• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Gloria Sheppard
    June 20, 2011 - 08:35

    A History buff, A research addict, attention to detail and love of painting make for a very impressive Larry Mahoney painting.

  • DON
    June 19, 2011 - 14:08

    This is all very interesting but I am not convinced that the artists depiction of the buildings are accurate. I applaud the artists efforts to reconstruct what he thinks may have existed on the site and his efforts to obtain as much factual evidence as he could. Even with archaeological data and old plans to review there is great difficulty in reconstructing ancient building locations. Much more investigation and research is required before any conclusions can be drawn as to the factual content of the claim. I recently visited the archaeological site in Cupids where they have uncovered old building foundations of what they claim are John Guy's original buildings. I did some research and discovered photographs of the site from around 1910 which clearly showed the houses and root cellars of the Spracklin family homestead. Some claim that the Spracklins built their houses over top of John Guys original buildings. No evidence exists to prove that claim. The mere finding of some small amounts of artifacts dated to 1610 proves absolutely nothing as these artifacts could have been deposited there by anyone. It is probable that the artifacts were in possession of the Spracklin family and deposited on the site by the Spracklin family itself. Archaeological theory and speculation is usually accepted as fact. That is a very unwise policy to adopt. I reviewed the letter from John Guy in 1610 in which he wrote that Cuper's Cove was a branch of Salmon Cove. The folks in Cupids claim that Cupids is where John Guy landed because there is a place called Salmon Cove near Cupids. However, I also discovered maps of Conception Bay drawn in the 1600's which clearly showed that there was no place called Salmon Cove located near Cupids in the 1600's. The maps clearly showed Salmon Cove was located where Avondale is situated now. Clearly, since there was no Salmon Cove near Cupids in 1610, John Guy could not have landed at a place called Salmon Cove near Cupids because Salmon Cove did not exist near Cupids in 1610. Accordingly, artifacts found at the site in Cupids cannot be those of John Guy. As is the case in Cupids, archaeological data which is not supported by historical fact and correct interpretation is worthless! Publicizing claims of historical fact based on archaeological theory without scientific, historical documentary and physical evidence results in misinterpretation of the facts and misleads the public into believing myth and fiction as fact. Just because some claim is published in the newspaper does not make it correct or an historical fact. Claims of historical fact without any conclusive proof or independent verification can be improperly advanced by poorly researched news coverage.

  • Mike
    June 18, 2011 - 15:22

    A great example of how with the extra effort, dreams/visions can happen. Congrats on the latest success, for bringing our history to life and Happy Father's Day tomorrow! Now everyone knows what a great Father I/we have... and is a pretty good artist too! Yeah Larry!

  • surprised
    June 18, 2011 - 10:44

    It would be NICE if The Rooms displayed some of Larry's work, along with some of the work of artist like Larry and Ed Roche et al. So that we could see what Newfoundland looked like many years ago. It seems to me that this is what The Rooms should be used for!!

  • Dave
    June 18, 2011 - 08:24

    Ohh Larry, how will you ever find a hat to fit now with all this press. Happy Fathers Day!