Left side of Whistler hen decoy by Benjamin Holmes, head attributed to Shang Wheeler
1 2015-03-15T05:36:29-07:00 Nancie Ravenel bc84e2b969fab7c5f039797f42318c7fcfc8159b 4136 1 plain 2015-03-15T05:36:29-07:00 1952-192.216 Shelburne Museum Nancie Ravenel bc84e2b969fab7c5f039797f42318c7fcfc8159bThis page has tags:
- 1 2015-02-01T12:15:14-08:00 Nancie Ravenel bc84e2b969fab7c5f039797f42318c7fcfc8159b Decoys included in this project Nancie Ravenel 46 The rationale behind which decoys were included in the project. gallery 2017-08-05T14:38:07-07:00 Nancie Ravenel bc84e2b969fab7c5f039797f42318c7fcfc8159b
- 1 2015-03-07T17:11:37-08:00 Nancie Ravenel bc84e2b969fab7c5f039797f42318c7fcfc8159b Whistler Hen 1952-192.216; 27.FD14-4-B Nancie Ravenel 10 A decoy attributed to Benjamin Holmes but thought to have a head made by Shang Wheeler plain 2015-09-05T20:54:15-07:00 Nancie Ravenel bc84e2b969fab7c5f039797f42318c7fcfc8159b
This page is referenced by:
-
1
2015-02-14T16:21:50-08:00
Benjamin Holmes (1843-1912)
21
What we know about this carver
text
118944
2015-03-15T17:17:52-07:00
Holmes was a Stratford, Connecticut carpenter who learned to carve decoys from Albert Laing (1811-1886), considered to be the originator of what has come to be known as the Houstatonic school of decoy carving (Engers 2000, p. 81). Unlike Laing, Holmes was not a hunter (Chitwood 1987, 34), and he supplemented his income as a carpenter and skiff builder, fabricating decoys on order and on speculation (Knapp 2002, 238).
Like Laing, Holmes made hollow decoys fashioned from three pieces of wood. According to Chitwood, Holmes' earlier decoys were similar in construction to those made by Laing, but eventually Holmes modified the technique, employing patterns for efficiency (Chitwood 1987, 34). The body was made of a hollowed block and a base board, measuring approximately 5/8 inches thick. The head was carved separately and attached with metal fasteners to the body. The nails holding the two sections of the body together are more closely spaced in Holmes' bodies than in Laing's. Chitwood opines that Laing's early decoys constructed with bottom boards leaked, and Holmes overcame that problem by using a lead-based adhesive in the joint and spacing his nails more closely (Chitwood 1987, 21).
Benjamin Holmes participated in what is considered to be the first recorded public exhibition of decoys which occurred at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition where he showed a a rig of 12 blue-bills (Levison and Headley 1991, 125). Joel Barber acquired one of these and included a watercolor rendering of it in his book, however that decoy is now considered lost (Shaw 2011).After Holmes' death, his widow sold uncompleted blocks of wood to another area decoy maker. Other makers made use of Holmes' patterns (Engers 2000, 82). The Shelburne Museum owns 13 decoys made by or attributed to Benjamin Holmes. Eleven were formerly part of Joel Barber's collection, including the bluebill drake decoy and one of the black duck decoys included in this study. The other two were previously owned by decoy collector Richard T. Moeller. The Whistler hen and drake decoys in this study, though attributed to Holmes, are suspected to have had their heads replaced by the third notable maker in the Stratford area, Charles “Shang” Wheeler (1872-1949). Similarly, one of the black ducks by Albert Laing in this study is thought to have been re-headed by Holmes.
-
1
2015-03-07T17:11:37-08:00
Whistler Hen 1952-192.216; 27.FD14-4-B
11
A decoy attributed to Benjamin Holmes but thought to have a head made by Shang Wheeler
plain
2017-08-04T11:27:02-07:00
Though this decoy is attributed to Benjamin Holmes, it is thought that the head was replaced by Charles “Shang” Wheeler. No inscriptions or marks are noted on this decoy, apart from the accession and catalog numbers applied at the museum. This decoy was formerly in Joel Barber's collection, but is not depicted in Wild Fowl Decoys.
The head appears to be a replacement, but it cannot be determined at this time whether it was made by Shang Wheeler. It was constructed from a single block of wood and is held to the body with four finishing nails in a similar fashion seen on the Whistler Drake. There is no central fastener within the neck of the decoy. There is a notable gap between the head and the body. Vestiges of the shank-end of a nail which likely held the previous head remains in the decoy’s breast and is seen in the lateral view radiograph.
The eyes are missing, with vestiges of iron split tacks remaining at the center of depressions carved into either side of the head.
The body is made of two pieces of wood. The base board is approximately 3/4 inches thick (2 cm.) . Cut nails, approximately 3 cm in length and spaced 5/8 inches to 1 inch (1.75 to 2.5 cm.) apart, hold the bottom board in place. The nails placed at the front and rear of the decoy’s body have rusted, resulting in brown stains on the paint in these areas. A tear-drop shaped weight is held to the underside of the decoy with a slotted flat head screw. The leather loop at the front of the decoy’s underside is secured with a brass oval headed slotted screw.
A square-shaped wooden base was nailed to the underside of the decoy at some point in its history. This prevents the decoy from resting directly on the lead weight attached to the underside.