I read with great interest the postings of Messrs. Carmichael and Murray in the thread "Payne Rod Co., immediately after Jim" on this forum. Both men
have long and important histories with the American Museum of Fly Fishing (AMFF); Hoagy as well with the Catskill Center. I don't know if Wally has a
history with that good and important institution as well. And extremely importantly, both men have made significant contributions to the collections
of AMFF that stand head and shoulders above most others. We are all in their debt for that. Their time of personal involvement with AMFF had tapered off by the
time I became executive director in, I think (hey, it was a long time ago!) 1996. I always enjoy hearing about what happened at the Museum in the years before
I arrived on the scene, especially from those, like Hoagy and Wally, that had first-hand knowledge.
I would like to share my first-hand knowledge of some of the affairs of the Museum Wally and Hoagy touched upon, hopefully all for the good of the order. I made three special trips down to Sebastian Marinaro's home to learn more about the Vince Marinaro Collection, with an eye to seeing how the AMFF could work with Vince's estate to obtain a meaningful "picture" if you will, of the man Vince Marinaro and of his contributions to fly fishing. I was hosted each time by a fellow named Don (cannot for the life of me remember his last name - bigtime senior moment) who had intimate knowledge of the collection, and who tragically passed away sometime after my visits. I also met with the family lawyer on at least one occasion. Due to not only financial, but also space constraints, the AMFF could not purchase the entire estate. We had decided to go down a path whereby we could, would and did portray an angler and his/her contributions with key items from, in this case, an estate. The estate managers decided that they wanted the entire collection to stay in one piece; we respected that decision, and had to move on. I don't think, with all due respect to Hoagy, that "cherry picking" was what we were about regarding the Marinaro estate. Rather, it is my feeling we were paying due diligence to our mission, our capabilities and our charter.
I was the executive director of AMFF when the Catskill Center broached the subject of a merger to the AMFF board. The Catskill Center very graciously provided me and the AMFF executive committee with complete financial and collections information to review prior to a "meeting of the minds", but, perhaps, not a clear idea of exactly what they had in mind. Which is understandable, this was all very "exploratory". Our board chair hosted a luncheon meeting in Manhattan on a saturday date that was amenable to all principals. Our entire executive committee, as well as myself, attended. I believe two individuals (one was Jim Bowman) attended in person, and two teleconferenced in (one was Joan Wulff) from the Catskill Center. By conference end, there was no clearer idea of what was being proposed. I guess in my mind (which was not the mind that counted, but one that was consulted), it appeared that perhaps, to use a mathematical analogy, one plus one might equal about 1.7, not 2, from a financial standpoint. In the best of all worlds, with two well-funded rather than struggling day to day museums, one plus one might equal almost 3, synergy being what it can be. I believe we worked very hard - I know I did - to try and develop a picture of how the merger might work. Ultimately, of course, it did not. But I believe that it does a disservice to the executive committee of the AMFF to say that it "snubbed" the Catskill Center's hope "for a possible merger of some kind between the two organizations" after the amount of work they - and I - put into that possibility.
As far as I know, the AMFF had, by the time I resigned, made three purchases for the collection in the thirty odd years of its existence to that time. One was a fly rod in the very early years (sorry, don't remember it, mebbe and F.E.Thomas in a neat cherry case), the Cushner collection, and the Bates collection. Don't know the details regarding the fly rod, but I know that the Bates and Cushner collections served very broad purposes; we covered a lot of fly tying ground, historically speaking, with those purchases. I don't think it was in the cards to spend more on a "one person" collection - no matter how important he/she was - than we did on collections that spanned continents. Just my two cents on that one.
Hoagy, I sure will agree with you on at least one point when you wrote, "The man who ran the museum (AMFF - and my immediate predecesor) at that time was ill-equipped to deal with the affairs of that organization." That's almost the nicest thing I've ever heard anybody say about him.
I hope everyone will take my comments in the same light with which I have intended them, i.e., points of firsthand information, perhaps biased by personal perspective. Sadly, the museum and nonprofit worlds are indeed highly political worlds, and everyone that has "been there, done that, got the hat, t-shirt and video" has a firsthand view as well. I, for one, look forward to hearing them.
I would like to share my first-hand knowledge of some of the affairs of the Museum Wally and Hoagy touched upon, hopefully all for the good of the order. I made three special trips down to Sebastian Marinaro's home to learn more about the Vince Marinaro Collection, with an eye to seeing how the AMFF could work with Vince's estate to obtain a meaningful "picture" if you will, of the man Vince Marinaro and of his contributions to fly fishing. I was hosted each time by a fellow named Don (cannot for the life of me remember his last name - bigtime senior moment) who had intimate knowledge of the collection, and who tragically passed away sometime after my visits. I also met with the family lawyer on at least one occasion. Due to not only financial, but also space constraints, the AMFF could not purchase the entire estate. We had decided to go down a path whereby we could, would and did portray an angler and his/her contributions with key items from, in this case, an estate. The estate managers decided that they wanted the entire collection to stay in one piece; we respected that decision, and had to move on. I don't think, with all due respect to Hoagy, that "cherry picking" was what we were about regarding the Marinaro estate. Rather, it is my feeling we were paying due diligence to our mission, our capabilities and our charter.
I was the executive director of AMFF when the Catskill Center broached the subject of a merger to the AMFF board. The Catskill Center very graciously provided me and the AMFF executive committee with complete financial and collections information to review prior to a "meeting of the minds", but, perhaps, not a clear idea of exactly what they had in mind. Which is understandable, this was all very "exploratory". Our board chair hosted a luncheon meeting in Manhattan on a saturday date that was amenable to all principals. Our entire executive committee, as well as myself, attended. I believe two individuals (one was Jim Bowman) attended in person, and two teleconferenced in (one was Joan Wulff) from the Catskill Center. By conference end, there was no clearer idea of what was being proposed. I guess in my mind (which was not the mind that counted, but one that was consulted), it appeared that perhaps, to use a mathematical analogy, one plus one might equal about 1.7, not 2, from a financial standpoint. In the best of all worlds, with two well-funded rather than struggling day to day museums, one plus one might equal almost 3, synergy being what it can be. I believe we worked very hard - I know I did - to try and develop a picture of how the merger might work. Ultimately, of course, it did not. But I believe that it does a disservice to the executive committee of the AMFF to say that it "snubbed" the Catskill Center's hope "for a possible merger of some kind between the two organizations" after the amount of work they - and I - put into that possibility.
As far as I know, the AMFF had, by the time I resigned, made three purchases for the collection in the thirty odd years of its existence to that time. One was a fly rod in the very early years (sorry, don't remember it, mebbe and F.E.Thomas in a neat cherry case), the Cushner collection, and the Bates collection. Don't know the details regarding the fly rod, but I know that the Bates and Cushner collections served very broad purposes; we covered a lot of fly tying ground, historically speaking, with those purchases. I don't think it was in the cards to spend more on a "one person" collection - no matter how important he/she was - than we did on collections that spanned continents. Just my two cents on that one.
Hoagy, I sure will agree with you on at least one point when you wrote, "The man who ran the museum (AMFF - and my immediate predecesor) at that time was ill-equipped to deal with the affairs of that organization." That's almost the nicest thing I've ever heard anybody say about him.
I hope everyone will take my comments in the same light with which I have intended them, i.e., points of firsthand information, perhaps biased by personal perspective. Sadly, the museum and nonprofit worlds are indeed highly political worlds, and everyone that has "been there, done that, got the hat, t-shirt and video" has a firsthand view as well. I, for one, look forward to hearing them.
and he had become a real
human being to me, much more than the grainy image in the ill-posed photographs.
Years ago I found a quote
from Webster describing the largest brook trout he ever caught - and no, it wasn't that fourteen-and-a-half pounder from Carmans River (the first place I
ever caught a brook trout, way long ago). It was more like a four-and-a-half pounder, which I suspect is how the myth got started.
