Ronnie McGrath's writings remind me of a decoy version of Alice in Wonderland
Ronnie's unsubstantiated fanciful contradictory ramblings are like a romp though the world of Alice and Ronnie is the Mad Hatter at this tea party. One of Ronnie's latest trips down the Rabbit Hole is found in his May - June 2015 rebuttal in Stan Van Etten H&F Collectibles Magazine. This is in reference to the Redhead with Bunn carved in the bottom previously sold by Guyette & Schmidt as a "Bill Bowman" decoy, and later sold as a Charles Bunn by Copley Auctions in 2014. This decoy of course is empirical evidence for Bunn as the real maker of the"Bowman" decoys.
Ronnie has pointed out many times that G&S, now G&D, are still calling the decoys Bowman's. This would infer to a great level of knowledge possessed by G&D on the decoys in question. Then why did they sell this decoy as a "Bowman" if it is a Bunn like Ronnie claims? Wouldn't they with all their knowledge know a Bowman from a Bunn? No not really because G&S or Ronnie didn't even know about Bunn or his work until I made the discovery that Bunn was the real maker of the so called "Bowman" decoys.
Ronnie can't explain away the name Bunn carved into a decoy sold as a Bowman. So on page 8, Ronnie comes up with a very novel way to pretend that he knows the way to tell the difference between the non-existent Bill Bowman's decoys and those he claims are Bunn's copies. Ronnie shows a photo of the Bunn Readhead with the name Bunn carved in the body next to another Bunn Redhead. Both decoys are similar to, if not some of the decoys seen on Bunn's table in the 1906 photo. Ronnie writes that the decoy on the left with Bunn carved in the bottom is indeed a Bunn copy of a Bowman and he says that the one on the right is a real "Bowman". He gives two ways to be able to tell the difference in the work of Bunn and Bowman:
(1) The way the body seam is cut is the prime indicator of the difference. Ronnie says "Bowman" decoys are cut above the tail and that the Bunn's decoys are cut "below the tail".
(2) The bill placement, which he says is different in Bowman's and Bunns work.
But then on Page 12, we find a pintail drake referred to as a Bowman, yet the seam is cut below the tail. This, according to Ronnie, is one of two ways to tell a Bunn from a Bowman. Ronnie solves this contradictory dilemma in Ronnie Land by simply stating that, "there are four know Bowman's that are cut under the tail".
So the center seam would not be a way to tell the mythical Bowman decoys from real Bunn decoys. Now according to Ronnie, its down to the decoy bills to determine the difference between a Bunn and a Bowman. The bills on many of the Bunn floating stool display different styles, not to mention that some most likely have been repaired or replaced. So the bills on the floating stool could not be a way to determine today if they were made by more than one maker. The bill would not be a way to tell the difference as Ronnie claims. Joe Jannsen in his letter to the editor to H&F, who was apparently afraid to print it, which was subsequently printed in Decoy Magazine points out the absurdity of Ronnie's "center seam" theory.
And once again, Gary Guyette and Frank Schmidt described this decoy in the catalog as a decoy by Bowman. They sold it as a decoy "by William Bowman of Lawrence NY from the Mort Hanson collection". It was sold to a collector who bought it as a Bowman Redhead and then sold to Joe by Copley Fine Art auctions as a "Bunn".
In Joe Jannsen, Decoy Magazine, May-June 2015, page 12, "Anticipation then disappointment", Joe points out how ridiculous Ronnie is in his desperation to prove he can separate the decoys by a center seam cut. Ronnie wrote that at least four Bowman decoys exist with the seam below the tail. Joe points out the obvious that wold negate Ronnie's claim for the way to tell the difference! In the H&F Collectibles Magazine rebuttal to Jannsen's obvious observation, which is not a rebuttal, Ronnie just reiterates his seam separation theory. A rebuttal would be something like proof for Bowman as a carver, and the dissemination of the evidence for that claim. However, with nowhere to seek refuge from reality, Ronnie does a little fishtailing. He tries to get out of the corner he has painted himself into by writing, "My purpose in presenting the difference in body- seam construction is to show that Bowman, as well as some other decoy makers, explored, experimented and evolved their craft." That is not what Ronnie was saying. Ronnie is rewriting his own fake history. If the non-existent Bowman did cut his seam below the tail on some of his decoys, that would mean that "Bowman" was copying "Charles Bunn's style".
There is only one conclusion that a rational human being living outside of Ronnieland can make, and that is that Charles Sumner Bunn (1865-1952) is the maker of all the decoys that have been called Bowman since 1966-67 Decoy Collector's Guide edition. And that the story by Newbold L. Herrick and Bill Mackey declaring a William "Bill" Bowman as the maker of the decoys really made by Charles Bunn was a fabrication. Ronnie's always late to the table.
Ronnie continually presents new more childish fairy-tale scenarios for "Bowman". These scenarios have to be created to try to explain away new documented facts that he can't refute with real facts of his own. One thing Ronnie doesn't know is that the bottom weight on the redhead decoy is a Bunn weight and these same weights are found on many of the decoys Ronnie says were made by "Bowman". Why would you find Bunn weights on "Bowman" decoys?
In the November -December 2015 H&F Collectibles Magazine, Ronnie's attempts to rebut my latest article in Decoy Magazine May- June 2015, titled "Dating the Shorebirds of Charles Sumner Bunn". This article shows empirical evidence that Bunn used the flat art work produced by two American artists, Louis Agassiz Fuertes and Rex Brasher, as the models for his best known work. Ronnie keeps up his relentless Bowman/Herrick mantra. He writes, "I agree with Reason that Bunn's shorebird decoys were made after 1910-1917. We know that Bowman's decoys were made before 1906". Once again Ronnie ignores the fat that a Bill Bowman as a decoy maker does no exists. And we don't know Bowman made decoys before 1906. There are no facts to back that statement up. And he ignores the evidence we have presented that proved the shorebird decoys he loves to call Bowman's could not have been produced prior to1910, eliminating his favorite fantasy decoy carver Bill Bowman from the picture.
Later in his so-called rebuttal, Ronnie actually presents my case for Bunn as having used the art work of the two aforementioned artists remarkably well, though I am certain that was not his intent. Ronnie gets so deep into trying to prove my research is wrong that he can't see the forest for the trees. He gets lost in his ever-changing scenarios. Ronnie often likes to use the words "logical" and "illogical", yet he appears not to have the vaguest understanding of the meaning of either word. Ronnie relies on his standard list of possiblys, maybes, and could bes that he hopes will convince readers that real facts don't matter, but that his fantasy scenarios do.
Ronnie writes, "one could easily argue that the art work of Fuertes and Brasher could have been influenced by the shorebirds of Bowman". One could argue that, but it would not be "logical". It would be "illogical". Because Ronnie never does any real research, he makes ridiculous blunders, as in the case of the artists Fuertes or Brasher. Ronnie speculates that the two artists Rex Brasher and Louis Fuertes could have used "Bowman" decoys as inspiration for their art work. Oh brother.
In Rex Brasher's official Artist's Bio, we learn that Brasher's father was an amateur naturalist and bird taxidermist. "At age 8 Brasher had decided he would paint birds from life and that he wanted to be better than Audubon. By 16 he was doing just that. In 1907 he first met the already established Ornithologist/Artist Louis A. Fuertes while he was studying bird skins at the Museum of Natural History in New York City". Brasher's bio also states that he "worked from direct observation".
Ronnie also writes that Brasher hunted "Rockaway-Lawrence area of Long Island", but as usual, he cites no proof for his claim. And it would make no difference where he hunted, because Brasher didn't use decoys as models for his art work. Brasher grew up in Brooklyn (people from Brooklyn are documented as to hunting from Brooklyn to Montauk). He moved to Connecticut in 1907, the State that he would call home for 53 years until his death.
In the November/ December 2015 issue of Decoy Magazine, Joe Engers officers $10,000 dollar reward for Ronnie's make believe photo of Bill Bowman that he says Ronnie Bauer lost or misplaced. And I will pay for Ronnie's polygraph test as to the veracity as to whether the photo ever existed (it doesn't). Joe and I have no worries about shelling out any money.
I have been asked by people why Ronnie would attack our research the way he does and why he can't see how ridiculous he looks. I have no answer as to why. Maybe some one should ask him that question by writing a Letter to the Editor in Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine, but Stan VanEtten would most likely not print it. As we know, he only prints letters from people who support Ronnie.
