugene "Chief " Cuffee decoys.  The Chief Cuffee decoy story is a proven fabrication, just like the  Bowman story, perpetrated solely on greed.  The Cuffee fabrication was perpetrated on decoy collectors by the late Robert "Bob" Gerard of East Setauket Long Island around 1980.

A future Chapter on Long Island Decoy Forum will be devoted solely to Bob Gerard and his "Chief Cuffee" Fabrication, as well as on William (Uncle Henry) Bennett, the proven maker of the carvings
Gerard said were made by Eugene "Chief" Cuffee.
                                                                                  
The folk art carvings most of which are decorative, have been proven to have been made by William Henry Bennett (1867-1954), Springs, East Hampton, Long Island and he is thoroughly documented as their maker.  This proof includes photographs and period articles on Bennett and his carvings.  Most of the research on William Bennett was done by David Bennett of East Hampton, Long Island.
David's research was augmented with research by Joseph Jannsen and myself.  Recently an Uncle Henry Bennett decorative folk art Seagull, lot 34 Guyette & Deeter's July 2015 auction, sold as an unknown for $48,875. G&D Auctions had no clue as to who had made it.  It is in fact just one of the decorative Seagulls of this type made by William (Uncle Henry) Bennett.  Ronnie McGrath portrays himself to be a student on the the work of both Bowman and Bunn and Cuffee and Bennett.
First of all, Ronnie never even knew about Bennett or Bunn until David Bennett, and later I, then Joe Jannsen began our research!  Now Ronnie is such an expert on their work that he is to be able to tell which carvings they made and which ones he insists were made by Bowman and Cuffee, and apparently he is also an expert on "Native American Culture".

The first thing Ronnie should know is that most "Native Americans" refer to themselves as "Indians"
If they have a reservation, it is referred to as, say The Shinnecock Indian Reservation, not the Shinnecock Native American Reservation, as well as The Museum of the American Indian, The Bureau of Indian Affairs, AIM-The American Indian Movement.

Ronnie claims he can tell there were two separate makers of the folk art carvings that had all been called "Cuffee" decoys, beginning around 1980 with Gerard's Cuffee fabrication.  In the Hunting & Fishing Collectables Magazine May-June 2006 rebuttal to our research, Ronnie's theory is that some of the carvings were made by Cuffee and some are Bennett copies.  He also has the same theory for Bunn ,who supposedly copies Bowman.  Ronnie also writes that Lyle Smith from the Shinnecock Reservation said the only person we interviewed from the reservation was David Martine, Charles Bunn's great-grandson.  First of all, I did question at least four extended members of the Cuffee family, including Eugene Cuffee II, Natalie Smith(phone interview), Norman Smith (personal interviews), who's memorial I wrote in Decoy Magazine, Sept-Oct 2000.  I also questioned Bob Gerard if he had discovered any more on Cuffee.  This was long before David Bennett discovered William Bennett to be the real maker of the folk art, and none could add anything more to the table other than what Gerard had fabricated.

In fact Lyle Smith visited my shop in Eastport L.I. shortly after my  first articles appeared in Decoy Magazine.  He mainly listened to what I we had discovered about Bunn and Bennett, and when asked if he had any evidence for Cuffee he said no, but he believed Cuffee made them.

Once at the opening of a museum building in Southampton, I overheard Lyle telling someone that Cuffee really did make the carvings, not Bennett, and I said, "No Lyle, Cuffee didn't make them, and I did the research Lyle, not you, right?"  And Lyle said, "You're right."  At a Long Island Decoy Collectors meeting, Lyle Smith was put on the spot to show proof for Cuffee.  Lyle had none and has never produced any to the present day.
   
Lyle wanted to know why I did not interview the Cuffee descendants after Dave Bennett had proven the carving had been been made by William Henry Bennett, not Cuffee.  There would be no reason to interview anyone from the Cuffee family because their ancestor hadn't make the carvings.  Bob Gerard had told them their ancestor had made the carvings that he, Gerard, had collected many.  The Cuffee descendants just accepted his fabrication.        

Long before our discoveries of Bunn and Bennett, I had asked members of the Cuffee family if they had discovered anything new on the Cuffees.  None ever could tell me anymore about what Cuffee made than could be found in Gerard's fabrication, which is first found in Dr. Gaynell Stone's book on the Shinneck Indians, later reprinted in Decoy Magazine.  In 2004, the Suffolk County Archeologist Society in reprinted Dr.Stone's book on the Shinnecocks.  Dr. Stone ask me to write an Errata for the reprint, which states unequivocally that Robert Gerard's attribution for Cuffee is a total fabrication, which means I have had academic review my research.  I would love to see Ronnie submit his so- called research to be reviewed and fact checked by academics within the fields of History and Anthropology.  Ronnie, like many Americans, thinks he knows a lot about American Indians.  Most are stereotypes, as with his statements on page 9 Nov-Dec 2015 H&F Collectables Magazine,

"Topic-Native American Influence"

                                     
Ronnie attempts to point out that the carvings he calls Cuffee's have, according to him, and an "unidentified friend" and Lyle Smith, who said the Cuffee's have a "Native American" Style while the Bunns don't have it.  I will explain why this and a statement by Lyle Smith are beyond ridiculous.
 
(1)  Ronnie, Lyle Smith, and his anonymous friend contend that carvings proven to have been made by anglo William H.Bennett were made by Cuffee.  The real maker, William Henry Bennett, was a Euro-American, a direct descendant of the first English invaders on Long Island's East End.  But somehow they see a "Native American influence" in the folk art of a white artist.  Lyle is a self- proclaimed Cuffee collector who is actually filling his shelves with the work of an anglo carver, not his distant relative.

(2)  "Native American influence"
There has not been any indigenous native cultural on Long Island in over 200 years, or on the Shinnecock Reservation.  Most native people scattered throughout Eastern America had adopted much of the Anglo-American lifestyle, including language.  In other words no native language, no native religion, no traditional tribal stories at Shinnecock.  What "native culture" there is at Shinnecock today is an adopted Plains Indian "Pow Wow" Cultural which began there in the late 1940's
 
The sweat lodge ceromony done there today was brought there by a translated Cheyenne Indian who had moved there in the late 20th century.  Many Shinnecocks today use and have a reverence for western sage, a plant rarely if ever known or used in the East at all prior to the Pan-Indian Pow Wow movement, which began for the people living at Shinnecock Reservation only in the last half of the 20th century.

When Alice Martinez, Charles Bunn's daughter, and her husband, a full-blood Fort Sill Apache from Oklahoma, opened their trading post "Tee Pee in the Hills", she had to learn how to make moccasins and do beadwork from Indian nations who still did the work.
     
(3)  Ronnie appears to be a person who believes an Indian is born as a fully formed person with an Indian Identity and knowledge of "the ancient ways".  Ronnie, like most Americans, knows nothing about Indians, or the government boarding schools for Indian children that was set in place to destroy Indian cultures across America.

This program beginning in the late 1870's and was co-run by the U.S. government and Christian churches.  These schools ran from late 1870's through the 1930's, though some of these schools did continue even into the 1960's in the west.  Indian children were forcibly removed from their families, some as young as four years of age, taken to boarding schools, many times far from their homes.  Their traditional hairstyles were cut off.  They were forced to wear wool uniforms.  The slogan was, "Kill the Indian to save the Man."  The"students" (child prisoners) were forced to accept Christianity, they were told their people were stupid and had no religion, and that they needed to become like white people.  They were forced to speak only American English.  If found speaking their languages or following any of their traditional religions or doing anything Indian, they were punished severely by whipping, beating, or place in Jail Cells until they complied.  The object was to destroy Indian culture generation by generation.  Eventually, if Indians were no longer Indians, then why should they be treated differently than other Americans?  This is where the final land grab would have been made, ending the reservation system and the so called Sovereign Nation status of Indian tribes.  This is why today there are many Indian tribes or nations where no one can speak their language.

Charles Bunn went to Hampton Institute Boarding School in Virginia.  Charles Bunn was also a collage educated genteman who quoted Shakespeare.  He was a confidant of the rich and powerful "Summer Colonists" who summered in Southampton, N.Y.  Most Indians of Bunn's time period, especially in the East, wore the same clothing as their white conquers, and many knew little or nothing of their former culture.  The government and the Christian missionaries saw to that.
 
In the early 1900's and earlier, Indian men wore Euro-American clothing appropriate to their status.
If you were a farmer, you dressed as a farmer.  On the weekends or going to church, if they could afford it, they dressed up in contemporary suits.  In the 1940's young Indian Men wore double breasted jackets with wide lapels and padded shoulders.  They fought in WWII.  Indians enlisted in the services in high numbers.  In the 1950's, young Indian guys wore duck tails and hair wax, Rock N Roll and hot rods, and went off to Korea.  In The 1960's & 70's, it made it ok for young Indian guys to start growing their hair long again and they went of to Vietnam, AIM-the American Indian Movement, Alcatraz and Wounded Knee.  American Indians live in the contemporary America.

Ronnie doesn't seem to know that Indians don't dress up in Indian clothing every day and live in Tee Pees.  In the many photos of Charles Bunn, he is primarily dressed in the clothing of the period.  The only photos of Bunn in "Indian dress" are those he put together for such events as the Southampton 275th anniversary.  The outfit or regalia he is wearing is a pure Edwardian fantasy, and is not based on any traditional clothing styles of any woodland Indian nations.  It is a fanciful stereotype of the period; what the artist and non-Indians thought was Indian dress, ala the cigar store Indian.

So neither Ronnie, Lyle or Ronnie's unnamed friend, can make the assertion of an Indian influence in the work of either Bunn or Bennett, because there is no native influence in ether.  Nor should there be.

One of Ronnie's favorite ploys is to leave out any facts that don't match up with his Bowman and Cuffee fantasies.  The Bunn  decoys in question (see Decoy Magazine May-June 2015) were made after 1910 and one definitely after 1917, and these decoys were made using the paintings and drawings of two Euro-American artists.  So why would the Bunn shorebird decoys of that period have a "Native American influence".  Bunn was copying the work of two white guys.

One of the strangest quotes found in Ronnie's rambling rebuttal, Nov-Dec 2015 Issue of H&F Collectables Magazine, is where Lyle Smith states, "I see Native American features in Cuffee's decoys, but none in the Bunns."

(1)  There are no known "Cuffee" decoys.  Lyle Smith has been collecting William Henry Bennett decoy, a whiter than white guy), and Lyle then pretends the were made by "Cuffee".

(2)  Bunn is the only documented decoy carver from the Shinnecok Reservation.  The Cuffee  attribution is a proven fabrication by Robert Gerard of East Setauket, N.Y, meaning they can't have a "Native American influence" because they were not made by an Indian.

(3)  Bunn is one of the most throughly documented decoy carvers in America today.

(4)  There are no Indian made decoys that have what could be said to have "a Native American look".
  Just look at the famous 2000 year old Paiute Indian Tulle reed decoys found in Lovelock Cave, Nevada.  They show no Indian influence.They look like Canvasbacks.  The Paiutes were hunting Canvasbacks.  They made the decoys to look like what they hunted, not Native Art for the collector.  The Bennett's shorebirds are folk art, and not working decoys.

(5) Every time Lyle Smith is called upon to produce any proof for Cuffee as a carver, he has nothing.  The reason for that is simple.   There is nothing.

I will challenge Lyle to write an article on "Cuffee" backed up with real facts.


                                                       The End of Part 2



                       





 
 



 
 




   
       


 




 



       









   

 










 
     

Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine's Denial of Charles Sumner Bunn. Why?

                                               

                                                                                                             

                                                         By Historian  Jamie Reason

Twice appointed  Mastic Beach Village Historian
Member of the New York State Public Historians Association
Instructor with Journeys into American Indian Territories
Curriculum Based Grade Level School Programs on Native Cultures With Emphasis on The Eastern Woodland Cultures
 Past President of the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association
Contributing Writer for Decoy Magazine
Member of the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities
Member of the Suffolk County Historical Society
Member of the Long Island Studies Council
President of the Narrow Bay Historical Society
            
Part 1

When I discovered the photo of Charles Sumner Bunn at the 1906 Madison Square Garden National Sportsmen's Show (wrongly dated at c.1920 in John Strong's book,. The Algonquian Peoples of Long Island From Earliest Times to 1700, page 268), I had thought the reattribution of the decoys from the fictitious William "Bill" Bowman to the real maker Charles Bunn would not be a problem, especially in light of the fact that the Bill Bowman story didn't hold water. As I researched for Bowman, it became apparent that there was no connection between a Bill Bowman and the decoys said by members of the Herrick family and Bill Mackey to have been made by a Bill Bowman.  No evidence for Bowman, overwhelming evidence for Bunn as the legitimate  carver of the decoys in question, but there was and still exists an irrational backlash by some to the research produced by Joseph Jannsen and myself on Bunn and his work.

In 2005, anthropologist Dr. Gaynell Stone, editor of  The Shinnecock Indians: A Culture History, after reviewing my research, wrote, "The preponderance of evidence appears to support Bunn as the carver of decoys formerly attributed to "Bowman".  None have been more strident that Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine's Stan VanEtten and collector Ronnie McGrath.  Why?  Ronnie has never produced any evidence for Bowman in Ronnie's "articles"  In reality, Ronnie wrote two childish rebuttals to valid research, which are filled with speculation and outright distortion and fabrication.  Ronnie's only evidence is the discredited Herrick/Mackey collaborative story first   published in Decoy Collectors Guide 1966-67.

 The first critique published by Stan, and written by Ronnie, in Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine  in May-June 2006 was beyond silly. And in fact, in many instances, it bolstered our claim for Bunn and not Bowman.  Such as the reference to New Jersey decoy collector Mort Hanson who had "hired a private investigator who was hired to gather information on Bowman.  After several months of investigation from Long Island to Maine this endeavor was ended.  Ronnie goes on to state that the "reports did not indicate any new information on William Bowman".  Which is to really say, .no information for Bowman at all.  Of course it ended.  Thank you Ronnie for pointing out there is no there, there.

And then there is Ronnie's ridiculous, imaginary, vanishing Bowman photo owned by Ronnie Bauer. I knew Ronnie Bauer and Bud Ward and Ronnie.  In fact, Ronnie McGrath and I partnered on decoy deals for a while when I had my shop in Eastport, Long Island.  There was never a mention of this "missing" photo in the past.  And if Ronnie Bauer had shown that photo to Bud, Bud would have bought it on the spot and sold it to Doc McCleery before sundown.  Unfortunately, many collectors today never knew Bud Ward or Ronnie Bauer, and anyone who was ever around Bud knows that to be the truth, including Ronnie.  Unfortunately, many collectors today never knew Bud Ward, Pop Combs or his son George, Malcolm Fleming, Ruth and Ed Call, and many other early L.I. decoy collectors who are all now deceased.  So Ronnie is able to spout quotes that can't be challenged by many.  One thing I am very sure of, Ronnie would not submit to an independent lie detector test as to the veracity to his so-called research, which I would gladly pay for.

 Over the next few issues of Hunting & Fishing Collectibles, after Ronnie's first rebuttal was printed, there were many letters to the editor on the subject.  Ronnie responded to many of them personally,   with what can only pass for the most ridiculous speculative, fanciful fiction ever written, as when he writes,  "...responsible researchers should be selective and omit all unnecessary facts and myths".  There are no unnecessary facts that are pertinent to the history of the subject, and Bowman as a decoy maker is a proven myth.  This is the myth that Ronnie supports and champions.  The only facts omitted by Ronnie are those that prove his unfounded and utterly ridiculous devotion to the Bowman fabrication and myth.  Ronnie never produces any independent research.  His statements are vague and unsupported by evidence.  He only attacks real research  .In fact, Ronnie and Stan only become active on  this subject when Joe or I publish new research for Bunn, providing more information for Bunn as the maker of the decoys.  The only people who find Ronnie's drivel compelling are those who want or need for Bowman to still be the maker.  Why this is so important for Ronnie be a flat-earther on this subject is beyond my speculation .

So it came as no surprise when after Joe Jannsen's article "Charles Sumner Bunn and the rigs of  Southampton" was published in Decoy Magazine, Ronnie and Stan would once again attack what they can't disprove, and fully support what they can't prove.  Ronnie's new so-called articles in the May-June 2015 and the recently published November-December 2015 Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine in response to Joe and my latest articles in Decoy Magazine.

  I have not had a subscription to Hunting & Fishing Collectibles for years, but if the rest of the magazine's articles are filled with the same quality of research offered on the Bunn decoys, I would be very suspect of anything I read between it's pages.  Ronnie never shows any firsthand research.  He merely makes undocumented statements.  In this article, as stated before, he again brings up his fantasy nonexistent photo of old Bill Bowman.  What is really more unbelievable is the "Editor's Note" on page 12 where Stanley says "Readers should  see pp.11-12 of the author's Bowman-Bunn article in the May -June 2006 issue of Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine."  Believe it or not, when you go to the mentioned reference, it is the exact same ridiculous story about a photo that doesn't exist.  Seriously!  They want to prove a nonexistent photo exists by having you read what you just read; that the photo does not exist.

 However a real documented photo of Charles Bunn in 1906 (not 1909 as Ronnie states) with a pamphlet sold at the show by Bunn, stating that the decoys in the exhibit are decoys he made. This is not enough evidence for him as the maker, not to mention all our other documented evidence we have presented?  But Ronnie would have you believe that a fantasy missing photo is proof for Bowman. Aahh, if he could only find it.  Photoshop might help him.
           
To really take apart Ronnie's rebuttals to the articles written by Joe and myself in Decoy Magazine, I would have to address it sentence by sentence. It is really that bad.  But I will point out some of the ridiculous things found in the May-June and November-December issues of Stan and Ronnie's continual crusade for the fabricated Bowman.  Oh and before we start, I should just state that all of Ronnie's arguments are mute because in my article in the May-June 2015 Decoy Magazine, "Dating the Shorebirds of Charles Sumner Bunn", I prove that the decoys were not produced prior to 1910, eliminating Ronnie's Bill Bowman completely from the picture. The Herrick brothers knew Bunn was the real maker.  So of course in the November-December issue  of  Hunting & Fishing Collectibles, Ronnie once again makes a fool of himself in an attempt to maintain the ridiculous Bowman story. He presents nothing  new or of any substance, and then then does a victory lap.

One thing you also need to know is that all the documentation that Ronnie uses and gives credit to the Long Island Museums, including the Nov-Dec. issue, all came from me.  Ronnie never received the documentation directly from Joshua Ruff from the Museums at Stony Brook. This is the documentation I had sent to Stan.  Ronnie and Stan have used those documents in Ronnie's ravings and they have implied they had acquired them directly from the museum, which they did not.
However, I have the cover letter from Joshua Ruff giving me the documents.  That is something they don't have, and a simple inquiry of Joshua Ruff from the museum would verify that.  Email jruff@longislandmuseum.org, or call 631-751-0066 ext. 224. I encourage interested collectors to contact Mr. Ruff at the museum and ask him what he thinks of the former Bowman attribution. I am sure he would love to answer your questions. That is part of his job.

But let us proceed to show how much Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine and Ronnie have tried to distort documented decoy history in favor of the Bowman fabrication and myth.
Why will always be the unanswered question.

But then Ronnie has never done any real firsthand research himself, so he could have never found or even known what I would discover by really researching both Bunn and Bowman.. I discovered that the decoys weren't made until after Ronnie's Bill Bowman from Maine whose death is recorded as 1906.  That in itself should have ended his Bowman crusade, but no.  Did you ever wonder why there is no abundance of "Bowman" duck stool in Maine?  Think about that for awhile. That apparently never crossed Ronnie's mind.  What is Ronnie's answer for this? Aliens took them?  Bigfoot ate them?  But let's proceed and point out how far out on a limb Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine and Ronnie McGrath have gone in their need to perpetuate the Herrick's and Mackey's Bill Bowman fabrication and the continued myth.

In Joe Jannsen's article on the Bunn rigs from Southampton he credits me for my "extensive research into Charles Sumner Bunn", which is in fact very, very extensive.  In Joe's article, a black duck decoy made by Bunn and once owned by a Mr. Ernest  L. DeMerci sold at Kaminski Auctions in 2013.  Joe Janssen was the buyer.  This decoy drew Ronnie's ire as he declared it to be a copy of a Bowman decoy by Bunn.  Bowman as a decoy maker never existed, so it would be very hard for Bunn to copy his work.  Another interesting thing is that Ronnie's very good friend, Timmy Seiger, mentioned the very same decoy from that auction at the 2013 LIDCA Christmas meeting, where he  described it as a "Bill Bowman decoy".  Tim said that "he had wanted to bid on the decoy but he could not get on the site."  Ronnie then goes on to write that the, "decoy has an anonymously written note", which states for one thing that it was, "Made by the last Full-Blooded  Male Shinnecock Indian".  Ronnie goes on to write, "The carver was known as Mary's Grandfather".  It was me who told Joe the label was incorrect in that Bunn was in fact the grandson of Mary, not her grandfather.  Charles Bunn's grandmother was Mary Cuffee.  As to the mention of Bunn as, "the Last Full-Blood Male", Ronnie rightly states that more than one male was identified as "the last Full-Blooded Male Shinnecock Indian from the late 19th to mid 20th century."  This is true, and in point of fact, Charles Bunn was not a full blood, however, Charles Bunn is the only documented decoy carver from the Shinnecock reservation of that time period.  Ron goes on to say "Mary's grandfather may have found the decoy".
Ron always has people finding decoys, except above he states it to be a "Bunn copy".  Ronnie also mentions,  "that people have claimed a family member made a decoy that was actually factory made". That is also true.  But that dog don't hunt here either because Ronnie had already declared the decoy a "Bunn copy" of the non-existent Bill Bowman's work, even though his pal Timmy Seiger had called it a Bowman.  Also Charles Bunn is a documented decoy carver, not just "someone's family member".

Ron also states how can it be said among the vendors in 1940 when DeMerci bought the black duck decoy.  First of all,l who said he bought it directly from Bunn?  We don't know how it came into his possession.  He may have bought it from one of the many antique and junk shops that were found in the area in 1940.  And what vendors?  Where does Ronnie come up with all these "vendors"?  Ronnie writes, "There were, and still are, vendors along the north side of the Shinnecock Reservation."
 More of Ronnie's flim-flam.  Today, smoke shops, delis and mini-marts line the north side of the reservation.  This is only a recent development, beginning in the last quarter of the 20th century, which was made possible when the New York Reservations began selling tax-free cigarettes. Before that, it was really for the most part scrub pine, oak, blueberry, Virginia creeper and goldenrod, not "vendors".

 In fact, the first trading post on the that stretch of Montauk Highway was opened by Charles Bunn's daughter Alice and her family in 1938.  It was called the "The Teepee In The Hills" and it was not on reservation land and was lost to the Bunn family in the late 20th century.  It is known that Charles Bunn's grandson David Martinez's carvings were sold at the site, with real photographs to prove it.

 As for Mary's Grandson in Joe Jannsen's article, that came from my research   Ronnie states that by changing the word, grandfather to grandson "the last quote Jannsen has restructured decoy history".
No I think whoever wrote it, just got things mixed up a little. Ronnie boldly states, "How can it be said that there was only one Mary among the vendors that day in 1940 when DeMerci bought his  black duck."  Ronnie also writes, 'The presumption that there was only one 'Mary' on the Reservation and that she was Bunn's grandmother questions the logic of Jannsen's interpretation."  Charles Bunn's great grandmother was Mary Ann Cuffee (1817-1903).  Charles Bunn's grandmother was Mary Emma  (Cuffee) Bunn (1847-1937).  It sounds pretty logical to me.  And Ronnie as usual cites no proof for what he writes.  He just makes unsubstantiated broad statements. He doesn't tell us how many Mary's were on the reservation at the time and who they were.  That would take real research.  And why would Charles Bunn's grandmother be there in 1940?  Charles Bunn was 75 years old in 1940.  Charles Bunn's grandmother Mary would have been dead three years in 1940.  These facts do get in the way of Ronnie's fabulous fiction.  Apparently all of Ronnie's research is done inside his head.

In one instance Ronnie calls the note on the bottom of the decoy as an "anonymous note" giving it the air of unworthy information.  Later he treats it as empirical history, when he writes, "How could anyone just reverse recorded historical quotes?"  Which is it?  Ronnie doesn't have a clue.  And it is research that reverses wrong recorded history as in the case for Bowman.

On page 16, Ronnie writes, "Orson Munn Sr. did hunt with Charles Bunn but that there is no record of his having purchased decoys from either Charles Bunn or Bill Bowman."  In the early1990's, Orson Munn Jr. stopped by my shop in Eastport, Long Island.  He had a bunch of repainted Wildfowler Decoys he wanted to sell.  I had told him that they would retail around $30.00 each and that I was not really interested in them, but the most I could do was $15.00 each.  Being very wealthy and definitely not needing the money, he decided not to sell them.  He later did consigned some of his broadbill stool and other birds to my shop around 2004.  At our first encounter I had ask him if he had any older decoys he wanted to sell, especially shorebirds.  He said yes he did have some but they were not for sale.  He then first mentioned the consigning of two of his father's shorebird decoys to Julia & Guyette auctions in the 1980's.  He also told me he had told the auction house when he consigned them, "His father had gotten them directly from the maker Charley Bunn from the Shinnecock Reservation".  He also said that he had told J&G that Charles Bunn had made the decoys, but that when he received the auction catalog they were listed as by William Bowman.  He toll me he had called J&G to complain, saying, "I don't know who William Bowman is but they were made by Charles Bunn from the Shinnecock Reservation".  At the time, I told him "If J&G told you they were made by Bowman, they were most likely right."  When I went home that evening, I took out the catalog they were in and saw what I would at the time have called two Bill Bowman shorebirds.     I then forgot about it until I found the Madison Square Garden photo with Bunn and his decoys. That is when I contacted Orson again to do an interview with him about the shorebird decoys consigned to J&G. I did many subsequent interviews with him over the next few years.

Orson, Joe Jannsen, Donal O'Brien and myself also met at the Long Island Museums to meet with Joshua Ruff, History Curator.  Joshua had no new information other that what was in Gunner's Paradise.  One of the things Orson did tell me in a later interview, was that his father had two baskets of snipe stool that had been in his basement at one time, but had vanished at some unknown date.
The interesting thing is that the two baskets of shorebird decoys matched the description of the two baskets of snipe stool donated by the Herrick's to the Museum.  When I showed the photographs of the decoys from the baskets to Orson, I ask him if he thought theses looked like his missing decoys. He answered in the affirmative, "Yes they do."  But then when I also asked him if he thought the Herrick's might have taken them at some point, he said strongly emphatically "No!  They would not have done that."  I never brought it up again.

But I am not so certain that the Herrick's didn't come into possession of them at some point. Back in the late 40's or early 50's the senior Munn may have even given them to his close friend and hunting partner's family. Remember, back then the decoys had no real monetary value.  It is possible that the two baskets the Herrick's donated to the museum's collection actually came from Munn's basement and were not really the Herrick's decoys.

 As to Ronnie's claimed interview with Orson? I know Dick Cowan interviewed Orson.  He gave his notes to Joe Jannsen.  Cowan's notes have none of the information in them that Ronnie claimed to have received from Orson on the very same date.  Two guys doing an interview with the same person on the same date, and they have different notes. How odd.

Regarding the redhead with the name Bunn carved into the bottom, Ronnie says this redhead is a Bunn. Why, because he can't explain away the name carved on what Ronnie would normally call a Bill Bowman.  The decoy has sold three times by auction houses listed as a Bowman by G&S in 1993. What is Ronnie saying, G&S didn't know it was not a Bowman.  Ronnie would write anything to prove the non-existent Bowman is the maker of the Bunn decoys, but as I have said, Ronnie has never done any research.  
 
That is why Ronnie would not know that the weight found on this redhead is the same Bunn weight found on many of the Bunn decoys Ronnie calls Bowman's.  These weight are a signature feature on these decoys.  A lead pad with a Brass screw running through it to attach to the decoy's bottom half.  Bunn also left a high spot inside the bottom half hollow body to receive the screw.  Now what Ronnie, did Bunn copy the non-existent Bowman's weights too?

Regarding the Charles Bunn display at the 1906 Madison Square Garden Sportsmen's Show, Ronnie has always tried to discredit  this authentic photo.  Ronnie says the booth "was not Bunn's booth.  Bunn is sitting at his booth surrounded by his decoys.  What's the problem?  Ronnie has repeatedly attacked this photo.  In his first rebuttal in 2006, he comes up with many scenarios to discredit the empirical photographic proof for Bunn as the maker.  The photo came from one of Charles Bunn's daughter's house after her death.  The scene was also described by another of his daughter in the Martinez' transcripts.  The pamphlet sold at the show says it is his booth and his decoys, but Ronnie says it could be the booth of any of the people seen in the photo.  Do any of those people look like Bunn?  He also writes "maybe the carver is not even in the photo".  Ronnie come up with other fanciful reasons that Bunn might not even be the real carver.  That the guys in the photo, including Bunn, were just watching the booth of the real carver.  So how do you explain the pamphlet stating that Charles Bunn had a booth at the show and Charles Bunn is sitting at his booth with his decoys? Case closed. But oh no in his rebuttal to Jannsen's article, Ronnie now writes, "it is not Bunn's booth.  Look closely at the sign that reads in part Capt. Will Graham Long Island."  What poor Ronnie, who doesn't do any research, does not know is that  Capt. Will Graham attended the Sportsmen's Show for many years, with his familiar and well known "South Bay Hunting Shack" mentioned in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle March 11 1902.  The shack is seen in the photograph with his sign in front of it, not in front of Bunn's booth.  Bunn's exhibit is the center piece of the staged photograph.  Graham was also Bunn's friend and is listed in the pamphlet for the 1906 show as the editor of that pamphlet.
                                                             End of Part 1
   



























 





 



 




   



 

Newbold Herrick, Charles Perdew & Charles Bunn's Decoys

The Herrick family donated over fifty shorebird decoys to the collection of the Museums at Stony Brook and according to the Herrick family, twenty of the decoys were made by a William (Bill) Bowman of Lawrence, Long Island.  It is now known that they were made by Charles Sumner Bunn, Southampton, Long Island. 


If you consider just these twenty Bunn decoys, you have a very large rig of shorebirds, but with fifty birds, you could cover quite a bit of ground.  You could shoot multiple points.  So here are some questions. 

If Bill Bowman was the decoy maker for the Herrick's, why did the other 30+ shorebird decoys the Herrick's donated to the museum come from other Long Island carvers and the Mason Decoy Factory?  Who else was Bowman carving for during the summer month or months he supposedly spent on Long Island, on a drunk out in the marsh, on his summer vacation, carving away and shooting snipe, away from his winter job in the saw mill in Maine, where one would assume he also performed his job in a drunken state.  This is all part of Mackey's Bill Bowman fable. 

We know the T.F.Norton birds were not made for the Herrick's.  They obviously had belonged to someone else.  The second question is why was Newbold L. Herrick trying to buy decoys from Charles Perdew in April of 1906?  In Decoy Magazine July/August 2000, page 35, there is a piece titled "Perdew correspondence file holds a few gems".  Nothing could have been more true.  The dregs of Illinois carver Charles Perdew's possessions had come to auction, and among the lots were "thousands" of correspondence's  to Charles Perdew, but the real gem that was found on page 35 is approximately 3"x4", a short letter to Charles Perdew from Newbold Herrick:

"at #22 Wes 12th Street New York, N.Y.

 

Dear Sir (Saw) your very good advertisement in a sporting paper in this city showing 

a very good crow decoy & also the words 'all other kinds of decoys etc.' I want you to

send me your book of cuts & let me pick out some yellowlegs and dowitcher decoys

which  I will need during the up coming season.
Please send by return mail if possible & oblige.

 
Yours very truly

Newbold L Herrick"

If Herrick already had the twenty Bunn shorebird decoys, not including the other 30+ shorebird decoys also donated to the Museum at Stony Brook, and with all the shorebird decoys being produced on Long Island and in the neighboring states where many Bunn decoys have been found; Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut, why was he looking for Charles Perdew to make shorebird decoys for him?  The Herrick's had homes, family, associates and friends in all these areas, not to mention that Charles Bunn had just been exhibiting at Madison Square Garden only a month earlier. 

These coastal Atlantic areas produced the majority of handmade shorebird decoys in America at the time.  Why was Newbold Herrick reaching out to a Midwest decoy maker who made primarily floating stool, with the exception of crows and owls.  Why was he asking Charles Perdew to make shorebird stool for his use in the upcoming 1906 summer season?  Perdew assuredly never made the decoys. 

 I feel I can prove the decoys the Herrick family donated to the Museums at Stony Brook listed as Bowman's by the museum, could not have been produced prior to 1910, after Bill Bowman's stated death.  So without a doubt, Newbold Herrick did not have the famous Bunn shorebird decoys in 1906 because they had not been created yet. 

Among the Herrick's shorebird decoys donation to the museum were sixteen shorebird decoys listed as by Obediah Verity, or Verity family, and William Southard in Gunner's Paradise. As with Bill Bowman, we have possible dates for Obediah Verity (maker) of 1813-1901.  If this Obediah Verity made the decoys (see Long Island Decoy Forum.com for Verity and Southard fabrications), Obediah Verity would have been dead for five years in 1906.    

Due to the Harold Herrick gunning diaries, 1877-1926, in which we have the only references to Bill Bowman, once in 1890 and again in 1891 (references to his hunting snipe in Lawrence L.I. not making decoys), we know Harold Herrick was hunting over decoys at the time, but it was not the donated Bunn decoys because they would not be carved for at least eleven more years. 

People have asked why the Herrick family would not know who really made the decoys, or why they would say they were made by someone who didn't really make them.  I can not entertain the premise that Newbold L. Herrick did not know that Charles Bunn was the real maker of the decoys that he said were made by Bill Bowman.  It also does not seem possible that the misattribution was a mistake.    

The Herrick Family and the Munn families were very close.  With the relationship between Charles Bunn and Orson Munn Sr., And Orson Munn's relationship with the Herrick's, most likely the  father Harold Herrick, and without a doubt, the brothers Newbold and Harold Herrick, there can be no doubt that Newbold L.Herrick had to know who really made the decoys he said were made by Bowman.

Newbold L.Herrick also donated two black duck decoys to the Museums at Stony Brook.  These decoys carry the N.L.H. brand.  These are the same style of floating stool seen in the now famous 1906 photo of Charles Bunn at Madison Square Garden. Newbold L. Herrick had to have known who made the black duck stool he had been shooting over and carried his brand that he donated to the Museum as Bill Bowman's.  That is assuredly not a mistake. Newbold Herrick was 21 years of age in 1906.  His brand is also found on later Wildfowler black duck decoys.  

Newbold L. Herrick and his associates were not overburdened with an abundance of ethics.  Both Newbold L. Herrick and Orson Munn Sr. had been involved in baiting ducks at the Flanders Club. Their connections and wealth may have secured them a not guilty verdict, but the next year they both resigned from the prestigious club, most likely a quid pro quo as to not unduly embarrass them.

      

This may have had to do with something as simple as a tax write-off, and Herrick had help in the form of Mr. William (Old Bill) Mackey who did the appraisal for Newbold Herrick and the Museums at Stony Brook, establishing the "Bowmans" as great decoys from the 19th century, made by a Bill Bowman from Maine and Lawrence, Long Island.  There were few people around to contradict this.

In 1952, the maker of the decoys, Charles Sumner Bunn, had died.  Harold Herrick Sr. had died in 1931.  Newbold Edgar, David Abercrombie, Arlington Carman, Captain Will Graham, and most of Charles Bunn clients and friends were deceased.  One known exception was Orson Munn Jr., who at his father's suggestion, acquired a rig of cork duck decoys from Charles Bunn.   

 In April of 1959, the Museums at Stony Brook held a handmade decoy exhibit.  The program for the exhibit lists Newbold L.Herrick as exhibiting an undetermined number of  shorebird decoys, listed only as Snipe, Curlew and Plover, with no carver or carvers listed as the makers.  One month later, on April 18th, Newbold Herrick makes his first donation of eight shorebird decoys to the museum; two are listed as by Bill Bowman.

It will be another eight years before Bill Bowman appears in print in 1966 in the famous diminutive article in Decoy Collectors Guide by Bill Mackey, coincided with Newbold L. Herrick's large donation of shorebird decoys to the Museums at Stony Brook.  In the same year, Bill Mackey's IBM sponsored decoy exhibit opened in Manhattan at the IBM Gallery of Art and Sciences from August 29 to October 1, 1966.   

There were at least 25,000 reasons for Bill Bowman to be listed as the carver of the decoys, and it was Bill Mackey who did the appraisal of the Herrick's decoy donation, a copy of which was generously shared with me by Joshua Ruff of the Museums at Stony Brook.  The appraisal is dated September 20, 1966, written on Bill Mackey's stationary, we see the first group of decoys, numbering sixteen decoys, as by different Long Island carver's names, all which have been changed to other names today.

The total value of these sixteen decoys Mackey listed at $1070.00.  The next group consisting of seventeen decoys listed as by "WM. Bowman", and this is where the 1966 money gets serious.  Mackey writes that the seventeen decoys are "owned by Newbold L. Herrick" and made by "William Bowman". "He is now recognized as one of the greatest Shore Bird Carvers and painters of shore birds in America".  Mackey goes on to praise the decoys as "unique" and writes, "individually the birds are of great value, collectively this group would be conservatively valued at $25,000."  That is total of $26,070.00 in 1966 dollars for the entire group donated.  That donation in 1966 would have been a complete tax write-off of the full appraised value.

                          

The Museum was looking for old decoys, 19th century or even earlier.  The Bunn shorebirds  were definitely 20th century decoys.  In fact, these decoys were at the very most, 56 years old in 1966, if not of an even later vintage.  They were not 1875-1900 as listed in Gunner's Paradise.  The 1875 date is the date given by Newbold L. Herrick as the date of their manufacture in his first donation in 1959.

 In a letter dated July 17, 1962, Newbold L. Herrick writes to the museum that he is leaving all his decoys to the museum, "under my will".  He singles out only two makers by name, Capt. Ben Verity and Capt. Bill Bowman.  Herrick writes that he, Bill Bowman, "lived in the Marshes and sand hills area south of Lawrence." He writes, "He gunned there for a living and made beautiful decoys," (no mention of Maine).  In this letter he gives the dates of manufacture for the "Bowman decoys as 1870-1875. "

What happened between 1962 and 1966 that made Newbold L. Herrick donate the decoys prior to his death?  In 1962, N.L. Herrick was leaving the decoys to the Museums at Stony Brook after his death, which occurred in 1976. By 1966, Mackey and the Herrick brothers had collaborated on Mackey's article in Decoy Collectors Guide:1966-1967, and Mackey does the appraisal of the donated decoys for Newbold L. Herrick and the Museums at Stony Brook.  There may have been other reasons for the premature donation and there probably were, but I think the tax right-off is most likely the main motivation.

There is no way N.L. Herrick could not have known that Bunn made the decoys.  Why Newbold Herrick didn't credit Bunn is most likely to give an earlier provenance to the decoys.  Herrick may have also had a problem with Bunn at some point.

In the Martinez transcripts, Mrs.Martinez says of her father that he, "was not Wishy Washy". There is also an instance of an angry encounter between Bunn and a member of the Lawrence family, a client who wanted Bunn to take him goose hunting on Sunday. Bunn didn't hunt on Sunday and he made it very clear.    

Herrick may have also had trouble crediting a non-Euro American with the production of the greatest shorebird decoys in America.  Prejudice is always there, but most likely it was just to disguise the age of the decoys.  Bunn had only been dead for 7 years when N.L. Herrick had said that the decoys were made 1875.  Newbold L. Herrick would have been 11 at that time.  This would place the birds as his father's era and from his rig as they have been listed in the past.  Bowman was mentioned in Newbold's father's gunning diary in 1890 and1891.  This was put together with the Bunn decoys and was used to help turn 20th century decoys into 19th century decoys.

 It is evident that it would have been impossible for Newbold L. Herrick not to have known that Charles Sumner Bunn was the real maker of the decoys, and not Bowman, given the fact that Newbold L. Herrick could not have possessed them until sometime after 1910.  

Mackey had no problem slapping a maker's name on a decoy without any proof.  He did it constantly.  It was a different time when Herrick received his wink-wink nod-nod appraisal from Mackey for $26,000.  At the time, that was an incredible amount of money to value decoys at.  However, just 7 years later the T.F. Norton curlew Mackey had received from the Herrick's sold for $10,500, a record price for a decoy at the time. This was nearly half the amount of money that Mackey had appraised the entire Herrick rig for.  This curlew was considered by Mackey to have been the centerpiece of his vast collection.  In the year 2000, the same decoy listed as a Bill Bowman sold for $464,500.00.

The T.F.Norton Decoys

Who the hell is T.F. Norton ?
   
I have been researching this question for over a decade and I have found no answer. We don't know what the initials stand for and we don't know where he lived.  I have found some possibilities, but none of the possibilities could be connected to the decoys made by Charles Sumner Bunn (1865 -1952).  This has become the eternal question when it comes to the Charles Bunn shorebird decoys donated to the Museums at Stony Brook by the prominent Long Island Herrick family who wrongly attributed them to a Bill Bowman.

The well-known story of the Herrick family states they purchased the decoys directly from Bill Bowman, yet the majority of the decoys donated to the Museums at Stony Brook have a T.F.Norton brand on them, which has always been one of the many puzzling parts of the Herrick family's Bowman story.  If bought directly from Bowman, why do they carry the T.F. Norton brand? Over the years, this glaring hole in the Bowman story should have by itself caused the reevaluation of the Herrick/Bowman story, yet even today that is glossed over by the people who won't give up the Bowman myth.

I am certain the T.F. Norton listed in Stony Brook Museum's book, Gunner's Paradise, as a carpenter from Hewlett, Nassau County N.Y. can be eliminated by his social status alone.  The clients of Charles Bunn who purchased this quality of hunting decoy were wealthy sports, not carpenters.  Many of the well-known clients of Bunn were not only from the same social circle, they were related by marriage and/or blood.  Many of these families repeatedly used ancestral names in succeeding generations.  These people were also bound together by wealth and business; attorneys, bankers, insurances company owners.  They belong to the same clubs.  They were not carpenters.

One of the ancestral names to descend through these families is the name Newbold.  According to the book, The Newbold Lawrence Family (1931), the name originated in America with Michael Newbold who came to America between 1665-1675.  We find this name reflected  in multiple examples; Newbold Trotter Lawrence, Newbold Leroy Edgar, Newbold Herrick, and many more.  You also find the Lawrence name used by many descendants

I have tried researching every name combination with Norton I could come up with and so far no luck.  The prominent Trotter family of Philadelphia is connected to the the Lawrence family, so I have tried to discover a person from the right time period.  A Norton with the first name Trotter, but to no avail so far.

The Herrick family at one time should have been able to establish the connection with T.F. Norton because without question, they had originally been made for this mysterious T.F.Norton.  So after years of research, the only thing I can confidently say is the decoys were made by Charles Sumner Bunn, and I still have not discovered who the hell T.F.Norton was, but I am still researching.