The Case of the missing Holly's
Considered the father of Chesapeake bay Susquehanna flats Canvasback decoys, John "Daddy" Holly was born in 1818 in Havre de Grace, Maryland. Holly is responsible for the Harford county style of Canvasback decoy and all carvers that followed crafted decoys that can be traced to the original lines and form of Holly's early decoy creations. What remains a mystery concerns earlier decoys that John Holly is credited to have made that seem lost to history.
The earliest attempts of Holly to craft a decoy is so far pegged to the 1850 - 1860 era. This would have made Daddy thirty-two to forty-two in this time period. Many believe that he carved decoys when younger. There is also a belief that an early example of a Holly decoy would not have varied much from a mature decoy. There is no solid logic to prove this as prototypes of any material creation can tend to be very crude.
There are efforts to push back the dates various East coast gunning clubs were formed to accommodate the accumulation of Holly decoys, to account for the missing early models. This assumes that the most early examples of Holly Canvasback decoys in existence are the original or close to it.
There is no reliable evidence to my knowledge that there were not early Holly decoys that have been lost, destroyed or eradicated in some manner. In this time period hunting methods and firearms to kill game were in themselves very crude and unsophisticated. It is likewise very probably that any decoys made in these times were also very crude. Materials like waterproof putty to seal head, weight, and line tie nails and attachments may not have even been available, or at least in the quality and quantity to construct many decoys.
The further back in history we go the quality of paint materials also falls off rapidly. It could have taken many years to evolve decoys that would be sturdy and remain serviceable for long periods of time. Primitive and inferior metal alloy combinations used to make iron nails used as head, weight and line ties could also play a part in not only the unproved construction and design of the decoys, but in their longevity.
A theory I propose is that if indeed there were early Holly decoys in existence between the timeframe of 1830 to 1850 they are either still to be discovered which at this late date seems unlikely or that they have become victims of the passage of time and the environment. This especially involves the nature of dry-rot and the destructive element it introduces into any wood and moisture milieu.
I have determined that once dry-rot takes hold and gets established in Upper Chesapeake decoys it spreads at a rate of approximately one inch per thirty years both horizontally and vertically. It tends to follow any metal nail and for this reason is especially evident in the front one third of the decoys as water enters the line tie and or head and spreads to the opposing metal nails either from the head or line tie area, and eventually dry-rot takes hold. It is also factual that the iron bottom weights used on Susquehanna decoys of the early period in themselves led to rot, because of the large diameter double holes from the spikes on each end of the weight; this is one reason they were discarded in favor of lead weights attached with galvanized nails.
If we take a hypothetical Daddy Holly decoy from the 1830's and extrapolate the destructive nature of dry-rot which exists in many Upper Chesapeake bay decoys, we can deduce that by the 1930's or before said decoys may have been rendered crippled by dry-rot and disposed of. The average vertical depth of most Susquehanna decoys between the bottom of the breast and the top of body underlying the head only averages three inch's after 1850. It is thought that if early models existed there was even less body depth in the breast, add this to the more primitive nature of early decoy construction and poor storage methods and it's easy to conclude that there was a potential for an increased rate of accelerated decay. At a rate of decay of one inch or more in thirty years, it is possible for a 1830's decoy to be unusable by 1900 or before. There were few if any collectors of Upper Chesapeake decoys before the 1900 and they were cheap, plentiful and disposable even up until the 1950's or later.
I have examined Susquehanna decoys that are one hundred years old or less that have been almost made a empty shell in the front one third of the decoy body by dry-rot. These are well constructed decoys with fairly modern fasteners and paint. Usually what is left is a fine powder of wood residue mixed with fibers that have not yet fully deteriorated. Bacterial dry-rot never sleeps and continues to work its destructive cancer spreading through woods fibrous structure over time, unless checked and stabilized by professional restoration methods Add in the potentially poor construction of early experimental decoys and the possible shoddy metal fasteners and paint and you have decoys eventually fit for the wood stove or laid aside and forgotten until they were no more.
Many early waterman including gunners, carvers, boat storage and decoy rig keepers resided in little more than shacks by the waters edge. Large numbers of decoys were simply stored for long periods of time in piles sitting on mud banks. This is more than a perfect environment for rot to set in, especially the decoys on the bottom of the pile. It is believed that early Susquehanna decoys were flatter than later designs and have been described as pancake models. If this is the case. in choppy water more water would have entered the critical head/body connection of a flatter decoy keeping the wood fibers wet for long periods of time, making perfect conditions for accelerated dry-rot. Weights of the early period would have been horseshoes or other iron that was much more conducive to water entry than later poured lead weights.
Early Holly decoys between 1830 and 1850, especially if they were the pancake design would also have been considered an inferior design by 1900. The rounder Holly decoys fell out of favor for more elongated models. If these lost Holly's did exist, it seems probably that at least one would have been collected by someone. But then again would a wagon wheel maker of the same period have kept a wagon wheel for posterities sake ? Probably not, and decoys of the period had the same utilitarian nature as a wagon wheel. I believe only later did any decoy take on any significance as a potential gift, family heirloom or art object, at least until 1850/60. With the general public, much later.
The above is my take on the mystery of the missing Holly's. Who knows maybe one will show up some day from some old spooky mansions attic somewhere, dry and rot free. Certainly artifacts have been uncovered in the modern era from much more ancient times.