Gents,
Wish that I had taken lessons from J.B., or met him more than just the one time at Friendship. I had spoken with Bivins by phone about various problems, and found him to be a helpful and courteous man. As well, I could tell during face to face conversations with Jim Chambers, how much he esteemed and misses him.
However, since I see no harm in it and you asked, the craft scholar in question was Wallace Gusler, then of Williamsburg. He and I roomed at the same motel and ate dinners at a southern diner outside of DC, when he was teaching a class at the Smithsonian's Conservation Analytical Labs. Pretty interesting, to just listen.
Also, learned a bit of the philosophical motivation in his approach to the recreation of historic rifles, as compared to other makers. No right or wrong: just different. He also emphasized in his historic furniture lectures, the idea that the clean chisel work -- toolmarks -were historically the final finish of carved elements, rather than further refinement of the surface.
I am no expert or scholar here, just relating a few incidental things which I found insightful or amusing. I have found very few of the fine craft or scholar folks I have met or studied with, to be really stuffy. Ego or pride might show a bit in the context of interpretation or execution, but nothing very much more than 'campfire chat' level.
It is within the furniture conservation field and the restoration community that I have found some folks analogous to the 'crusty gunsmith' or 'disregardful of a client' or 'jealous of others achievements' -- the stuff of gossip, or good and meaningful enmities. ;~`)
I suppose that while the characters of Mike studies might be entertaining, and maybe the incidents illuminating somewhat of the man, it doesn't make too much difference to me. Maybe a story or two accompanying each 'smith might be illuminating, and as long as the guidelines Mike mentions are in effect, it adds a bit of interest to the 'read'.
