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.
"Bunn/Bowman"
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
