Comparative Analysis of Ward Decoys 1921 - 1951
by Mike Robinson
My intent with this paper is to try to put a more definitive face on Ward decoys thru the photographic process so that a better and more systematic understanding of the decoys design features can be more easily quantified. All too often I have found, sources of information for what really constitutes a Ward are suspect or only take in views of the whole decoy rather than emphasizing, cataloging and photographing exact design features and paint constitution of the decoys. The Gard and McGrath guide probably comes the closest to bringing exact information as to species and dates followed by various auction catalogs and a few published books about the Wards.
Wards have probably been copied and "faked" more than any other decoy. There is nothing inherently wrong with making Ward reproductions as long as it is stated and/or safety measures built into the decoy so that they cannot be passed off as authentic. I hope to make the process of identifying Wards more complete with parameters and foundations instead of conjecture and guessing which I have found all too often when speaking with collectors, many of whom have considerable experience and collections.
This is a fine example of a 1936 Ward Scaup (Bluebill) that had what I will term Stage 2 intermediate stipple paint on the back portion and stage 1 level paint on the side that is highlighted. These same paint patterns can be seen also on 36 Canvasbacks and Redheads. Stage 3 level stipple paint will be seen in some of the following images below. Stage 2 stipple paint is of particular importance because of it's ability to collect dirt and show age more efficiently than the other two stages. This makes it relatively straightforward to authenticate the decoy as a real Ward as these dirt impressions are hard to fake as they follow a distinct pattern, color and texture if studied closely.
Also of note here, especially as it concerns Cans and Scaup is the Tail sections as they follow a regular pattern and design in some of the more carefully crafted Ward models. It's important to recognize that some Ward decoys are built with more exact form and pattern than others. Some Wards are especially finished more carefully and there is a distinct and recognized difference between what is termed "winter" and "summer" decoys. In 36 decoys where appropriate time was taken to craft a well designed decoy, the tail section curves down at the ending edges in a distinct form. Without much practice it is very easy to improperly carve this tail and make it too short due to cutting off too much wood which quickly ruins the design of the tail and the overall aspect of the total decoy. I have proven this to myself by attempting to carve this section on Ward reproductions I have made. A number of Wards I have viewed that really are not Wards have a thickness to the tail section that is not appropriate, thought some real Wards that are probably winter decoys are thicker also.
The distinction of winter and summer Ward decoys had to to with the Brothers penchant to want to be out in the marsh hunting during the waterfowl season and sometimes did not lavish the attention to the decoys that was appropriate. I have viewed examples where one side of small wing pattern painting design was completely forgotten and left off for example.
Another telltale "Marker" is a flat area where the tail joins the body as in the above example. This marker is evident in many of the better carved 36 models, but not all. It is of value to look for it is evident of a tough area to carve and lends it's self to being because of the way the tail section must be carved to get the right effect of slope and profile. Again I have tested this a number of times by carving Ward reproductions of this body style for research purposes. In this example as above the flat section appears as a shadow. This tail shadow appears in a considerable number of 36 Canvasbacks and seems a reliable marker.
Another important point of reference as above is the putty used to seal the head nail. It almost always protrudes and is lifted above the wood which makes it another important marker.
This photograph of a 1936 Hen Scaup shows stage 2 stipple paint that is almost stage 3 in texture. Important here is the white flare paint speculum stripe put on by Lem Ward. If viewed and studied often enough this stripe has a flow and curve to it that has a distinct form and nature to it. Likewise the 3 black stripes have a peculiar and defined nature that are amazingly consistent among Ward Scaup and Canvasback decoys of this era and vintage. and probably would lend themselves to width measurements with a micrometer.
This 1936 Ward Canvasback decoy shows stage 1 Stipple paint that is heavily worn. Stage 1 Stipple paint may be a marker of winter decoys as it may have been faster to apply than a heavier application of stage 3 paint. When we speak of Ward paint one of the major considerations to take into account is Linseed oil. Lem Ward experimented greatly with Linseed trying to get a tough, durable and lifelike paint. Ward paint was mixed with varying amounts of Linseed oil due to experimentation, availability of the product and type (Raw and Boiled are the main types, but sun cured and others are in the mix also) which gave the finished paint varying properties. Linseed was generally used to get a more pliable, elastic and hence durable decoy paint that would not chip and crack. These same paint properties also led to shrinkage as is evidenced in the above photo. More evidence of shrinkage will be shown below as it is quite common in many Ward decoys. Other mediums mixed into paint were also used at times and various preparations were used for the primer coat. Turpentine, Japan drier and gesso are a few of importance.
This 36 Canvasback has thin stage 1 stipple paint and clearly shows the flat section that preceded the tail carving and its attendant shadow. Also shown are the leading edges of the lower tail that are thinned appropriately. The gold colored stripes on the black sections also lend themselves to further study, which I hope to pursue in the future.
On this same decoy we see the lack of shaping and sanding to the neck region of this 36 Canvasback. Many times collectors pass over obvious rough sections of Wards under the false impression that the brothers only produced decoys that were well shaped and sanded. There is much evidence otherwise and more examples will be explored below. Another very important point of reference is the neck putty used to smooth the transition between the head and body sections. Much can be learned by studying this important juncture and the nature of the putty mixture, application and how it ages over time.
This angle is of particular importance when viewing a Ward decoy as it shows the general artistic flow of the body and head assemblies. The paint on this Ward Redhead is of the heavy stage 3 variety although there are some decoys that have even a thicker stipple paint coating.
The larger area circled on the far side shows stage 2 stipple paint and the way in which age and dirt accumulates. The smaller circle shows the tail painting that is many times worn but still detectable. Stage 2 paint is fairly common on many 30's era Wards and not only makes a good marker for study, but is consistent in the way it collects dirt and grime.
Again as #1 Scaup photo abovet his photo shows the way in which head putty shows above the wood which is another marker for Ward decoy identity of the 1930's to at least mid 40's time period on diving ducks.
This early 1920's Pintail shows a rather crudely carved bill that was more evident in early Ward decoys, but continued on at times on later carvings and proves that the Wards did not always sand everything to perfection. The neck putty is of interest here and the way it has deteriorated.
Another marker of interest on a number of Wards is the bulge around the eye.
Here we see the same effect on another decoy. These eye bulges lend themselves to study as to what, why and how.
On this 1951 Mallard we see a type of splitting and cracking of the paint that is common on a number of Wards from the 30's up to some of the Wards very late carvings. As above I stated how Linseed oil has a lot to tell on Ward decoys and I believe that this Carving is evidence of that. Eastern shore carvers were known to be frugal with their sometimes in short supply carving and painting materials. Further down the bay, It was know that if you bought a boat from Ira Hudson for example, that you better buy a box of nails to fully complete your boat as Ira would only put in the bare minimum amount of nails necessary to hold the boat together. Linseed oil is cheaper than quality paint. It was used extensively to cut paint to make the paint go further and also for a more durable and smoother finish. When too much Linseed was used I believe the above red circled effect would take place over time and makes a valid marker for real Ward decoys.
Again another example of the flat section before the tail assembly and note the sharpness of the leading sides of the tail which is evident in the better carved 36 Cans and Scaup.
I am showing these raised wing Canvasbacks to show the larger sized eyes that are used on some Wards. Many Wards have smaller eyes but not all. One of the most known experts on Wards who has written a number of books on East coast decoys expressed to me how a Ward we were looking at had too large an eye to be a Ward. He never bothered to look on the other side of the head to see that a smaller eye was inserted there. Like I have expressed in the above, Decoy construction often came down to what materials were available in a realm of scarcity.
This 1952 Scaup also has larger eyes than many other Wards and another marker can be seen which is the flat section on the back of the head where the head nail was driven through to the body. This head is also carved fairly rough (winter decoy ?) with underlying whittle marks under quite thick paint.
This paper is just a start on the trail to understanding what went into the making of Ward decoys. Much more research is needed, possible even on the microscopic level. Microscopes could especially useful in the study of paint and wear. Close up photography lens have been used to some advantage in this paper, but much closer study can be preformed with even higher powered lens.
Another interesting study would involve cataloging Ward glass eyes for both composition and wear factors. This eye for example has a very opaque look from much wear. It is interesting to note that many eyes on similar aged Ward decoys exhibit considerably less wear and appear much more clear. What factors could be involved here ? The environment, different manufactures ?
A case for further study is the separation of paint as evidenced in this above photograph. Instead of drying and chipping away like many other regional decoys, we see this pattern which leads me to believe that Linseed oil is the reason for the way the paint behaves. Often considered part and parcel of the Ward "stipple" effect, it can also be seen on parts of many Ward decoys that were not stippled.
This is a sample of what I have termed stage 2 stipple paint. What is needed here is much further analysis of the uniform way in which this style of paint takes on fine debris and dirt. With higher power photography, methods of application, such as rag, brush or other application materials could be detected.
Also of great interest in the exact way in which the mandible is cut which seems in many 36 Canvasbacks and others to have a distinct tooling. Although this fine carving could be effectively copied, with higher magnification, markers could be developed to trace the exact type of tool used as from the samples I have seen I believe the cuts were made by an exact type of carving implement. For this and other reasons I hope that Ward tools remain in Museums. One last design feature I will mention that needs study is the Bill nail on various Ward models. I believe that by comparing bill nail wear, shape and construction much can be learned, and this this could make for a very effective marker for authenticity.
As people who knew the Wards diminish in size due to natural mortality I believe it is important to collect as much Sociological, Cultural and Anthropological information as possible so that future generations will be able to appreciate the lifestyle and work of these unique folk artists.
REFERENCES
North American Decoys, Wildfowl Counterfeiters. Heber city, Utah: Hillcrest publications, Inc. 1971
Waesche, James F., The Sun Magazine. Baltimore, Maryland. December 18. 1966
Walsh, Roy E. Gunning the Chesapeake. Cambridge, Maryland: Tidewater publishing. 1960
Richardson, R.H., Chesapeake Bay Decoys: The Men Who Made and Used Them. Crow publishers, 1973
Lawson, Glenn., The Story of Lem Ward, Chester, Pennsylvania : Schiffer Publishing. 1984
Barkey, Richard., joint author - Barkey, Velma., Pioneer Decoy Carvers, A Biography of Steve and Lem Ward, Cambridge, Maryland : Tidewater publishing. 1977
Ron Gard and Brian Mc Grath, Ward Bro. Decoy Collectors Guide
THE WARD MUSEUM
THE HAVRE de GRACE DECOY MUSEUM
ST. MICHAELS MARITIME MUSEUM