Museum of Upper Chesapeake bay Canvasback antique old wooden duck working decoys of the Susquehanna flats:
John Holly (circa 1880) Sam Barnes (circa 1900) Will Heverin (circa 1900) Lum Fletcher (circa 1910)
Bob McGaw (circa 1925) Paul Gibson (1930) M. Mitchell (circa 1935) Charlie Bryan (circa 1960)
Chesapeake Old Decoys is dedicated to the spirit of the waterman and decoy carvers of the Chesapeake bay. Our experience centers around the Susquehanna flats, Gunpowder and Middle river areas, and on the Eastern shore, Cecil and Kent counties. Our site also includes historic information of the totality of Chesapeake bay. Our interest is not just decoys, but the larger framework of all aspects of the bay that make it so unique. We are a comprehensive on-line living book surpassing any other media format in our scope and depth of information concerning Susquehanna decoys and Chesapeake bay culture. We strive to not only bring new and overlooked aspects of Upper Chesapeake decoy collecting to the fore, but to help bring needed change to help preserve, protect and care for all aspects of bay history and the future environment of the Chesapeake.
The above sequence of decoys follows a chronological order concerning the evolution of the working Upper-Chesapeake bay decoy block. I have field tested these and other decoys to determine what works best in conditions ranging from dead calm to heavy wind and choppy water, on to severe winter weather and running ice. There are other makes of Susquehanna flats decoys that could be included in this lineup. I feel this collection best represents some the of the most well known carvers who contributed excellent work concerning experimentation in the search for the perfect working decoy. A number of books have delved into the Who, What, Where and When of Susquehanna decoy carvers. What seems to be missing is the Why. Its known that different carvers developed different styles of decoys. To my knowledge there is not much information concerning why these styles developed.
In the early period of the mid to late 1800's round bodied decoys were the most common decoys on the flats. ( Before 1880 there was also a flatter decoy that averaged seven inches across the back. Few, if any of these exist today). Round short body decoys like John Holly's and others from the Cecil county side of the flat's don't track well in heavier waters and windy conditions are are prone to ducking in and out of the water, making them less visible to passing waterfowl. ( in their time there were so many Canvasbacks, visibility probably didn't matter) They were also easy to upset and overturn. More length, larger size and a deeper chine were needed to track well in all conditions and also give a larger decoy presence to then dwindling groups of passing waterfowl. The longer, flatter chine Barnes configuration was the answer to these above problems. The flatter chine section and longer shape helped the totality of the lower decoy body to act as a keel. Madison Mitchell later devised an actual keel weight that helped in this regard also, but not as important as the circa 1900 design change.
There was a cross-fertilization of design ideas between the Cecil and Harford county sides of the flats and decoys like the Cecil county Heverin models depict a evolution of form and function that is also evidenced in the Harford county Fletcher model. In both cases the body takes on an oversize elongated body, and a more efficient chine configuration, and a deeper body. The Heverin was a wider decoy that sat low in the water. This was a plus for stability. Heverin was probably the most respected and copied carver on the Cecil county side and a few design ideas possibly filtered across the Flats into the work of the west side carvers. Heads and tails varied with all carvers, but the basic body form was the heart of the working decoys capability as a tool for consistent, reliable luring of canvasback waterfowl under all conditions. The basic "why" differences between Cecil and Harford decoys has not been resolved or determined to any great degree to my knowledge. The Cecil county decoy mimics the form and draft in the water of a real Canvasback more so than the Harford models. Once again function rules over form and it's been suggested that the reason that Harford side decoys had the upswept tail was to prevent icing up in severe conditions. The Susquehanna flats had more ice years ago and in fact had skim ice frequently and froze completely over on occasion. I made a few tests with decoys in ice to prove this theory, but have not come to any solid conclusions so far.
Delaware river Canvasback decoys also have a paddle tail. How deep is the connection and cross fertilization between Cecil county and the Delaware river is open to conjecture.
Everything seems to come together in the McGaw decoy. A lower wider body form that resisted rolling and pitching and rode well in all conditions were hallmarks of this design. Gibson and Mitchell are well respected carvers, but their work tended to go in a decorative direction, but were still fine working decoys. This is to be expected as Canvasback numbers were in decline, the market hunting era was gone, or slowly drawing to a close and Susquehanna decoys took on the role of sporting decoys.
Mitchell studied the design of Holly and improved it by making it longer or so he claimed. I feel he learned more from from Barnes, and was a contemporary of Barnes, who had already improved decoy configuration. Mitchell works with Barnes right up until he died in 1926. Later Barnes and McGaw had a running personality conflict and a game of outdoing the other and competition that is well documented. I feel this spurred McGaw on to make a better and more sellable decoy. The McGaw model was a fusion of all that had been learned from Holly, Barnes and others.
Early Susquehanna decoys were designed to work and ride the bay water. A decoy model that seemed out of step with the later decorative trend and did not appear on the scene until almost the 1950's was the Bryan design. A wider, lower design like the McGaw, these decoys were no nonsense, work' in and sport block that could handle with aplomb any weather the Chesapeake could dish out.
McGaw also procured the first duplicating lathe, which was a World Was I rifle stock lathe, which by its assembly line nature and precision made the design of decoys more uniform and sure. It also made a rounder decoy, because it could not efficiently handle oval decoy blocks. McGaw decided to not use the machine after a near accident and sold it to Mitchell. Gibson had a design all his own as he was one of the few Havre de Grace carvers that to a degree was not overly influenced by other carvers, or so it is believed. Mitchell and Gibson decoys both display a deep body style and both carvers foreshadowed and helped popularize the 20th century decorative decoy trend; and this move away from the flatter body McGaw seems to be influenced by the increased demand for decorative decoys, and increasing use of the duplicating lathe.
View examples of body styles here