The Gelston Myth

Over a decade ago Joe Engers of Decoy Magazine and I had discussed the idea of me writing two articles; one on Obadiah Verity and the other on Thomas H. Gelston. After doing a small amount of research, I came to the usual dead ends and lack of documentation. I decided not to do the articles primarily due to the fact that I could not find anything new to add to the “stories” of the two supposed carvers, and I had not at that time done any serious research. The only thing I could add from what I was able to discover was that things did not add up and at that point in time I was not ready to point out the the discrepancies in the stories presented for the supposed histories of the “Verity”and “Gelston”decoys. However, this small amount of research opened my eyes a bit and I became increasing skeptical about many of the decoy stories being told.

In the book Modern Research by Harry F. Graff, he writes “It is from historical study that writers at large have learned to sift evidence, testimony, and demand verification.” He goes on to state “Journalism has adopted the ways of historical research.” "Magazines like Time and Newsweek employ corps of persons who bear the title of researcher and whose function is to verify every statement made in the stories turned in by those whose title is reporter.” Unfortunately, fact checking has never played any meaningful roll in decoy journalism in either the books, magazines or in museums such as the Shelburne Museum in Shelburne, Vermont and The Long Island Museums at Stony Brook on Long Island, both of which have extensive decoys in their respective collections.

The Gelston myth is just another glaring example of fiction presented as fact, beginning over sixty years ago and by now is totally ingrained as fact in the minds of today's decoy collectors. The latest update on the Gelston legend came in 2002 when writer/author Richard Cowan wrote a cover article in the January/February issue of Decoy Magazine on Gelston (The article I was unable to write). Mr. Cowan, as with most decoy writers, has never suffered from a need for “verification” as seen in his article aptly titled “Thomas H. Gelston, the Name Behind the Legend" (Legend: story, fiction, fairy tale, fable, folklore). This obtuse article is just another culmination of myth, legend, misdirection and omission. It is a fable filled with unfounded so-called facts. The article is in fact an assault on Long Island decoy history by a repeat offender, but he is not alone.

In the not to distant past yours truly was guilty of passing on unfounded myth as fact (see Decoy Magazine May/June 1999 page 24 “1899 A Look Back”). In this article I used non-researched material presented as facts that I had gleaned from earlier publications, just as most decoy writers have done in the past, and still do today.

Once again we begin our story of the legend of the name “Thomas H. Gelston, decoy maker” with Joel Barber and his book Wild Fowl Decoys. On page 50, plate 43, we find a Barber watercolor of a “CORK BLACK DUCK by Thomas Gelston Quogue L. I. 1897." On page 124, he writes the following, “Progress in the making of cork decoys is indicated by the Thomas Gelston black duck shown in Plate No.83 made at Quogue, L.I. about 1897." This is the springboard for the Thomas H. Gelston name to be used in association with decoys said to have made by him in Quogue, Long Island by Barber. It must be stated upfront that there has never been a Thomas H. Gelston residing in the town of Quogue, Long Island, period. He didn't own property in Quogue and the name has never been recorded on any Federal Census as having lived in Quogue. In Cowan’s article he states “The trail of the Legendary Thomas Gelston is easily followed." If by trail you mean the life of the man Thomas H. Gelston, born in 1850 in Brooklyn, NY, then I would agree to some extent that a researcher could follow where he lived, his occupation, who his wife and children were, etc. But you can not follow his trail as a decoy carver as Mr. Cowan would have you believe in this statement from his article.

“A Hudsonian curlew by Gelston sat on the top shelf in Joel Barber’s collection and he included that very bird in plate 53 of “Wild Fowl Decoys." “Likewise he shows a cork black duck captioned “made in Quogue, circa 1897." In the first part of this paragraph, we find a great omission of fact and smooth misdirection concerning the curlew decoy. True, the Hudsonian curlew is found in plate 53, however, it is not listed or attributed to Gelston. It is pictured with two other birds that are identified, one of which most assuredly is misidentified without any question or reservation. However, the Hudsonian curlew is not identified or even mentioned in the text, and it most assuredly is not listed as being made by T. H. Gelston. Mr. Cowan would misdirect the reader into believing the bird was identified by Barber in his book as having been made by Gelston. Yes it is “an easy trail to follow” if you omit facts like only the cork Black Duck was identified in the book as a decoy made by Gelston. But then it would be hard to write that “the trail was easy to follow” and in fact it would make it harder to write the article in a convincing way.