The PT Boat Forum
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi
» Forum Category: PT Boats of WWII
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?cid=101&fct=showf
» Forum Name: PT Boats - General
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?fct=gotoforum&cid=101&fid=102
» Topic:
Interesting artifact up for auction. PT109
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=2730
I saw this was up for sale at Doyle of New York, [url] http://www.doylenewyork.com/content/more.asp?id=237[/url] it was removed before the boat left for Rendova by the Quartermaster Guy Manning who kept it when he left the boat. I think Will Day should buy this for Frank and donate it to his museum! It is estimated to go for between $20-30,000. Just thought you might find it interesting. Jerry PT658 Portland
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Jerry%20Gilmartin/PT109nameplateGuyManning.jpg[/image]
Jerry Gilmartin
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 1:32am
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm
Jerry, I can't believe you torture Frank this way. Seriously, it should be in a museum of some sort.
Dave
David Waples
Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 5:27am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm
Damn, Jerry - I've got all my loose money tied up in the widget factory.......... But if we all kicked in $10, we could buy the sucker and pass it around like the Stanley Cup.
It truly is a great piece of history, and not just to us PT fanatics.
Will
Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 6:21am
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm
I think this is so nice that Jerry was thinking of me. I know that Will has the money, so he could buy it for me as an investment. In the meantime I will just have to settle for my PT-109 Paper Model that Stan is building. I think I'll throw in a bid for the name plate, but I'll have to play my numbers tonight and hope that I hit..............
Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 6:58am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am
A great artifact, which I certainly agree should be in either the JFK Presidential Library & Museum near Boston, or the PT Boat Museum at Fall River.
If I had the dough, I'd buy it, have a replica cast from this original, and then donate it to one of those museums. That's where it belongs.
Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 8:29am
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am
I wonder if either of those two locations is familiar with this auction? How would you make them aware?
David Waples
Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 9:24am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm
SOMEBODY Contact Don Shannon ASAP!!!! I just sent it to Charlie as a board member!! We Have the Musuem or HQ move on this fast!!!! This is one that this Messageboard can't let get away!!! I cant believe it still exists and is not buried in Blackett Strait!!! God bless Guy Manning for having the foresight to remove it when he and the rest of the original crew rotated off the boat in Feb - Mar 1943, I wonder why Bryant Larson never mentioned it was removed, he was the last plankowner off the boat, turning her over to Lennie Thom. I am also notifing Kim Nielsen, curator at the Navy Museum in the Washington Navy Yard
Lets keep our fingers crossed!!
Take care,
TED
Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 11:47am
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am
Items pertaining to PT-109 certainly are rare as hen's teeth. I doubt any Museum, including ours would make a purchase, spending this much money. As a member of PT BOATS INC., If I had a vote, I would say no. Certainly not because of the price, but $20,000-$30,000 could be better spent somewhere else. Spending money to update the boats at Battleship Cove makes much more since to me than buying one artifact. With that being said, Will just contacted me, and has decided to be my backer when the bidding war begins.
Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 12:33pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am
The auction does not happen until Monday November 5th 2012. Just in case you were not aware. Jerry
Jerry Gilmartin
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 12:41pm
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm
Will is going to need all that time to save his pennies.
Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 12:54pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am
Hey! That gives me just enough time to win the lottery and buy this and PT 48!!!!
Take care,
TED
Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 1:09pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am
If it gets down to the nitty-gritty, Frank can always sell his hair.
Will
Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 2:33pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm
LMAO Will, your just jealous because I have hair. This is a good thought though, I could probably make some good bucks. Hey, Ted if you hit the lottery, I'm not greedy, you buy the boat and name plate, and donate the boat to me.............
Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 3:17pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am
Just saw this. I Passed it on to Frank Thompson, who is the head of the curator shop at the Navy Museum in DC. Asked him if this is still NAVY property. Said he'd have to run it by the lawyers.
My question is how come this has never surfaced before? Why didn't it arise when the popularity of PT 109 was at it's highest, during the early 60s? You would have thought that he would have said "Hey, look what I got!" I'm sure this could have gotten at least a meeting with President Kennedy.
Charlie
Posted By: 29navy | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 3:54pm
Total Posts: 600 | Joined: Dec 28, 2006 - 3:02pm
I thought you guys should read the text that accompanies the announcement that I linked to on my original post. It tries to explain how the plaque came to be available. I am just posting the text straight from their website (see below) I agree with Charlie, it does sort of smell fishy, but I think they could easily establish it as the bona fide item if they had somebody from the late Mr Mannings family provide a certification. It does look like it would be easy to fake such a thing IMO without the proof.
"The order to remove all identifying elements from the PT 109 came after Toyko Rose, the English speaking radio announcer who worked for the Japanese, began listing the boat numbers and crew members from sunk or captured vessels on air in order to intimidate listening American officers. Quartermaster Guy Manning (1918-1984) was a member of the original squadron to man PT 109, and he accompanied the ship from the United States to the Solomon Islands in 1942. Manning removed the nameplate and it has remained in his family for 70 years."
Jerry Gilmartin
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 4:53pm
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm
All:
Interesting, there is hope here guys. If the item is legitimate, it was than taken from a US Navy vessel in service. This act is theft, hence the plague could be legally a stolen item. Does anyone have time next week to call the Oddice of the Judge Advocate in DC? I will send an email to the auction house to let them know that they are attempting to sell stolen US Government property. That should put a kink in their style long enough to potentially get the Navy to intercede and take the item back into their possession as rightful owner.
Bill Smallshaw
Posted By: smallwi | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 4:59pm
Total Posts: 134 | Joined: Jun 21, 2007 - 3:02pm
Whoa Bill!
I dont know if I would characterize this as "Theft". I found some more info about QM Manning. This is quoted from Gene Kirklands "PT King" website under "The Unknown History of PT109":
"Bud Larson and most of his crew were due for rotation home, so CDR Westholm decided that the 109- his old squadron flagship- would be assigned to the new skipper. By now, only ENS Bud Larson, quartermaster Guy Manning, and torpedoman Jack Edgar remained of the boat's original crew; on the evening of April 20 these three, along with Roy Dunkin, George Lewis, William Jackson, James Bartlett, and William McMillan'were detached from duty, destined for two weeks rest and relaxation in Australia. Lenny Thom was left in temporary command with a skeleton force aboard. For the next five days, the PT 109 spent most of the time moored in the bushes along the banks of the Maliali River on Florida Island, occasionally shifting berths to take on water or fuel. On the morning of April 25, Ensign Thom took the boat to Sesapi to pick up 109's new CO'a twenty-six year-old Harvard grad who introduced himself to Thom as Jack Kennedy"
So evidently the boat crews were given a direct order from above to remove all identifying marks from the boats to prevent Tokyo Rose using them as propaganda material. So how would "removing all identifying marks" equate to "stealing from the government"? I imagine he was told to trash it, and elected to hold onto the plaque rather than trash it.. But of course nobody alive really knows the true story., so maybe it could be either one. I still think it should be in a museum.
Jerry
Jerry Gilmartin
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 5:42pm
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm
Jerry;
I am with you on this one, PT 59's builders plate still exists also, and I doubt if it was "donated" to PTHQ/PT Museum by the boats civilian owner in New York. If they were told to remove them by Westy and Monty, and even if it was only RON 2 and RON (3)2(however, PT 118's RON 6 plate still exists also), it constitutes a verbal lawful order, and you and I know volation of a verbal lawful order is punishable under then Navy Regulations(today the UCMJ).
Guy Manning did not do anything wrong, he did what he was told to do: ie; He removed it.
Take care,
TED
P.S. Charlie: Thanks for notifing your POC. As I said previously, I notified Kim, so we have two guys on the case for the Good Old Navy
Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 6:21pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am
Don't agree guys. The item was purchased on a government contract, it is government property. Taxpayers paid for the item, no family has the right to sell it for personal profit. I also doubt on officer told an enlisted man to remove the item and keep it so his family could profit from physically holding the artifact. There was similar case recently with a different type of artifact, family tried to sell to make a large sum, don't recall the specifics. Government siezed the item.
I am sure the individual was a very nice person. But that unto itself does not justify someone selling an item of this nature. Fact remains it was removed from a US Navy vessel while the vessel was still in US Navy service. It may well still may be US Navy property, if it is real....
Bill
Bill Smallshaw
Posted By: smallwi | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 6:46pm
Total Posts: 134 | Joined: Jun 21, 2007 - 3:02pm
Bill,
I kind of see your point. The US Govt is infamous for never releasing the rights of ownership for various and assorted items. While on the one hand, I am certain that literally hundreds of PT Boat Nameplates were taken by their crewmen (as well as just about anything else -ships bells, searchlights, radios, steering wheels- that were considered to be a good souvenir) just before the several hundred PT Boats were burned at Samar. Also the items that were removed from those boats (like engines, propellers and shafts, gun mounts,torpedo racks, steering gear, etc) were lined up and pushed into a big ditch on Samar and covered over with a bulldozer to prevent the native Phillipinos from salvaging them. Not to mention the hundreds of brand new jeeps and tanks and ammo, and fighter planes and main reduction gears and everything else literally dropped into the ocean if just for the reason they did not want ot have to inventory them upon their return to the States. I have personally witnessed the US Govt selectively choosing to enforce the "Mis-use of Govt Property" law only to when it suits them as opposed to every instance that it could apply, so the lawyers would most likely have a chance at convincing somebody in charge that the Govt has the right to sieze the property back. I dont think that the Quartermaster can be called a "thief" but I do agree that the nameplate could possibly be claimed still by the US Government as their property. Essentially, there was no official property transfer or release from the US Govt, for that nameplate, and the family should not be allowed to profit from the sale of the item, since they dont have any such proof of ownership. This same thing would apply to that recent PT Boat Ships Bell from PT648 that sold for over $1000 on ebay a couple of months ago, or to the PT Boat Steering Wheel that sold for a large sum a couple of years ago. If the PT648 Bell had sold for $20,000 would the price have made it wrong? So $1000 is OK but $20,000 is where we draw the line. Where do we draw the line? Why not the same outrage for all of these instances? This same situation can apply to literally thousands of Military artifacts that are for sale right at this moment on eBay and hundreds of other places.Those same items were likely still US Government Property as well, but we didnt hear any outrage over those lowly items.. But this one is different. It is linked to a US President, who had not even reported to the boat until after the name plate was gone! (Kind of funny in a way) I just dont favor the connotations of calling him a thief for just following orders. I also dont favor selective enforcement of a law only when it suits the special interests. Thanks for letting me vent. Jerry
Jerry Gilmartin
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Aug 5, 2012 - 7:16pm
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm
I am not totally sold on the concept that selling this piece of History constitutes any wrong doing. In my own experience, my exhibit takes in roughly 75% of it's artifacts from donations of those PT BOAT VETS that have brought these items home. Many of the artifacts we see now surfacing are only because those Vets have passed on. I can't tall you how many family members I have dealt with over the years, that simply have no clue what to do with these items. Many as I said, donate them, if not to me, than some other Museum.
The other 25% of the items in my exhibit were from cash purchases. Just recently I bought 2 hats, medals, and a deck jacket from the daughters of the Skipper of PT-60. They only sold the items because they needed the money for medical expenses. I don't consider these items as being stolen form the US NAVY, although I have heard of items taken with the Skippers permission when they have left the boat, or after the war, when the boats were being Decommissioned at Base 17. I guess it might all be considered a fine line as to what the Law might say, but I do not consider it a reason to try and stop the sale of the builders plaque. I have found that not every artifact will be donated by the people who have them. Some look at it as a way to make a few bucks, and nothing more, and others really need the money, although they hate to part with this wonderful history.
I would love to own a plaque with such historical meaning, hey for those of us that love PT BOATS, who wouldn't, but sometimes it just isn't that simple. I think in this case, why raise any red flags, why send letters and open up a case for this one artifact. You could be opening up a larger can of worms. Just my own opinion here..............
Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Aug 6, 2012 - 1:43am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am
In no way was I suggesting that Mr Manning stole this. I just know how the Navy can be when it comes to old ships and airplanes.
My initial thought was that when JFK and PT-109 was a big thing, between 1960 and 1963, you would have thought that this might have come up. At that time, people were looking for anything that might have had some connection with the Kenndys.
But something else I was wondering, doesn't $20,000-30,000 seem a bit excessive for an estimated price? I mean, really. Yes, (if it's legit) it did come off the 109, and was theoretically off the boat before JFK arrived. So he never saw it, touched it, smelled it, etc.which lessens it actual historical connection. Now, if they brought it up from the bottom of Blacket Strait that would be another story. I know it is hard to put a price on a one of a kind item, even something that has some significant historical connection.
I just don't see it going that high, unless you have a couple of guys with more money than brains bidding against each other.
Oh well, I guess we'll see what happens.
Charlie
Posted By: 29navy | Posted on: Aug 6, 2012 - 4:51am
Total Posts: 600 | Joined: Dec 28, 2006 - 3:02pm
What auction houses estimate and what they actually go for can be two very different things. No telling how much this would sell for. It may be one of the only pieces of that boat that isn't a war grave. The price could go much higher. It will be interesting to see what happens with this piece. Hopefully somehow it ends up in a museum where people can see it under secured conditions.
Dave
David Waples
Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Aug 6, 2012 - 5:22am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm
Frank, I agree with you. Probably best to just watch and see what happens.
Will
Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Aug 6, 2012 - 6:27am
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm
Guys I guess I am a thief. I brought home a a ripped and torn flag from PT 242. The skipper Mr. McLane told me to replace it on the radar mast with a new flag. Which I did. I folded the old flag up put it in my sea bag and brought it home with me. The skipper never gave me permission to keep the flag or how to dispose of it. I certainly can't see that Mr. Manning did anything wrong by bringing the plaque home. I gave the 242 flag years ago to Boats Newberry and it is now at Battle Ship Cove Museum.
C. J. Willis
Posted By: CJ Willis | Posted on: Aug 6, 2012 - 8:46am
Total Posts: 464 | Joined: Nov 5, 2006 - 5:02pm
HQs has all fingers and toes crossed in hopes the people at Doyle has soft hearts. Hopefully they'll donate these artifacts to the PT Boats, Inc. museum.
Smooth sailing
Posted By: Madden | Posted on: Aug 6, 2012 - 12:26pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
Don't agree at all with Bill that Manning's removal and possession of the plate was "theft," but -- I certainly do agree with Jerry that the Navy could get on their high horse and be arbitrary on their decision as to what is or isn't still "Navy property." It's the difference between ''the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law."
Whether or not the Manning family should profit between $20,000 and $30,000 from the sale of this artifact is a tough call, though...
Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Aug 6, 2012 - 12:39pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am
Here's a fantasy for you. The piece is donated to the PT Boats museum. The owners get a big tax deduction for such a kind donation, and the US Navy claims rights and allows the museum to maintain the artifact on loan. How's that for a happy ending! I know... pipe dream.
No thief's here. Hell, they burned most of the boats or sold them to other countries. This is just one of those things that has turned into legend and thus has become very valuable.
Dave
David Waples
Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Aug 6, 2012 - 6:03pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm
This shines a bright light on another area of "Gov't. Property". How many Colt .45 1911's and 1911A1's went home with vets. They are valued in most cases now in the thousands, each, depending upon condition and historical record for each. If the government ever went after those pistols, there would be a great hue and cry! Interesting delema.
Allan
Posted By: Allan | Posted on: Aug 7, 2012 - 7:40pm
Total Posts: 161 | Joined: Sep 18, 2007 - 7:07pm
I think it was a blessing that our WWII VETS did bring home many of these items. I certainly would not have an Exhibit if they didn't, and can you imagine our Museums without these artifacts. Each artifact tells a story for future generations. As far as the PT-109 name plate,of course it would be great if it was in a museum, but when a family decides to sell an item, you just hope for the best. I have had luck in the past contacting families that are selling items that decide to donate, but it's not always a sure thing.
Many large museums take in these items, but they are under no obligation to display them. I had visited several museums in hopes to maybe donate some of my artifacts, under the terms that they have it on display all the time. They refused to do this, so remember that many Museums take in artifacts, but do not have to display them, and once it becomes the property of that Museum, they can do whatever they want with the artifact. I guess I am getting a bit off base here. As far as the price, many PT BOAT artifacts are priceless, and as Charlie said, although a really nice piece, it is not worth that asking price, but I must admit, if I was the type of guy that had money to spend, I would be right there in that biding war. I will be curious to see what this treasure might bring.
Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Aug 8, 2012 - 4:01am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am
C.J.
I guess I am in the boat with you, because, I have kept one "used" flag for every NSW craft that I was either a crewmember on or the ones in which I was the Boat Captain. I wrote the craft number, the dates I was aboard, places we went, the detachments I was in, and my position on those craft. As far as I am concerned C.J. I could not be in better company.
Glad to be with you Shipmate!
Take care,
TED
P.S. Today these fall under the title of: Consumables.meaning when used up or beyond servicable used, they are discarded. Just like the PT Boats were.
Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Aug 8, 2012 - 7:50am
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am
Is it even real? This is what nameplates looked like for other boats. Not quite as fancy.
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Nathaniel%20Smith/PT-154nameplate.png[/image]
natsmith
Posted By: Nathaniel Smith | Posted on: Aug 10, 2012 - 5:23pm
Total Posts: 211 | Joined: Jan 19, 2008 - 6:55am
Have seen a photo of PT-48's builders plate courtesy of Ted Walther. 48's plate appeared to be cast metal with a black back ground and white or silver raised letters. Have seen PT-556's name plate in the flesh from former crew member the late Ted Lepak. It was cast metal and dark grey in color and had suffered damage from a Mk-13 hot run in the states. Most of the other builder plates viewed in photos of either Elco or Higgins appeared similiar to your PT-154's.
Wayne
Posted By: Wayne Traxel | Posted on: Aug 10, 2012 - 6:19pm
Total Posts: 248 | Joined: Oct 11, 2006 - 5:40am
Hello Wayne and Nat,
I took these photos of other Elco PT Boat nameplates that look similar on display at the PT Boat Museum at Battleship Cove. They look similar....Jerry
PTC12 and PT21 cast nameplates
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Jerry%20Gilmartin/boston2012141.jpg[/image]
PT189 cast nameplate
[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Jerry%20Gilmartin/IMG_0871.jpg[/image]
Jerry Gilmartin
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Aug 11, 2012 - 12:59am
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm
I KNOW THAT THE BUILDERS PLACK FROM PT564 HELCAT WAS REMOVED BY TEDDY SPREGS A HIGGINS DESIGN ENGINEER WHEN THE BOAT WAS DELIVERED TO THE NAVY . I THINK HE SAID THAT THE PLACKS WERE REMOVED WHEN THE BOAT WAS DELIVERED AND THE NAVY ASSIGNED A NUMBER . THAY WERE GIVEN TO CAPTINS OR VIPS
Posted By: RANDY SMITH | Posted on: Aug 16, 2012 - 8:31am
Total Posts: 182 | Joined: Jul 16, 2012 - 7:16pm
For a picture of Hellcat's plaque please see page 119 of my book AMERICAN PT BOATS
IN WW II, vol. II. Does anyone know whether H stands for Higgins?
Victor
Victor K Chun
Posted By: victorkchun | Posted on: Aug 17, 2012 - 7:42am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered
For a picture of Hellcat's plaque please see page 119 of my book AMERICAN PT BOATS
IN WW II, vol. II. Does anyone know whether H stands for Higgins?
Victor
Victor K Chun
Hi there.
Don't know ifthe H stood for Higgins but if it was on a Hellcat is it possible that the H stood for Hellcat?
Another thought. If the H did stand for a builder then could it be that the H stood for Huckins?
Cheers
"Give me a faster PT boat for I'd like to get out of harm's way!"
Posted By: PeterTareBuilder | Posted on: Aug 17, 2012 - 8:34am
Total Posts: 494 | Joined: Jun 24, 2008 - 5:59pm
Hey Guys, was about to tell a friend the story of the 109 ELCO builders plaque and I decided to wait and double check my sources of info, which lead me back to this posting. Does anyone recall the outcome of the proposed sell of the plaque? It seems that my poor memory thinks that Uncle Sam wound up with it. Also, I am no slouch when it comes to internet searches but I can not find a photo of the plaque. Any info and/or photos will be appreciated.
Harvey Wheeler
Posted By: Old LeadBottom | Posted on: Feb 3, 2024 - 11:54am
Total Posts: 11 | Joined: Oct 4, 2013 - 7:36am
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS LOOKED AT THE PHOTO GALLERY LATLELY BUT HOW DID THWE POIRN GGET ON THE SITE ????
Scott Campbell 2nd gen,PT 248
Ron 20
Posted By: Scott C | Posted on: Feb 3, 2024 - 12:21pm
Total Posts: 106 | Joined: Nov 20, 2019 - 4:34pm
I have posted this in the past but not sure if new guys have seen it. Bryant Larson was the first XO and second CO of PT109 before JFK showed up on April 25 1943. Larson later in his life was a benefactor for PT658 in Portland since he lived in Portland since the 1960's. He attended PT Boater get togethers and was very active with our group of PT Boaters in the 1990s when we first obtained the boat. After he "took his last patrol" his son Skip Larson, has kept ties to our group in Portland, since he lives somewhere up near Tacoma WA. Anyway, this big stink about the PT109 plaque being "stolen government property" is debunked pretty thoroughly when you read the letter that Larson types to PT Boats Inc upon the occasion of donating the PT109 Commissioning Pennant to the Fall River Museum. In the letter he acknowledges that Manning took the builders plaque home with him just as Larson (the Commanding Officer of PT109) took the pennant. In effect, he fully condoned "Pappy" Manning (the outgoing Quartermaster, senior enlisted man on the boat, and crew chief) taking the plaque with his full knowledge and permission. If my Commanding Officer gives me permission to take a souvenir off of my ship, I sure as hell am not going to disobey a direct order! You can read it for yourself. This letter is on display at Fall River PT Boat museum inside the display case for RON5. I checked the PT109 Deck Logs and Larson along with Manning and 4 other crew all detached from PT109 on April 20, 1943 and JFK arrived and took command on April 25 1943. So JFK never even saw the PT109 plaque. I cannot understand how some of you still think it is somehow theft or unjust that manning was given the plaque. He and his family have every right to sell that plaque and it should not be arbitrarily siezed back by the Government after the fact.
Larson at PT658 group dinner in 1995
The PT109 plaque formerly being auctioned by Mannings family
Larson during WW2
The letter explaining what happened to the Plaque from Larson in PT Boat museum
Larsons donated Commission Pennant of PT109 on display in PT Boat Museum in Fall River next to letter
JFK and Lenny Thom, who was XO for Larson then XO for JFK
PT109 Watch Quarter and Station Bill in use during transport on SS Stanton that lists Larson Manning and first CO of PT109 John Kempner who transferred back to Melville when PT109 was in Panama
Jerry Gilmartin
PT658 Crewman
Portland OR
Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Feb 21, 2024 - 3:30am
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm