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
