Long Island Decoy Makers?

                                                       
                            How Many People Really Read Long Island Decoy Forum?
       

                     
     In 2009 I began publishing the blog "Long Island Decoy Forum."  I had no real idea of what a blog was, but I realized that it was the only way to disseminate actual researched information on some Long Island decoys and their makers.  After my original articles on Charles S. Bunn and William H. Bennett were published in Decoy Magazine, there arose a tsunami like wave of outrage by those in opposition to my research.  The people who were the most outraged were the supposed "decoy experts".  These" decoy experts" had been caught flat-footed. Their world was turning upside down and they had to put a stop to it, and quickly.  To quote Gary Guyette in a private phone conversation around the time my first articles appeared on Bennett and Bunn, "Decoy collectors don't like change."    

  In a New York Times article titled, "Collectors Take A Second Look" February 13, 2005, Gary tries to tamp down the new attribution for Bunn by saying we need much more proof for Bunn before a change in attribution for Bowman could be made and that even if we had a photo of Bunn with the decoys, that might not be enough evidence for the reattribution.  Gary completely ignored the photo of Bunn at the 1906 Madison Square Garden Sportsmen's Show with his decoys on the table that are the same type of duck stool that N.H. Herrick said were made by Bowman.  "Experts" like Gary Guyette needed for Bowman and Cuffee to continue to be credited as the makers of the carvings.  In that way they could continue to present themselves as "decoy experts".  But we all were at fault in the past by not questioning all the undocumented pronouncements found in decoy books, etc.
  
  The backlash to my research was so vocally ardent in the condemnation of me and my early research that for many years I could not find any magazine who would publish my research. I was effectively Black Listed. I was also blindsided by the way the research was attacked. I was being hit from every direction by the never-Bunn opposition.  Ronnie McGrath began to write what he called articles (rebuttals) to our research.  I had no way to respond to his undocumented ridiculous statements and wild speculations.      
    
   Also around that time I angered many of the members of the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association by proposing that the club should put add ethics amendment to the club's Bylaws.  The reaction from many was outrage. Some said we could not do anything like that; "We were not the police," that no clubs have anything like that in their bylaws.  I had actually used a Fishing Tackle Collectors Club's ethic section from their bylaws for the ones I wrote.  Apparently some collector associations have no problems with ethical behavior.  Some members accused me of wanting to add the amendments to the bylaws in order to nail Bob Gerard and expel him from the club, which was not my motive.  But it shows that they all knew Gerard was unscrupulous. 

   I left the meeting early in disgust at the attitude of many of the club members. I was later to learn that right after my departure, libelous statements were made about me, including my ethnicity. I was told Timmy Sieger had known that I was going to present my bylaw change at the meeting and took prepared  ballots out of his pocket and announced that there would be a vote to throw Jamie Reason out of  L.I.D.C.A.  When and where is being ethical a bad thing? Oh yeah,  in the Decoy Business.

 I had just spent three and a half years saving the association from it's member induced extinction.
 I put  the club on a strong financial  footing. 
 I had redesigned the club newsletter and had written articles for it . 
 I had done all the PR promoting the club and the annual  decoy show.  

Under my tenure as president, I had convinced dealers from other states who had stopped attending the annual show to return including Dick McIntyre from South Carolina.  And now some members wanted to throw me out because I thought we should have some sort of ethical standards. 

  The next day after the meeting and the secret vote, I received a phone call from L.I.D.C.A.'s president, Melvin Phaff, who told me about the vote. I told him I would get back to him after I spoke to counsel.  After a second conversation with Melvin explaining what I had learned from witnesses of what had transpired at the meeting after I had left, I told him how my attorney had advised me to proceed.  Under threat of litigation the club was forced to rescind the vote for my expulsion from the club.  They were also made to print a letter of apology to me and were forced to print my proposed ethic's amendment in the by-laws in the newsletter.  And believe it or not, sometime later, some of my  ethics proposals were incorporated into the bylaws, but the rift between many of the L.I.D.C.A. members and I will never heal.

   Also around this time my relationship with Ronnie McGrath, both personal and on a business level, went south.  This is when Ronnie decide to be the defender of Newbold Herrick's Bill Bowman fabrication.  I had become a pariah in the "decoy world."  Orders for my carvings dwindled. My shop began to falter. I eventually was forced to closed the doors.  Speaking truth to powered usually comes with consequences.  This is where you have to make a decision in your life. Will you fold your cards and hope over time you will slowly be allowed back into the fold for your transgressions of  upsetting the applecart of fables that had been use as "documentation in the "decoy world", or you can stick to your guns and your integrity and soldier on in the face of overwhelming odds against your success. I chose the latter.       
  
   As people began taking sides of the Bunn Bennett -Bowman Cuffee "debate", the pendulum began to swing in the direction of the more powerful Bill Bowman faction, driven by the old guard status quo; the auction houses and high-end dealers and collectors, the real powers that drive the decoy market (money and ego).  I  became a target, branded as a liar and a fabricator. My research was dismissed as unfounded speculation.

 Letters to the Editors in both Decoy Magazine and Hunting &Fishing Collectibles Magazine ripped my research to pieces, but they never presented any evidence for Bowman or Cuffee.  I could not defend  my work as neither magazine would give me space to respond as I have said, I had nowhere to present the new information that many claimed they needed.  I had no platform to counter what was being written about my research and the lies and misinformation that was being spread. 

  All of this would be the inspiration  for Long Island Decoy Forum (L.I.D.F.). If I couldn't get published in any magazine, Long Island Decoy Forum would be the platform to get the accumulating documentation out to the public.  I have no editor for the content.  I also provide some insider information on what has really gone on in decoy collecting over the years, that I have been privy to.  L.I.D.F. has presented a counterpoint to the myths and fabrications and the pure B.S. that has been used to establish the false identities for many Long Island decoy makers that are used by decoy collectors, dealers, writers, etc. today.    

   For years, L.I.D.F. was the only way to get out unfettered information on the decoys and their makers from Long Island, or as is in most instances, who is not the real maker. It is far easier to disprove or cast serious doubt on the attributed for makers in the past than it is to discover documentation as to who the real maker was.  If the early collectors were not so afraid of the attribution of by "unknown maker" or if they had not used undocumented names for the maker years ago, we would not have the situation we have to day.  If the early collectors had actually done any real research we would not be where we are today.  

   I have unashamedly stepped on the toes of those who have denied my research and I have pointed out how the writings from the past and the present rarely presented accompanying documentation for their claims for the makers, and this is especially true when it comes to the granddaddy of decoy misinformation, William J.Mackey Jr.  After all the research that I have done over the years, I now  question any and everything Mackey ever wrote in relationship to decoy makers.  It is quite clear that he never did any research on the makers of the decoys that he accumulated.  Mackey attributions for Long Island decoys should never be cited as factual information. This includes all his writing, including those found in the Decoy Collectors Guide or North American Decoy Magazine. 

    But the real question is, has L.I.D.F. accomplish anything in the way of changing Hearts and Minds?

 Question 1-Has Long Island Decoy Forum been an effective vehicle to disseminate new research for L.I. decoy's and their makers?

Question 2-Has it destroyed many of the myths and fabrications of the past? 

Question 3.-Has it accomplished overturning the misattributions for some L.I. decoys to the correct attribution or to Unknown Carver?   

 Question -1.-
  The answer is a resounding yes! It has been very effective in that capacity to inform people who are truly interested in Long Island decoys, which I feel has helped in the acceptance of Bunn as the maker. I am certain that had I not begun this blog, the Bowman and Cuffee supporters would have had no opposition at all.  They would never have had to address the ridiculous and amateurish way that decoy attributions have been accepted and used in the past and even today.  Bowman and Cuffee attributions are classic examples of the Emperor has no clothes.  

   The Bowman and Cuffee supporters presented a united front against progress.  This Blog was the only way to circumvent the denial of my research.  In most instances, the opposition are very wealthy and powerful people who are used to controlling things. Can't control L.I.D.F.  I have no advertisers to dictate the content of L.I.D.F. This has been very frustrating for them.  As people began to read the L.I.D.F., some began to see how silly the L.I. decoy myths really were.
   
   I even believe L.I.D.F. was actually aided by Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine's ridiculous rebuttals to our research by Ronnie McGrath.  Decoy collectors kept waiting for the long promised documented proof for Bowman, and to a lesser degree Cuffee, which never appeared because there is none.  You can only drill so many dry holes before people start to think that you're all promises and no delivery.  Ronnie McGrath delivered nothing but empty words.  

  Question-2. 
 As to question 2, I have only partially succeeded in, even though there are many in the decoy world  who still support Bowman-Cuffee, there are more and more people who Support Bunn and Bennett attributions.

  Question-3.  
 Most in the"decoy world" still use the old misattributed, undocumented decoy maker's names found in the old books and magazines, even though I have used L.I.D.F. to point out the lack of research, and documentation and fabrications. I have shown that the attributed makers, Bowman, Cuffee, the Verity's, Gelston, Dilley and Seabury are fabrications or myths.
      
 As more and more people visit Long island Decoy Forum, I feel that over time, the changes will come.  The best thing for me about this blog, is that after Garry Guyette and his Bowman pals and I are all in the ground,  Long Island Decoy Forum will still be alive. Things written on the internet are just like a book; long after the author's death, the work is still being read by later generations.
The later generations of decoy collectors should not be so invested in maintaining the status quo that many of today's so-called decoy experts need.

     
                   How Many Readers Does Long Island Decoy Forum Actually Have?
   
     If you go to any of the L.I.D.F. postings it shows just a few followers and I have heard of collectors/dealers claiming that, "No one reads Long Island Decoy Forum".  However, the  followers  listed is not exactly correct. In fact, it is very misleading. 

   What readers don't see is that each post has a counter, so I can see how many people actually visit the different postings, and the combined tally of visits to date on all postings are over 7,000, which shows that there are more than a few people looking at the site.  I know that not everyone who goes to the site will reads it. There are no photos after all, just documentary evidentiary text, which is a very rare commodity in the"decoy world" today, as it always has been.
   
 For many blogs, over 7,000 hits is not a large number of viewers, but if you take into account that the "decoy world" is a very small and insular world, and an even smaller world is the subset of people who have an interest in or collect Long Island decoys.

     There is also another way that I know that people are reading L.I.D.F. In that people tell me they read L.I.D.F., and some people inadvertently let me know that they read it.  Like at our Charles Sumner Bunn presentation at the Suffolk County Historical Society museum on  October 6th 2016.
Among those in attendance that evening was Long Island Decoy Collectors Association Treasurer, Bob Liehr and his wife.  Bob is also collector of William Henry Bennett decoys and folk art that he stubbornly still calls "Chief Cuffee's".

  After our presentation during the Q&A session, Bob Liehr had no questions about Bunn or his work. And mind you, our Presentation was on Charles S. Bunn and his work.  Bob wanted to make a statement about "Chief Cuffee decoys".  I had mentioned Eugene Chief Cuffee in passing in the opening part of the program. 

    I said that the discovery of Charles S. Bunn's work happened accidentally while searching for the decoys made by Eugene Cuffee, and that I have not found any evidence for Cuffee as a decoy maker in the past 15 years of research. Cuffee is listed as a hunting guide. And though I feel it is quite possible there were others decoy makers on the Shinnecock Reservation, but so far Charles S. Bunn is the only documented decoy carver from Shinnecock Reservation from the late 19th to mid-20th century.

 Bob Liehr stated that decoys formerly from the Southold Historical Society Museum collection had been donated to the museum by a woman in the 1960's who had said they had been made by Chief Cuffee.  I  said that wasn't true. I and (David Bennett) had visited the museum in around 2004 and talked to the director at time. I had told him the birds were by Bennett and not Cuffee's.  The museum had no documentation for Cuffee as the maker of the birds in their collection.They did have some bills for house paint with Cuffee's name on them.(Cuffee was a house painter), but nothing about him making decoys.  
     
     I then ask  Bob for the documentation for his claim after which he went silent.  This elicited a few chuckles from some of the attendees.  We had just presented 45 minutes of documentation for Bunn and Bob Liehr had nothing to back up his claim for Cuffee.  Bob's silly B.S. would have worked at a L.I.D.C.A. meeting or in Hunting & Fishing Collectibles Magazine, but most of the people who attend historic lectures expect documentation to accompany your statements.

    I also stated that no one called the carvings Cuffee's until Bob Gerard's fabricated the Cuffee attribution 1981.  I then said to Bob, "You should read my blog."  Then Bob Liehr unwittingly blurted out, "I HAVE READ IT."  So we know that Bob Liehr reads it.

     However, Bob appears not to absorb or comprehend or understand what he's read, or most likely the reason he still clings to Bob Gerard's Cuffee fabrication is because he is so invested in being a Cuffee collector and thus an expert on the work of Chief Cuffee.  If the decoys and folk art Bob attributes to Cuffee are Bennett's, which they are, that would mean Bob Liehr has no expertise on the pieces of folk art that he collects. 
  
   This type of behavior by Bob Liehr shows a total lack of respect for Long Island's history and in turn shows he has no respect for one of America greatest folk artists, William Henry (Uncle Henry) Bennett from Springs, East Hampton who really made the pieces.  Bob Liehr had referred to the birds from the Southold  Historical Society Museum which had  been consigned to Stephen O'Brien's Copley Auctions in July of 2016.  Joe Jannsen pointed out that they had not been attributed to either Bennett or Cuffee.  However, we find lot 417 we find a W.H.Bennett curlew listed as by" Eugene Chief Cuffee"(ATTR). 

These pieces from the museum's collection represented both William H. Bennett's early and latter work, which were all attributed to Cuffee from 1981- 2003 based only on the word of Robert Gerard. No documentation!

  Since Mr. Liehr has established that he does read Long Island Decoy Forum, he now has no excuse to still refer to William Bennett's folk art as made by Eugene Chief Cuffee.
  
 Another thing that is interesting is the behavior of the auction houses in cataloging the decoys as Bunn/Bowman or Cuffee/Bennett which only adds to the confusion, as seen in Guyette & Deeter's Charleston auction, February 17th 2017.

      A Heron listed as" by Cuffee or Bennett"?
   
   If you Google images for William Bennett decoys or Eugene Coffee decoys, you find some of the same birds showing up on both sites, one crediting Bennett as the maker and the other has Cuffee as the maker for the same bird.  This is utterly ridiculous.  Can you imagine an auction house listing a painting as by Michelangelo or Columbo, or a chest by Chippendale or Willson, or a silver spoon by Revere or Smith.  Of course not, but the decoy business has no standards. It is unregulated by being self regulated. 

   The fact that the heron is listed as by Cuffee or Bennett indicates that they don't really know who made the bird, hence they are not knowledgeable in what they are selling, which means that they are not experts in the field.
  
      If you are a Bennett collector, you can buy the bird and call it a Bennett and likewise a Cuffee collector can buy the same heron and call it a Cuffee.  However, I feel certain Guyette & Deeter know exactly who made the Bennett's, they just can't admit it.

  I had invited Jon Deeter to our presentation in October in Riverhead. I didn't bother inviting Gary.
   I didn't know if Jon would be open-minded enough to make the trip, but he declined for what he called "obvious reasons".  My guess would be that Mr .Deeter is another anonymous reader of Long Island Decoy Forum and was not happy with what I had written about Guyette & Deeter.

   I have been hard on Guyette & Deeter, Ted Harmon and others who deserve it.  As someone said recently, "You don't bring a cup cake to a knife fight".  From the very beginning I have been up against very powerful and wealthy forces who have allied together to prevent the acceptance of Charles Bunn.  This group includes Guyette & Deeter,Ted Harmon, Stan VanEtten, Ronnie McGrath, and many of the Long Island Decoy Decoy Collectors Association members, Allen Haid and others.  I didn't start this knife fight. I presented valid research for Bunn and Bennett.  It was the ambassadors of the stasis quo that were the ones who attacked my research out of hand.  When I know I'am right, I don't back down even in the face of incredible wealth and power and overwhelming odds.  And as you have seen, the Bowman and Cuffee champions have never present any documentation for them or any other Long Island decoy makers. 
      
  I plan to keep adding to the Long Island Decoy Forum and I will continue to point out the inconsistencies in the myths that have been cited as decoy history in the past, and I will continue to try to discover more information on L.I. decoys and their makers

By the way, over the many days that I have been writing and rewriting this post, I have watched the counter's on the two latest posts begin to climb as more and more people begin to read them, especially the one about Dick Richardson and L.I.D.C.A. attempt to prevent our presentation on Charles Bunn in October 2016.