the art of the knife

ANNALS OF SURGERYVol. 219, No. 5,435-450© 1994 J. B. Lippincott Company

The Art of the KnifeJ. Lynwood Herrington, Jr., M.D.

From the Section of Surgical Services, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University MedicalCenter, Nashville, Tennessee

Three important interests have influenced my life: myever growing family, my intense fascination with sur-gery, and my love ofwaterfowl and the environment.

Since my retirement 4 years ago, my interest in water-fowl has deepened. In studying decoys, I have becomemore aware of the close relation between the art of thedecoy carver and the art of the surgeon in the operatingtheater. Dr. M. Therese Southgate, in her articles for theAmerican Medical Association journals, which featurepaintings on the covers, has recalled many associationsbetween medicine and art.' She wrote

The sportsman, the surgeon, the painter: all are remind-ers of the mysterious unity that exists among hand, eye,and brain and the art that happens when they are directedby a human intelligence. Michelangelo recognized it.Thomas Eakins recognized it. It is a recognition that Dr.Joseph Wilder renews for us in his paintings ofcontempo-rary sports figures and surgeons.2'3Since my boyhood I have been intrigued by waterfowl.

Their annual fall migrations remain one ofnature's greatmysteries, and their beauty as they come into a marsh atsunset is breathtaking. Because I grew up in rural Geor-gia, I spent much time around the rivers, creeks, andfarm ponds hunting and observing ducks and geese. Thisfascination continued through college and postgraduateyears and even into my surgical practice. After movingto Tennessee, I spent many autumn days on ReelfootLake and in the vast West Tennessee River bottoms.

Collecting waterfowl decoys, however, did not occurto me until I read an article published in the AmericanSportsman in the winter of 1970.4 Several beautiful con-

Presented at the 105th Annual Scientific Session ofthe Southem Surgi-cal Association, December 6, 1993.

Address reprint requests to J. Lynwood Herrington, Jr., M.D., Depart-ment ofSurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville,TN 37205.

Accepted for publication January 3, 1994.

temporary decorative decoys were featured along withtheir artists, and the article noted that interest was in-creasing in collecting these magnificent pieces. When Icontacted the artists, they described the decoy shows andexhibits that are held all over the country. I also becamefamiliar with the growing number of magazines andbooks written about decoys, the old and contemporaryartists, and the names of decoy collectors. Mamie and Ispent much time contacting contemporary artists, andwe established close friendships with many.

In the autumn of 1974 and spring of 1975, we madeour first visits to the Lem and Steve Ward world cham-pionship waterfowl exhibit and contest in Salisbury,Maryland. At each ofthe events, approximately 300 con-temporary artists were represented and about 2,000 carv-ings, including ducks, geese, shore birds, upland gamebirds, song birds, and birds of prey, were featured alongwith wildlife paintings.During the next several years, we attended many

contests and exhibits over the country. One of the finestevents is the annual Easton Waterfowl Festival held inMaryland each November, which attracts the finest wild-life contemporary artists from around the world. Morethan 20,000 spectators attend. The festival was initiated23 years ago by Dr. Harry M. Walsh (Fig. 1), who wasthen a general surgeon in Easton, Maryland, and the au-thor of the colorful book The Outlaw Gunner.5 WilliamA. Perry was cofounder ofthe festival.Our interest has been primarily in collecting contem-

porary waterfowl decoys, although in recent years wehave developed a fascination with the antique birds, theirhistory, and their artists. Although there are many splen-did contemporary decoy artists, we have restricted ourcollection to the works of a few whom we particularlyadmire and whose work is appealing to us. The latter isa most important factor in collecting. The works of thecontemporary artists today are very artistic, and tech-niques are elaborate, using detailed burning, carving,

435

m

.. m. m. ..

436 Herrington

Harry M. Walsh, M.D.Figure 1. Photograph of Harry M. Walsh, retired general surgeon fromMaryland's eastern shore. He is also an author, lecturer, waterfowl histo-rian, and cofounder of the famous Easton Maryland Waterfowl Festival.

painting and texturing methods. The compositions maybe intricate and highly decorative.Many of the serious collectors today are interested in

the antique carvings and their makers of the nineteenthand early twentieth century. These birds may be ob-tained through estate sales, from decoy dealers, and par-ticularly from several well-known auctions. Some collec-tors display a wide range of interest and acquire decoysrepresenting a large geographic region. Others restricttheir collection to birds ofa particular local area or thosecarved by a favorite artist, whereas others concentratetheir interest on a particular species of waterfowl. Ourcollection of the older birds has been limited to thosecarved by the late Lem and Steve Ward of Crisfield,Maryland. We were fortunate in having known Lem andvisited with him several times before his death in 1984.Today I will give a history of the origin of the decoy,

cite some of the old makers along with their works, andshow some contemporary art pieces by current outstand-ing artists.

HISTORY

Waterfowl decoys constitute a most extensive field forthe collector and they have a special appeal for lovers ofAmericana. The word decoy has a unique and ancientlegacy with reference to waterfowling. It can be viewedas a lure to fool or entice. In its original description andsignification, however, a decoy was not an object butrather a pond, lake, or stream of water provided with anarrangement for the capture of waterfowl. According toSir Ralph Payne-Gallwey, in his book Duck Decoys,6published in 1886, the word decoy is a contraction oftheDutch expression Ende-Kooy, meaning a duck cage or atrap.According to history, the first duck cage was built in

the 1 600s in The Netherlands, antedating the general useof the shotgun. In the early years of waterfowling, thecage and the method of retrieving waterfowl were primi-tive. A pond or a waterway used by waterfowl would befenced with nets and opened at the leeward end; thewindward end was enclosed with V-shaped enclosures orcages. When many waterfowl pitched into a confinedarea, they were driven down the net barriers by men inboats to the cages from which they were later captured.

This simple method ofdriving birds was later replacedby a more effective one in which an arrangement of net-covered canals or pipes was built around a central en-closed pond or other body of water. Each pipe ended ina removable tunnel net in which the birds were en-trapped. In another method, assembled waterfowl werenot driven but were enticed into the nets using a traineddog (a "toller") assisted by domesticated wild ducks.These birds were called coy ducks. The men who di-rected the trained dog and the domesticated waterfowlwere called coy men. The domesticated waterfowl werethe original decoy ducks. They were also known as Judasducks.

In 1665 King Charles II of England brought in a well-known coy man from Holland and established the firstlive decoys in the British Isles. The firearms of that timewere imperfect and relatively ineffective, and the huntersrelied on duck decoys to supply the English with anabundance ofwaterfowl.During the latter part of the eighteenth century, the

development of firearms was perfected and instead ofluring waterfowl to nets, trained live birds were used toattract wild waterfowl within range of the firearm. Ap-parently, this practice had its origin in France. 7-12The first known American decoys, according to car-

bon dating, were made at about 1000 A.D., as describedby archaeologists from the Heye Foundation ofthe Mu-seum of the American Indian in New York City. This isthe time in surgical history when Marinus ofAlexandriafirst dissected and described the Vagus nerves. In 1924,

Ann. Surg. * May 1994

The Art of the Knife 437

Figure 2. Early American decoys excavated from Lovelock Cave in Ne-vada that date back to 1000 A.D.

archaeologists excavated 11 duck decoys from LovelockCave near Lovelock, Nevada, by the Humboldt riverwhile digging for Paiute Indian relics.13 The decoys werewrapped carefully in a basket, and because ofthe climatein the cave, they were remarkably well preserved. Twotypes of decoys were discovered. One consisted of ducksthat resembled canvasbacks created out of native bullrushes or tule reeds that had been woven, twisted, andtied into birdlike shapes. Others of uncertain specieswere made by mounting stuffed skins and the dried headsofactual birds into lifelike poses. To complete the decoy,it was necessary to paint the head, the breast, and the tailusing black and reddish brown native paints and to coverthe body with white feathers, some ofthe quills ofwhichwere stuck under the breast wrappings and held else-where with fine native cord of Indian hemp. These spec-

imens can be seen in the Museum of the American In-dian in New York City (Fig. 2). Although there is no ac-tual evidence, a superior workmanship of this kind wasprobably not confined to the Indians of the southwest.The French explorer, Baron Lahonan, the Lord Lieuten-ant ofthe French Colony in Newfoundland, recorded theuse of stuffed bird skins on Lake Champlain in 1687.14Mud heaps called "tumps," or the poor man's decoy,placed in shallow water were also used to attract flocks ofducks, as were small stones placed on larger stones toform mock birds resting on land. The Indians used thebow and arrow and crude slings to capture the waterfowlwhen they came within range.

The earliest history of decoys on the American conti-nent is incomplete. Until 1870, we must rely on scatteredreferences addressing only the decoy's existence. The ac-

tual details of the origin and the process ofdevelopmentlie beyond reach of long memories. Early history, there-fore, can be based only on meager printed reports. One

of the earliest mention of American decoys occurs in awork on natural history in the first edition ofAlexanderWilson's American Ornithology, published from 1808 to1814.15 Wilson mentions the placement of paintedwooden figures on bodies of water to attract passingflocks of waterfowl. In the early 1 800s, use of decoys inthe Chesapeake Bay region was little known. During theearly 1850s, however, references were made to decoyspossibly in connection with canvasback shooting, whichwas practiced on the Chesapeake Bay. Both the batteryor sink box and the sneak boat methods were widelyused, particularly in the Upper Bay region on the Sus-quehanna Flats. The rapid development ofdecoys on theChesapeake Bay during the 1850s lead to the suppositionthat this was the place of origin of the decoy. Furtherevidence shows that battery shooting was introduced onthe Chesapeake Bay by some of the experienced water-fowl shooters from the vicinity ofNew York, particularlyLong Island Sound. Atlantic Coastal America is un-doubtedly the birthplace ofthe decoy, but authentic dataas to the exact location of its first use is meager. This,however, does not favor the renowned Chesapeake Bay,but rather perhaps some location on Long Island, NewYork. 16-22The early American settlers in the late seventeenth

century also used crude Indian devices to lure waterfowlin their search for food, but by the early nineteenth cen-tury, the settlers living along coastal and inland watersbegan carving wooden birds. This period in decoy sculp-ture coincides with Ephraim McDowell's famous ovari-otomy performed on Jane Todd Crawford. The settlersused white cedar at first and later white pine. Because ofthe general shape and lack of detail ofthese decoys, theywere called "blocks" and "stools." Along the AtlanticCoast, where they were used for sea duck shooting, theywere strung in a long line with the gunner's boat at oneend and were called "tollers."By the mid 1800s, when Crawford Long, William

Morton, John C. Warren, James Young Simpson, andSpencer Wells were becoming famous for using anesthe-sia in operations, decoy making became a recognizedprofession and a demanding one. In places such as theSusquehanna Flats, as many as 300 to 500 decoys wereset out at one time because the larger the spread, themore birds it drew. Soon the makers began to fashiontheir blocks with painted plumage to closely resemble ac-tual birds and appeared to personalize their decoys.Definite regional types soon developed because of localconditions. The structural detail of the decoys differedalong the Atlantic seaboard from Maine to the Carolinas,depending on weather and water conditions and the typeofgunning.

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, some suc-cessful gastrectomies were being done in Vienna, while

Vol. 219 * No. 5

438 Herrington

along eastern coastal America the number of amateurhunters and professional or market hunters increased.This latter group depended for their livelihood on thewaterfowl that they could shoot and supply to the citymarkets. Market gunning received wide acceptance andpeople from all walks of life made the markets possible.Today we cannot criticize the market gunners withoutblaming all of society. Theirs was a respected professionand we recognize it as an important part of our socialhistory.

After the Civil War, a few small factories began mak-ing decoys, primarily the Stevens Company of Weeds-port, New York and The Dodge and Mason Factories inDetroit, Michigan. The factory decoys ranged in pricefrom $2.50 to $12.00 per dozen. For the most part theywere ofgood design and workmanship, and the plumagepatterns were elaborately painted. They were used inlarge numbers by hunters in the southern and westernstates but were never accepted by gunners along the At-lantic coastline. Today, Mason decoys are in great de-mand by collectors and premier grade birds bring large

23-26sums at auction.The mid part of the nineteenth century to the early

twentieth century marked the greatest era of waterfowlshooting primarily because of the activity of the marketgunners. At that time killing of ducks was excessive. In1846 and 1847, one Chesapeake Bay gunman bagged1,000 canvasbacks in 1 day. Broadbills sold for 25 centsapiece in 1898 and in Bellport, Long Island a hunter shot640 in one day.

Protests against overshooting increased, and in 1913Congress passed The Federal Migratory Bird Law, whichprohibited spring shooting and also the shipment of wa-terfowl for sale. In 1918, The Federal Migratory BirdTreaty Act was passed, which tried to strengthen thetreaty between the United States and Canada and pro-hibited the sale ofwaterfowl. Another event of historicalimportance occurred at about this time. President Dan-iel Gilman ofJohns Hopkins, along with Abraham Flex-ner, Wallace Buttrick, and professors Cullen, Halsted,Kelly, and Welch met with Vanderbilt Chancellor JamesKirkland at the Maryland Club and devised plans to re-organize and save the Vanderbilt Medical School. Withwaterfowl legislation, the market hunters went out ofbusiness. They had been responsible not only for the tre-mendous increase in waterfowl hunting in the late 1800sand the first decade of the 1 900s but also had graduallyperfected their decoys and were making some ofthe bestknown examples possible.

In the 1920s, men such as Joel Barber of Long Island(Fig. 3) and William Mackey ofBelford, New Jersey (Fig.4) turned their attention to the waterfowl decoy as a partof folk art. As result of the new enthusiasm for earlyAmerican culture and artifacts of all kind, sportsmen

Figure 3. The late Joel Barber, New York architect, showed that therewas romance to decoy collecting and that decoy making was an art itself.

and collectors slowly began to collect decoys and amassinformation about their generally obscure artists. Theircraftsmanship differentiated one from another.To quote Adele Earnest, student of folk art, "Decoys

are now recognized as objects of a remarkable beautyand these simple tools are coveted today as an importantAmerican art form highly regarded as reminders of aunique American time and a way of life accomplishingfreedoms and opportunities that will never occur again."The name floating sculpture was given this art form bythe New York architect, carver, and collector Joel Bar-ber. They have found their way into the homes of collec-tors and museums and today many command outstand-ing prices.For the most part, decoy making was a humble art

practiced by watermen who made their living by fishing,gunning, guiding, clamming, and oystering. Decoy mak-ers usually worked in small home workshops equippedwith only the most basic tools. Lumber for decoy makingwas often salvaged from shipwrecks, fence posts, later tel-



William F. Mackey, Jr.

Figure 4. The late Bill Mackey, decoy enthusiast, was the most ardentsupporter of decoy collecting during his lifetime.

ephone poles, or other available sources. Most makersused ordinary household oil paint to decorate their de-coys. White cedar, white pine, cedar, redwood, tupelogum, and basswood were used, depending on availabil-ity.When the Federal Migratory Bird Act of 1918 brought

to an end the marketing and gunning industry, the de-mand for decoys and gunning were markedly reduced.Some carvers continued to make decoys in the tradi-tional manner for sale or for their own use well into the1 950s, but slowly the attention of carvers began to turnfrom function to form. They now tended to be more

finely detailed than the early working birds.

GREAT CRAFTERS AND COLLECTORSOF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

A great boon occurred in decoy carving in 1924 whenJoel Barber organized the first decoy contest and exhibi-tion in Bellport, Long Island. This was about the time

that Donald Balfour advocated gastrectomy for treat-ment of gastrojejunal ulcer that followed many cases ofgastrojejunostomy. That same year, J.M.T. Finney de-scribed his method of end-to-side gastroduodenostomyafter pylorectomy. Both presentations were made at themeeting ofthe Southern Surgical Association. More than100 carvers entered the Bellport contest. The grand prizein the amateur category was awarded to Charles "Shang"Wheeler of Stratford, Connecticut for a highly detailedpair of Mallards that he later gave to Barber as a Christ-mas gift. These prize winning Mallards, along with Bar-ber's collection of more than 1,000 decoys, are now inthe collection of the Shelburne Museum in Shelburne,Vermont. Barber published Wildfowl Decoys, the firstbook on decoys, in 1934.34 His book has introduced sev-eral generations of collectors to the field. Despite the vo-luminous number of books, magazines, and periodicalsdepicting decoys, Barber's book remains a classic.Known as the father of decoy collecting, Joel Barber

wrote extensively on the subject and started the decoycollecting craze that has driven the value offine decoys toincredible heights. As the decoy collector becomes moreknowledgeable, objective evaluation becomes impor-tant. What are the important factors in evaluating a de-coy?

Aesthetics are important. Aesthetic impressions fromthe sculpture, the paint, the bird's condition, and its ori-gin are important. The provenance ofthe bird, that is itspast ownership, should be known. If the maker of thedecoy is well known and admired by collectors, the decoyhas more value than it would if its origin was unknown.Does the decoy have pleasing lines? Is it symmetrical?Is it graceful and does it have character? Is the body inproportion to the head? Is the bill well carved? Is thepaint original and does it have a fine patina? Is the de-coy's condition perfect (this is referred to as "mint")?The rarity of the decoy is an important factor in deter-mining value.Decoys were made in two basic forms-floaters and

stick-ups. Floaters were either made of a solid piece ofwood or from two or more pieces hollowed out andjoined with nails. In either case, the head was almost in-variably carved separately and attached to the body withnails or screws or a wooden dowel. A weight was usuallyattached to the bottom of the decoy to balance it in thewater, and another weight was tied to a lead line at thebird's breast, which often served as an anchor. Decoyswere made to represent many species, including all typesofducks and geese as well as swans and other birds. Dur-ing the nineteenth century, every gunning area in NorthAmerica developed decoy styles particularly suited to lo-cal hunting conditions and methods. The serious and ex-perienced collector can pinpoint with considerable accu-racy the region where a particular decoy was used and

Vol. 219 - No. 5

440 Herrington

can often identify the carver or maker by observing thecharacteristics of the bird's form, and it's carving andconstruction details. These regional styles provide anendless fascinating area of study. The style used by theUpper Chesapeake Bay decoy makers consisted of thecarving of rounded solid bodies to withstand the roughwaters ofthe Bay. The paint patterns were usually simpleand stylized because the birds were used in corrosive saltwater and had to be repainted frequently. The eyes wereusually painted and glass eyes were not used because theywould not withstand the rigors of local use. In contrast,decoys used in calm fresh water were lighter in weight,had hollow bodies, and had detailed anatomic features.Intricate painting was applied to the decoy. Glass eyeswere usually used and owners treated these delicate de-coys with great care, sometimes fitting them in individ-ual carrying bags for protection.

Barber began collecting in 1918 when he found his firstdecoy in an old sail loft in Babylon, New York. Thereaf-ter he began an extensive search for decoys and oftenstated that of all the waterfowl subjected to attraction bydecoys, "I am perhaps the most susceptible bird of all."

In 1940 Barber retired as an architect in New YorkCity and moved to Wilton, Connecticut, where he estab-lished his first decoy museum. After his death, the entirecollection was purchased by the Watson Wells family forthe Museum of American Art in Shelburne, Vermont,where the collection remains today on public display.35

William Mackey was also an early decoy collector anddecoy historian. In 1965 he published his book AmericanBird Decoys, which is still in print.36 He amassed a col-lection of approximately 2,000 decoys and was, withoutquestion, the greatest and the most comprehensive pri-vate collector of his time. The collection was sold at auc-tion in 1973 and 1974 by Richard A. Bourne Companyof Hyannis, Massachusetts. The mind-boggling pricesthat this collection brought aroused the decoy collectingworld and marked the beginning ofthe great growth andinvestment in the wooden bird that continues today. Be-fore his death in the early 1970s, Mackey was unques-tionably the most influential in bringing decoy collectingto its current level of sophistication.

The Art ofthe Decoy is another book of great interestwritten in 1965 by Adele Earnest.37 She was the past co-owner of the Stoney Point Folk Art Museum in StoneyPoint, New York. She was a well-known early dealer ofAmerican folk art and a student of sculpture. Her writ-ings on form, construction, painting, techniques, and re-gional variations have had a great influence on collec-tors. She also wrote FolkArt in America.38 Her outstand-ing decoy collection was recently sold at a 1993 Guyette& Schmidt Auction in St. Charles, Illinois. Another im-portant folk art student is Quintino Colio, who publishedthe book American Decoys in 1972.39

Another influential early collector was Dr. GeorgeRoss Starr ofDuxbury, Massachusetts. He wrote a beau-tiful book, Decoys of the Atlantic Flyway, published in1974.40 Dr. Starr amassed a huge collection by personallytraveling to many small hamlets along the eastern coastand visiting watermen and their families in the smallcoastal towns of that vast area. After his death in 1985,his collection was sold to collectors throughout the coun-try by the Bourne auction firm.4'

It may be of interest to cite some examples of the oldor antique decoys along with their makers who residedalong the Atlantic seaboard from Maine to the Carolinas.Time does not permit an extensive review of these vastareas or of the works of the great makers of Michigan,Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other locations such as theWest Coast, Maritime Canada, Nova Scotia, and Eu-

42,43rope.The great decoys from "down east" represent species

seldom seen but in Cape Cod, Nantucket, and EasternLong Island.44 Joel Barber identified mergansers withMaine in his shanty poem book Long Shore.4s It was thepassion of the great Maine carvers to make mergansers,Scoters, and Eiders, and George Raymond Hughey inthe latter half of the nineteenth century was a master.George was a waterman and he was a happy bachelorwhose laugh was heard all across Friendship's Harbor.Augustus A. Wilson, keeper of the Marshall Pointe

Light at Pointe Clyde, had a broad interest and the eye ofan artist that allowed him to carve birds that they rivaledthe very best. He could capture an unusual pose and cre-ate a decoy that enthralled the seasoned gunners who hadspent their lives observing waterfowl. After the death ofhis second wife, Augustus needed someone to talk to andsaid one day that he was going to carve a full-sized ladyand sit her in the parlor in his wife's clothes. Fred Ander-son, who was then 12 years old, persuaded the respectedWilson not to undertake this venture. Anderson later re-alized he may have prevented the construction ofone ofthe greatest folk art pieces of our time. The well-knownswimming merganser by Gus Wilson is folk art at its best.The form and paint combine to make this one ofhis fin-est creations. In this brief discussion of Maine decoys, Iwill not try to list all the great makers, but simply two ofthe best whose work graces many fine collections.46From their arrival in 1620 in Massachusetts, the pil-

grims and later the puritans gunned in the waters usingtechniques they brought with them and some theylearned from the local Indians. Decoy making beganvery early in Massachusetts.47'48 The earliest decoys datewell before the American Revolution and their origin istraced to Massachusetts. The decoy making traditionwas so strong that it gave rise to a great diversity in form,style, and size. Early on they used canvas-covered framesand even floated stuffed bags to lure ducks. Massachu-



Folk Art USA F

Figure 5. Examples of previous Massachusetts duck stamps represent-ing past decoy makers of that state.

setts carvers have perhaps produced more beautiful de-coys than any other state, and the state honors this tradi-tion with its annual duck stamp, the only state that fea-tures a different decoy every year made by a deceasedMassachusetts decoy maker. An annual competition de-termines which decoy will grace the next year's stamp(Fig. 5).4957

Captain Charles Osgood of Salem was a splendid de-coy maker. His primary interest was in carving Canadiangeese and mergansers. It is said that he sailed to Califor-nia in 1849, and while waiting there for his return cargohe carved five exquisite geese. Upon his return to Massa-chusetts, they were taken to a friend's hunting lodgewhere they remained for the next 100 years. The geeseare now on display at the Shelburne Museum in Ver-mont. At least four splendid Osgood mergansers areknown and one recently sold for five figures at a nationalauction.One of the greatest Massachusetts decoy makers was

Lothrop Holmes (1824-1899), ofKingston on the south-ern shore. He was superintendent ofa local cemetery andan expert craftsman. He also made splendid mergansersthat later brought high prices in the 1 980s at the nationalauctions.

Joel Whiting Lincoln (1859-1938) of Accord, Massa-chusetts was one ofthe greatest decoy makers. This great-ness is based on the collective opinion of those who reg-ularly attend the decoy auctions and vote with theircheckbooks. Lincoln's most noted work was probablythe Carolina wood duck owned by Dr. George Starr,which later sold for five figures at the 1986 Bourne auc-tion (Fig. 6). The hissing Canadian goose is also an out-standing piece offolk art.A contemporary of Lincoln, Anthony Elmer Crowell

(1862-1952) enjoyed a similar reputation. Both menwere gunners and made decoys for sale to market huntersand later to sportsmen. They both worked full- and part-

Figure 6. A Carolina male wood duck by Joe Lincoln has gained widerecognition throughout the collecting world.

time at making waterfowl, either working decoys or dec-orative examples. Crowell's decoys were more naturaland Lincoln's more stylized. Both were master carvers,with Lincoln perhaps having the edge. Both were expertpainters, but Crowell was a master painter, probably thebest decoy painter ever. He could bring a wooden bird tolife with his natural feathery painting. Crowell publishedhis decoy recollections in Eugene Connett's book DuckHunting Along the Atlantic Tidewater in 1946 when hewas 84 years old.

Crowell recalls the days he worked at hunting campshandling live decoys and the 10 years he spent managingDr. John C. Phillips' camp at Winham Lake in Beverly,Massachusetts. Crowell also recalls his 10 years of mak-ing decoys from 1908 to 1918, when he began to makedecorative specimens, ducks, shore birds, song birds,game birds, and miniatures. The decoys and decorativewaterfowl he made for Drs. Phillips and Cunninghamwere among his very bestjudged by the record prices theybrought when they came to auction in the mid 1980s.A preening Canadian goose represents the magnificentpainting characteristic of Crowell's work and the pintaildrake is an exquisite specimen showing his outstandingcarving and painting abilities (Fig. 7).Henry Keyes Chadwick (1865-1958) was a profes-

sional decoy maker in Oak Bluffs, but he was also a fancypoultry raiser, a shoemaker, upholsterer, clock maker,grower of prize-winning dahlias, and was particularlyproud of the fact that he lettered diplomas for HarvardCollege with his fine old-fashioned calligraphy. Chad-wick made approximately 2,000 decoys, and they arehighly prized by modern collectors. The brant and red-breasted merganser shown here are outstanding folk artforms (Fig. 8).Market gunning occurred along the New Hampshire

coast, which provided the Boston market, only about 50

IVol. 219 - No. 5

442 Herrington

Figure 7. The rare pintail drake carved by Crowell around 1900 for Dr.John Phillips of Boston created excitement at a 1986 auction when it wassold for an outstanding price to a private collector.

miles away, with meat for its restaurants and feathers forits hat makers. The center of decoy making appeared tobe the town ofSeabrook, and George Boyd (1873-194 1)was one of the great decoy makers. Among Boyd's finestpieces were a blue-winged teal drake and green-wingedteal drake, which are highly valued. Boyd's works wereoriginally sold at Macy's in New York City and by Aber-crombie & Fitch. After his death, Boyd's decoys reacheda high value and are prized by collectors.Housed in the Shelburne Museum are decoys by

Frank Owen from South Burlington, Vermont, thoughtto be the oldest documented decoys attributable to NorthAmerican carvers. Beginning with Owen and extendingto today, more than 86 decoy makers have been docu-mented on Lake Champlain,58 with most working on theVermont side of the Lake.Rhode Island, harboring the famous Narragansett

Bay, would be expected to have a strong decoy tradition,but most ofthe gunning was done by wealthy sportsmenof Newport and decoys were purchased by makers fromCape Cod and other places.The Connecticut carvers made decoys for their own

use or for their friends. Seldom did they carve for sale.They were mostly gentlemen carvers and typically pro-vided quality birds in limited numbers. As in other geo-graphic areas, a distinctive appearance evolved over theyears in the decoys made in Connecticut.More than any other, the oyster industry was most in-

fluential in spreading decoy carving knowledge. The oys-termen of Long Island Sound were often duck hunters.The watermen ofthe Housatonic River area were proudoftheir achievements in decoy making. There were threeschools of decoy makers in the Long Island Sound area:the Stratford School, the Connecticut River School, andthe Mystic River School. Of the three schools, the Strat-ford or Housatonic River School was the most importantbecause students of the school were held in high esteem

and included important carvers such as Albert Laing(1811-1886), Ben Holmes (1843-1912), and Charles"Shang" Wheeler (1872-1941).'59The birds ofthe classic Stratford School could be easily

identified by certain characteristic features: their elonga-tion, sleekness, and body shape. It is generally agreedamong decoy historians that Albert Laing did the mostto establish the Stratford look. A pintail drake is an ex-ample of his greatness. Careful analysis of Laing's workvividly illustrates his imagination, skill, and artistry. Af-ter Laing's death, the leadership among Connecticutcarvers passed to Ben Holmes, a carpenter by trade, whohad studied under Laing.The leader of the third generation of Stratford carvers

was Charles "Shang" Wheeler.60 Wheeler blended La-ing's artistic flair and Holmes' practical and sculpturalsense. His business and political activities linked himwith prominent public figures and his acquaintanceswith Joel Barber and William Mackey exposed his Strat-ford style to a national audience. Wheeler was a success-ful businessman and a widely respected figure in Con-necticut public life. His life story is as fascinating and asvaried as his artistic works. He was at first a fieldhand,fisherman, pipe fitter, boat builder, and a fishing andhunting guide. He was also a crewman on racing yachts.At one time he was a market gunner, but when hereached his 20s began to settle down. At the turn of thiscentury, he moved to the Stratford area and discoveredthe work he loved; he spent the rest of his life there. Hewas interested in oyster cultivation and harvesting. In1912, he became a general manager of a Connecticutoyster farm in Milford. His concern for conservation ledhim into politics and by entering on a Republican ticket

Figure 8. Keyes Chadwick's brant and red-breasted merganser drakecarved in the early twentieth century.



Figure 9. An early twentieth century Carolina wood duck by Charles"Shang" Wheeler.

he won two terms in the House of Representatives andanother in the state Senate. After achieving his objectivesin pioneering antipollution and wildlife conservation, heretired from political office. He was urged to run for Gov-ernorship ofConnecticut but refused.During his last 25 years, Wheeler carved practically

every variety of waterfowl seen along the Atlantic coast.He carved for personal pleasure and refused to sell hisbirds. Even when the powerful industrialist and automo-bile maker Walter Chrysler offered to buy a group of 60decoys for $250 each, an unheard of price in Wheeler'sday, he refused. The Shelburne Museum and the Con-necticut Audubon Society in Fairfield are the only facili-ties that have a substantial amount of his work. Recentlyhis decoys that have appeared at the national auctionshave sold for high prices. His Carolina wood duck showshis artistic abilities (Fig. 9).The greatest concentration ofdecoy carvers in Upstate

New York was in the small town of Alexandria Bay onthe St. Lawrence River. At one time there were morethan 50 decoy makers in this town alone. Few will dis-pute that Chauncey Wheeler was the headmaster of thelot. The pair ofCanvasbacks shows his artistic skills anddemonstrates his combing and blending techniques.You can readily appreciate the Spencerian calligraphy inhis brush strokes (Fig. 10).Roy A. Conklin was one of Wheeler's many students.

Conklin developed his own style, which depicted thebirds with longer and thinner necks, and his painting wasbold and used brilliant colors. His customers includedmany collectors and Harrods ofLondon and Abercrom-bie & Fitch.61Long Island, New York is best known for its great

shore bird makers, but there are also splendid examples

of old decoys from the area. Obediah Verity was an out-standing maker ofboth shore birds and duck decoys dur-ing the latter part ofthe nineteenth century.Along the great Atlantic Flyway, the New Jersey coast

and the Barnegat Bay were home to more species ofwildfowl than any other area in the country.62 The mostprolific decoy maker was Harry V. Shourds of Tucker-ton, and he created about 20,000 decoys. An outstandingpair of red-breasted mergansers are representative of hisart.

Further south, the Delaware River area63 was fortu-nate to have the extraordinary decoy craftsmanship ofJohn Blair (1866-1900) and his contemporary, John En-glish (1875-1910). Adele Earnest commented on thecrafters of this area: "Decoys from old hunting rigs as inDelaware represent many things. They are superb folkart, beautiful floating sculpture full of history with theremembrance of less complex times and a matching ofwits with nature."The graceful skipjacks that once ruled the mighty

Chesapeake Bay have all but disappeared and the wa-termen who plied the Bay and harvested its bounty havediminished. Both were victims ofchanging times and theenvironmental havoc that damaged the Bay for years.64Even with present conservation measures, it will neverapproach the level of productivity it enjoyed at the turnof the century. The Chesapeake Bay is America's largestestuary and encompasses a magnificent 4,000 miles ofshore line along Maryland and Virginia. The Bay is di-vided into three distinct areas and each produced carverswho developed their own easily recognizable style. TheUpper and Middle Bay decoys were made for use in thechoppy open waters, whereas in the Lower Bay decoyswere made for use in the tidal marshes. On the UpperBay much of the gunning was done by the market hunt-ers on the Susquehanna Flats at Havre de Grace in Har-

Figure 10. The magnificent canvasback pair by Chauncey Wheeler dis-plays the Spencerian calligraphy in his detailed painting.

Vol.219-No.5

444 Herrington

Figure 11. Steve (/eft) and Lem Ward (right) of Crisfield, Maryland (circa1965).

ford County and the gunners' favorite tool was the sinkbox.6566 Harford County also has a place in surgical his-tory. It was the site of the first gastric operation per-formed in America. In 1812, John Archer of HarfordCounty sutured a gastric stab wound. Archer, in 1768,was among the first in America to receive a medical di-ploma, from the Philadelphia Medical School, the fore-runner ofthe University ofPennsylvania. One ofthe ear-lier decoy makers and market hunters was John"Daddy" Holly, who was born in 1819. A Canvasbackpair demonstrate his bold and strong lifelike creations.Sam Barnes, Charles Bernard, and Robert McGaw werealso noted decoy makers. The last ofthe great Upper Baymaster carvers, R. Madison Mitchell, recently died at age91 .67Down the Bay from Havre de Grace is the Middle Bay

area, probably the best known part of the Chesapeakethanks to James Mitchner's book Chesapeake.68 Theseareas include Tilghman's Island, Rock Hall, Kent Island,Easton, Oxford, and Cambridge. All have a seafaring andhunting tradition that has produced many memorablecarvers. Almost all the great makers of the area are nowdead, except for Charlie Joiner of Chestertown, who isstill making decoys in the Middle Bay area. His birds arebeautifully painted and are highly prized by collectors.

Further down the Bay is the town ofCrisfield, home ofthe Ward brothers Lem and Steve (Fig. 11), who are bothdead, who were perhaps the best known and respected ofany ofthe Maryland decoy makers. Some collectors andartists feel the Wards were perhaps the most talented andprolific makers of all time.69-80 They started decoy mak-ing by working in their father's decoy shop and then be-

gan carving as a team in 1918. Their reputation spreadand decoy making with them became a profession. Fromthe early 1920s to the mid 1950s they made and soldbirds to gunning clubs all over America. Steve proved tobe the better carver while Lem excelled in painting. TheWard brothers were barbers by trade and both were alsopoets. Each loved to write and record his work. Neitherofthe brothers ever had a formal art lesson. By the 1950s,many collectors were seeking Ward birds. During the late1950s, they changed their style from the working or gun-ning bird to the decorative or ornamental type. As theirreputation grew, they eventually earned the title "Coun-terfeiters in Wood." Steve died in 1975 and Lem died in1984. They both became legends in decoy making his-tory. The Ward Foundation Wildfowl Museum in Salis-bury, Maryland, which opened in 1971, was dedicated totheir honor. Recently a new and beautiful Ward Mu-seum was built in Salisbury overlooking Schumate Lake(Fig. 12).The Widgeon drake is an early working bird carved by

the Wards in the early 1920s. A pair of Pintail ofdifferentstyle were carved in 1935 and were also used in gunning.They were later retired and at one time were owned bythe entertainer Andy Williams. The beautiful BlackDuck marks the transition when in the late 1950s thebrothers began to carve more decorative and ornamentalbirds not to be used for gunning purposes, but to be dis-played in collector's homes and in museums (Fig. 13).Note the character and the beautiful carving ofthe BlackDuck's cheeks and also observe the simple but beautifullines in the wing and feather patterns. A pair of orna-mental Canvasbacks were carved in the late 1960s andrepresent one of their finest efforts. Perhaps one of theirgreatest pieces carved in 1970 is the pair of TundraSwans. The Ward brothers made only one pair of thesebeautiful birds and they are now on permanent displayin the Ward Museum. Also another outstanding piece is

Figure 12. Artist's sketch of the new Ward Wildlife Art Museum in Salis-bury, Maryland, which opened in 1992.

Ann. Surg. - May 1994


Figure 13. The Ward black duck carved in the late 1950s represents atransition from the earlier gunning or working bird to an early decorativetype (private collection).

the preening snow goose, which was carved in the late1960s. It was at one time on exhibit at the MetropolitanMuseum ofArt in New York City and is now in a privatecollection (Fig. 14).Today the eastern shore of Virginia is like looking

back to a past civilization. The way of life there has notbeen greatly affected by modern civilization. It is an areawhere decoy making holds a special place in its local cul-ture. Most of the Virginia carvers were primarily foundin two Virginia counties: Accomac County to the northand Northampton County, which extends to the tip ofthe peninsula where the Atlantic Ocean and the Chesa-peake Bay me8183Among the many Chincoteaque carvers of Accomac

County, the most famous was Ira Hudson (1876-1949).He was also a boat builder and his artistic ability spreadfar and wide. A rare hooded merganser shows his tech-nique with scratch painting.

Miles Hancock (1888-1974) was the best waterfowlhunter on Chincoteaque Island. He was undoubtedly in-fluenced by Ira Hudson and for many years helped Hud-son fill his decoy orders.

Charles Jester (1876-1952) and his cousin SamuelJester (1876-1961) were also outstanding decoy makers.One that probably best represents the old school is Del-bert "Cigar" Daisey, who still resides on Chincoteaque.His fame as a decoy maker and waterman are well re-spected throughout the decoy world.Moving further down the coast in Northampton

County is the home of the Cobb family, who inhabitedCobb Island from 1839 to 1896. The Cobbs made per-haps the boldest and most innovative decoys in all ofVir-ginia. Today Cobb Island is a wild and uninhabited placemuch like it was in 1839 when Nathan Cobb Senior ar-rived there with his wife Nancy and three young sons.Cobb was a ship builder in Cape Cod, Massachusetts,

and when he discovered that his wife had tuberculosis,he was advised to move to a warmer climate. The familyset sail in a schooner, and in the midst of a storm wereforced to an inlet near the town of Oyster, Virginia. Thefamily set up housekeeping there. Nathan Cobb becamerestless and desired to move to the wild sandy beaches ofthe barrier islands off the coast of Virginia. The familybought Grand Sand Shool for $150.00 and it becameknown as Cobb Island. There the family made a fortunein the salvage business by rescuing the cargo ships thathad foundered offthe coast. Along with the salvage busi-ness, the Cobbs became market hunters. They later builtthe Cobb Island Hotel, and many wealthy sportsmencame there to hunt ducks. Cobb died in 1890 at the age of92, and later a storm hit the island that destroyed almosteverything. The Cobb family made extraordinary de-coys, carved lifelike poses, and had an innovative style.Their carved decoys were in great demand, and todaywhen one is available at auction, the bidding among col-lectors is an outstanding event and exciting to observe. ACobb goose, owned by Adele Earnest, recently sold formore than six figures at a national auction.

Battery or sink box shooting was very popular inNorth Carolina on Pimlico and Albemarde Sounds,Back Bay, Currituck, Mattamaskeet, and along the bar-rier islands. Cast iron decoys were used as a memorablepart ofthe battery and sink box rigs. The gunners' water-tight box was literally below the water level being sup-ported by hinged wings extending from the front and twosides of the box or battery. The iron wing decoys wereplaced on the wings of the sink box for stability. Oftenthe kills in these contraptions were barbaric, with thou-sands of waterfowl being destroyed each day. The mostfamous decoy makers were the twin brothers Lee andLem Dudley of Knotts Island, North Carolina. Theywere born in 1861, and during their lifetime their carvingoutput was prolific.84

Figure 14. The Ward preening snow goose, except for the head andneck, was carved from one block of wood.

Vol. 219 * No. 5

446 Herrington

-. .::.......................

.. :.::!:..... .. :.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... ...

Figur 1.jA pai of deoatv pitiscredb:: otei h i*:0 (pivt collection)

In 1981, a team of 16 knowledgeable collectors fromdifferent parts ofthe country assembled at the ShelburneMuseum to discuss and evaluate the fabulous collectionthat had been assembled by the Watson Webb family,who founded the museum in 1947. They judged morethan 1,500 decoys, and a Dudley Ruddy duck was cho-sen as the top decoy in this prestigious collection.

Until recently many serious decoy collectors, includ-ing the late Joel Barber, believed there were no great ex-amples of hand-made decoys from South Carolina.Eventually a group of Southerners became aware of asmall number of elegantly carved and sculpturally re-fined decoys discovered along the coastal waterways ofGeorgetown, South Carolina. Further research showedthat these decoys were made by the Caines brothers, wholived in Caines Village of the South Island region not farfrom Georgetown. The brothers were commercial fish-erman and hunters in the mid 1 800s and early 1 900s. Wedo not know which of the five brothers was actually theoutstanding decoy maker.85A pair of Caines mallards recently appeared at one of

the major auctions. These decoys had an interestingprovenance and at one time had been owned by TomYawkey, a former owner ofthe Boston Red Sox baseballteam. At auction, the decoys created tremendous excite-ment on the part of the gallery, and each bird fetched aprice ranging in six figures.

Extensive research has shown that the coastal areas ofGeorgia produced no famous decoy makers and this isalso true ofboth coastal areas of Florida.The Illinois River must be included in this discussion

because it was home to many decoy makers. Each decoyhad a character and an individual style that identified itsmaker.

Paul Parmalee and Forrest Loomis were commis-sioned by the state of Illinois to document all decoys

made there. More than 200 carvers were recorded intheir splendid book, The Decoys and Decoy Carvers ofIllinois, published in 1969.86 The most prolific and bestknown maker of the Illinois River was Charles Perdew(1874-1963).87,88 His wife, Edna, painted most of his de-coys and used a combing technique that was used bymany of the Illinois River carvers to emulate the ducks'vermiculations by combing the thick wet paint with anEnglish furniture graining comb.Robert Ellison (1849-1915) was the first known com-

mercial carver in the state. He learned wood carving atthe Studebaker Shops in South Bend, Indiana. His de-coys were wider and flatter than most Illinois River de-coys, which eliminated the tendency of the decoy to rollin rough waters. All of his birds were painted by his wife,Catherine, and her painting was free flowing and appeal-ing.

Bert Graves (1887-1956) was an outstanding decoymaker and most ofGraves' decoys were painted by Cath-erine Ellison, Robert's widow and Bert's sister-in-law.

Figure 16. An outstanding composition capturing green-winged teal inflight shows the skill of Jim Sprankle of Chester, Maryland.



....... ........

Figure 17. The pair of black ducks by Oliver Lawson is an outstandingcomposition. Not only is the craftsmanship superb but he has also cap-tured the aftitude and facial expressions of the birds (private collection).

Another sister-in-law, Millie Graves, assisted in thepainting. Both women used the paint patterns that Cath-erine used on her husband's decoys.Another well-known Illinois maker was Charles

Schoenhieder (1856-1924), best known today amongcollectors for his standing "ice" ducks and geese. Hewould completely round off the body of the decoy andmount it on to a single medal foot that was cast in iron.

Charles Walker (1876-1954) carved decoys exclu-sively for club members. His decoys are considered bymost collectors to be the classic Illinois River decoy.

Hector Wittington (1907-1981) is considered amongthe first transition carvers. He began by making decoysbut later was among the first to progress to competitionbirds for the various contests that started in the easternportion of the United States in the late 1940s.Frank Cassini (1899-1976), an Illinois River carver,

was also one ofthe first transition carvers who painted inoils and used realistic detail patterns.A preening mallard hen by Charles Perdew is repre-

sentative of the splendid work done by the Illinois Rivercarvers. The bird is beautifully painted and the primaryfeathers are carved in relief. This decoy has been praisedhighly by collectors.The Bayou Lafourche country of southwest Louisiana

extending down to the Gulf was the home of many finedecoy makers, including the Roussells, Whipples, Du-plessis, Vidacovitch, Bourg, Vizier, Alfonzo Lafrance,and others. It is unfortunate that Joel Barber and Wil-liam Mackey in their extensive research did not investi-gate and cite the splendid work done by the Louisianacarvers. It has remained, however, for Charles Frank ofNew Orleans, author, collector, carver, businessman,and long-time friend of Isidore Cohn, Jr., to thoroughlystudy the makers of this area and to document their

beautiful works with the splendid books and magazinearticles he has written.89-91 The decoys of this region arelight and longer in length and are constructed from cy-press root and tupelo gum.

Louisiana hunting was famous for its great numbers ofwaterfowl and the hospitality of its people. The huntersfrequently used decoys carved by their guide and manyof the best known carvers were guides. Most of the de-coys were unsigned and frequently owners did not knowwho had carved them. This situation has now changedand the provenance ofthe decoy is now more readily es-tablished and appreciated by collectors.The Vizier family has long been a highly respected

family in the Bayou Lafourche area. Clovis and Odeewere 2 of 10 children of Siredi Beauregard Vizier. TheViziers' origin lies in the Maritime provinces ofCanada.Cadice Vizier was a well-respected maker at the lowerend ofBayou Lafourche. The Viziers are a very close knitfamily and you hear their name recur in the tapestry ofLouisiana folk art and in the carving of decoys. CaptainJimmy Vizier, a member of this distinguished family,lives in Cuttoff, Louisiana and is a famous decoy makerand teacher. He is the father-in-law ofPatrick Godin, thewidely known Canadian wood sculptor who will be men-tioned later.

It is indeed surprising with the past fabulous duckhunting experienced in the northwestern portions ofTennessee, which include the Reelfoot Lake area, cre-ated by a massive earthquake in 1811, and the hugepinoak flooded timbers in the adjacent Obion bottoms,that no famous decoy makers came from this area duringthe days of market gunning. Russell Caldwell in hissplendid book on Reelfoot Lake mentions the use of fac-tory-made Mason decoys, crude decoys carved by thecommercial hunters, and canvas decoys made by a smallfactory in Union City, Tennessee.92 Reelfoot Lake, how-ever, is, famous in it's history for outstanding duck callmakers.93 Caldwell94 states from his research that duringthe late 1800s, waterfowl were so plentiful, particularlythe mallard and other puddle ducks, that the birds re-sponded beautifully to calls and decoys were not neces-sary to attract them. This was also true in the great mal-lard gunning in Arkansas. In contrast, the diving duckspecies, such as the canvasback, red head, and scaupfound in abundance along the New Jersey, Delaware,and Maryland coasts, are attracted to decoys and not tothe duck call.

CONTEMPORARY DECOY MAKERSA few contemporary decoy makers continue to carve

in the traditional styles ofthe working or gunning decoysof the late nineteenth century. These artists for the mostpart reside in parts of New England along the Upper

Vol. 219 * No. 5

448 Herrington

Figure 18. The superb carving of a pair of black ducks and muskrat byPatrick Godin won "Best of Show" at the 1982 Ward ChampionshipContest. It is now on permanent display in the Ward Museum at Salisbury,Maryland.

Chesapeake Bay and near the coastal waters of Virginiaand North Carolina. They are students ofthe old mastersand their decoys pay tribute to the great workmanship ofsuch men as Nathan Cobb, Harry Shourds, Ira Hudson,and Madison Mitchell.On the other hand, many of the contemporary decoy

makers are well-trained artists. Many are graduates ofartinstitutions and some are skilled in flat work art andpainting as well as sculpture, wood, and bronze. It is afull-time profession and many seminars and workshopsare constantly held here and in Europe, Japan, andChina. Much ofthe work of current artists is highly styl-ized and consists ofelaborate detailed compositions withprecision feather by feather carving, burning, texturing,and painting. Complex power tools are used in these pro-ductions and some pieces take months to complete.Also, a tremendous amount of research is done beforethe actual carving begins.The pair of highly decorative pintails is an example of

the splendid carving done by the current artist Jim Footeof Gibraltar, Michigan (Fig. 15). In addition, Foote is askilled flat work artist, and the king eiders are an exampleof his artistic works. The flying green-winged teal repre-sents a unique artistic presentation done by Jim Sprankleof Chester, Maryland, a former major league baseballpitcher (Fig. 16). Sprankle is highly regarded as a splen-did teacher of wildfowl art and holds seminars all overthe world. A beautiful canvasback hen is highly decora-tive, beautifully carved, and magnificently painted. Itrepresents the work of the renowned Larry Hayden ofFarmington, Michigan. In addition, Hayden is an inter-nationally known flat work artist, and his Carolina woodducks swimming on a pond represent a magnificentpainting. The pair of black ducks on a sandy beach rep-resent one of Oliver Lawson's finest carvings (Fig. 17).Note that the shells lying on the beach are also carvedfrom basswood. The composition took Lawson manymonths to assemble. Lawson is a native of Crisfield,Maryland and received part of his training under Lemand Steve Ward.One of the most talented sculptors is Patrick Godin of

Bradford, Ontario, Canada. The composition ofa pair ofblack ducks and muskrat won national recognition at theWorld Decoy Show in Ocean City, Maryland a few yearsago (Fig. 18). Godin is also an author and teacher andholds sculpture seminars around the world. The out-standing gadwall drake was carved by Jett Brunet ofGal-liano, Louisiana (Fig. 19). The Brunet family, consistingof father and two sons, are internationally known woodsculptors, and their works have been displayed through-out this country and abroad. In addition, they are flatwork artists of distinction. A pair of decorative green-winged teal by Don Briddell of Mt. Airy, Maryland is anoutstanding artistic composition.

Figure 19. The gadwall drake by Jett Brunet recently won top honors atthe World Championship Contest in Ocean City, Maryland. Note the ex-quisite painting, texturing, burning and feathering detail.

Ann. Surg. - May 1994


These are but a few ofthe outstanding wood sculpturesbeing done by talented contemporary artists.Our association with these fine artists and the friend-

ships that have developed have broadened and enrichedour lives immeasurably. The art of the knife in surgeryand the art ofthe knife in wood: Both surgeon and artistmust see beneath the surface to understand a patient'sillness or to present art in new imaginative ways.

This great extension in my life and involvement in an-other field of art has made the transition from operatingroom to retirement most challenging and has openednew horizons for Mamie and me.

REFERENCES

1. Southgate MT. Personal communication, 1993.2. Southgate MT. JAMA 1991; 266:the cover.3. Wilder JR. Athletes. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby, 1985.4. Osborne WD. Wildfowl counterfeiters. The American Sportsman

1970;3(1).5. Walsh HM. The Outlaw Gunner. Cambridge, MD: Tidewater

Publishing, 1971.6. Gallwey-Payne R. The Book ofDuck Decoys. London, 1886.7. Folkard HC. The Wildfowler. London, 1875.8. Lewis EJ. Lewis's American Sportsmen. Philadelphia, 1885.9. Long JW. American Wildfowl Shooting. New York, 1874.

10. Forester F. Complete Manuel for Young Sportsmen. New York,1856.

11. Hawker P. Instructions to Young Sportsmen. 5th ed. London,1826.

12. Whitaker J. British Duck Decoys ofToday. London, 1918.13. Loud LL, Harrington MR. Excavations of Lovelock Cave 1911-

1924. CA: University ofCalifornia Press, 1929.14. Lahonan. New Voyages to North America. Original letters. Bou-

cherville, May 28, 1687. London, 1703.15. Wilson A. Wilson's American Ornithology (1808-1814). As

quoted in Field Sports by Frank Forester. New York: Stringer &Townsend, 1864.

16. Giraud JP. Birds ofLong Island 1844. As quoted in Field Sports byFrank Forester. New York: Stringer & Townsend, 1864.

17. Miller SM. Early American Waterfowling 1700s- 1930. Piscata-way, NJ: New Century Publishing, 1986.

18. Bruette WA. American Duck, Goose and Brant Shooting. NewYork: G. Howard Watt, 1929.

19. Bruette WA. Sportsmen's Encyclopedia.2 Vols. New York: Forest& Stream Publishing, 1923.

20. Heilner VC. A Book on Duck Shooting. Philadelphia: The Penn-sylvania Publishing Co., 1939.

21. Phillips JC. A Natural History of the Ducks. Cambridge, MA:Houghton Mifflin, 1930.

22. Reiger G. The Winds of Dawn: The Complete Book of NorthAmerican Waterfowling. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Stein and DayPublishing, 1980.

23. Fleckenstein HA Jr. American Factory Decoys. Exton, PA:Schiffer Publishing, 1981.

24. Delph J, Delph S. Factory Decoys of Mason, Stevens, Dodge andPeterson. Exton, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 1980.

25. Cheever B. Mason Decoys. Heber City, UT: Hillcrest Publishing,1974.

26. Goldberger RJ, Haid AG. Mason Decoys: A Complete PictorialGuide. Burtonsville, MD: Decoy Magazine, 1993.

27. Engers J. The Great Book of Wildfowl Decoys. San Diego, CA:Thunder Bay Press, 1990.

28. Walsh RE. Gunning the Chesapeake. Cambridge, MD: TidewaterPublishing, 1960.

29. Connett EV, ed. Wildfowling in the Mississippi Flyway. NewYork: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1949.

30. Richardson RH. Chesapeake Bay Decoys: The Men Who Madeand Used Them. Burtonsville, MD: Decoy Magazine, 1991.

31. McKinney JE. Decoys of the Susquehanna Flats and Their Mak-ers. Burtonsville, MD: Decoy Magazine, 1990.

32. Kangas G, Kangas L. Decoys: A North American Survey. SpanishFork, UT: Hillcrest Publishing, 1983.

33. Webster DS, Kehoe W. Decoys at the Shelbourne Museum. Re-vised edition. Shelbourne, VE: Shelbourne Museum, 1971.

34. Barber J. Wildfowl Decoys. New York: Dover Publishing, 1934.35. Shaw R. Personal communication, 1993.36. Mackey WF Jr. American Bird Decoys. New York: E.P. Dutton &

Co., 1965.37. Earnest A. The Art of the Decoy. New York: Clarkson N. Potter,

1965.38. Earnest A. Folk Art in America. Exton, PA: Schiffer Publishing,

1984.39. Colio Q. American Decoys. Private printing, 1972.40. StarrGR Jr. Decoys ofthe Atlantic Flyway. New York: Winchester

Press, 1974.41. The Rare Decoy Collection ofG.R. Starr, Jr., 1986. Hyannis Port,

MA: R.A. Bourne Company, 1986.42. Engers J. The Great Book of Wildfowl Decoys. San Diego, CA:

Thundra Bay Press, 1990.43. Engers J. Personal communication, 1993.44. Kangas G, Kangas L. Decoys. Paducah, KY: Schroeder Publish-

ing, 1990.45. Barber J. Long Shore. New York: Darrydale Press, 1931.46. Shaw R. Decoys: a unique American art. Western Art Digest 1985;

Summer: 102-107.47. Murphy S. Martha's Vineyard Decoys. Boston: David R. Godine,

1978.48. Houston Museum of Natural Science. Call to the Sky. The decoy

collection ofJames M. McCleery, M.D. Houston: Gulf Publishing,1992.

49. Sorenson H.D. Decoy Collectors Guide. Harold D. Sorenson pub.,1963-1979.

50. Phillips JC. Shooting Stands ofEastern Massachusetts. Cambridge,MA: Riverside Press, 1929.

51. Phillips JC. Shooting Records. Wenham Lake and the "FarmBag." 1926-1935. Cambridge, MA: 1936.

52. Cullity B. The Songless Aviary. The World of A.E. Crowell andSon Exhibit. heritage Plantation of Sandwich, Massachusetts. Hy-annis, MA: The Patriot Press, 1992.

53. Delph J, Delph S. New England Decoys. Exton, PA: Schiffer Pub-lishing, 19341.

54. Mackay GH. Shooting Journal of George Mackay. Cambridge,MA: The Cosmos Press, 1929.

55. Phillips JC. American Waterfowl. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,1930.

56. Connett EV, ed. Duck Shooting along the Atlantic Tidewater. NewYork: William Morrow, 1947.

57. French J. Personal communication, 1993.58. Harrell LS. Decoys ofLake Champlain. West Chester, PA: Schiffer

Publishing, 1986.59. Chitwood HC. Connecticut Decoys. West Chester, PA: Schiffer

Publishing, 1987.60. Merkt DM, Lytle MH. Shang: A Biography ofCharles E. Wheeler.

Spanish Fork, UT: Hillcrest Publishing, 1984.

Vol. 219 - No. 5

450 Herrington

61. Engers J. The Great Book of Wildfowl Decoys. San Diego, CA:Thundra Bay Press, 1990.

62. Fleckenstein HA Jr. New Jersey Decoys. Exton, PA: Schiffer Pub-lishing, 1983.

63. Fleckenstein HA Jr. Delaware River. In Decoys ofthe Mid AtlanticArea. Exton, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 1979, pp 57-58.

64. Whitehead JH III. The Waterman of the Chesapeake Bay. Rich-mond, VA: John Whitehead, 1979.

65. McKinney JE. Decoys of the Susquehanna Flats and Their Mak-ers. Burtonsville, MD: Decoy Magazine, 1990.

66. Hagan J, Hagan D. Upper Chesapeake Bay Decoys and their Mak-ers. West Chester, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 1989.

67. Roblins CL. R. Madison Mitchell: His Life and Decoys. Bel Air,MD: Stockton Printing, 1987.

68. Michener JA. Chesapeake. New York: Random House, 1978.69. Ward LT and Brothers. Wildfowl Counterfeiters. Crisfield, Mary-

land. Heber City, UT: North American Decoys Publishing, 1966.70. Berkey BR, Berkey V, Berkey RE. Pioneer Decoy Carvers: A Biog-

raphy of Lemuel and Stephen Ward. Cambridge, MD: TidewaterPublishing, 1977.

71. Lawson G. The Story of Lem Ward. West Chester, PA: SchifferPublishing, 1984.

72. Gard RJ, McGrath BJ. The Ward Brothers Decoys. Plano, TX:Thomas B. Reel Company, 1989.

73. Basile K, Doerzback C. American decorative bird carving exhibi-tion presented by the North American Wildfowl Art Museum.Salisbury, Maryland, 1981, at the Maryland Historical Society Mu-seum.

74. Reed C. Personal communication, 1993.75. Rue R. Personal communication, 1993.

76. Baker V. Personal communication, 1993.77. Dyke S. Personal communication, 1993.78. Dean H. Personal communication, 1993.79. Brown D. Personal communication, 1993.80. Briddell D. Personal communication, 1993.81. Ridges B. Decoy Ducks. New York: W.H. Smith, 1988.82. Berkey B, Berkey V. Chincoteaque Carvers and Their Decoys. Get-

tysburg, PA: HerffJones University Publishing, 1981.83. Fleckenstein HA Jr. Southern Decoys of Virginia and the Caro-

linas. Exton, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 1983.84. Conoley WN Jr. Waterfowl Heritage: North Carolina Decoys and

Gunning Lore. Wendell, NC: Webfoot Inc., 1982.85. Oliver RO. Auction Catalog. Important American Waterfowl De-

coys: The Caines Brothers Decoys from the Yawkey Estate. Ken-nebunk, ME: Oliver's Auction Gallery, 1992.

86. Parmalee PW, Loomis FD. Decoys and Decoy Carvers of Illinois.Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1969.

87. Lacy AT. Perdew. An Illinois River Tradition. Munice, IN: BoyceFarms Systems, 1993.

88. Haid AG. Illinois. In Decoys ofthe Mississippi Flyway. Exton, PA:Schiffer Publishing, 1981, pp 151-200.

89. Frank C.W.Jr. Wetland Heritage. The Louisiana Duck Decoy.Gretna, PA: Pelican Publishing, 1985.

90. Frank CW Jr. Personal communication, 1993.91. Frank CW Jr. Louisiana Duck Decoys. New Orleans, LA: Harvey

Press, 1975.92. Caldwell R. Reelfoot Lake: History. Duck Call Makers: Hunting

Tales. Union City, TN: Caldwell Office Outfitters, 1988.93. Harlan HL, Anderson WC. Duck Calls: An Enduring American

Folk Art. Nashville, TN: Harlan-Anderson Press, 1988.94. Caldwell R. Personal communication, 1993.


the art of the knife

Documents