Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ran Morrissett on July 15, 2014, 12:49:17 PM
-
Under Best of Golf/Art/AW Tillinghast, Phil Young's piece entitled Tillinghast: Student of Golf Course Architecture breaks new ground. Not to be dramatic BUT it announces a world first: the discovery of two golf diagrams hand drawn by A.W. Tillinghast and made public now for the first time.
One is a sparkling 1899 (!) rendition of the Redan and the other is the Road Hole from a 1901 dinner. The Old Course diagram is signed by Old Tom Morris (!), Alister MacKenzie (!), AWT (!) and David Scott-Taylor (?).
The first three names are well known but who is David Scott-Taylor? WELL, according to Phil, he is the great grandson of (the) Walter Scott and he is the man whose family possesses these original diagrams by Tillinghast. Ever since Scott-Taylor’s death in the 1930s, the sketches have been kept in trust for the Scott-Taylor family by a series of inter-related law firms since 1934. The family ownership provenance for purposes of authentication has been sworn to in an affidavit by their current solicitor, Eilian Williams Esq. In it he details that it has been held by the following law firms in an unbroken chain during that time: S.R. Dew to Dew & Prothro to Prothro & Wiiliams to Eilian Williams Esq. the current solicitor.The paper has been verified for age by experts at both the British Museum and other major institutions. The signatures as well have been verified by handwriting experts including several from major institutions and individuals.
The sketches have been seen both in person and via email PDF file by several well-known architects and historians who are familiar with Tillinghast's drawing system and all agree that they were done in his hand. When I spoke with Mike Hurdzan last night, he said this find (which Phil had shared with him) was ‘staggering.’
From an historical perspective, what do these two sketches represent beyond the artistic skills of AWT ? I believe that they are one of the earliest, best, and most obvious connections to how the game of golf came to America from Scotland. Tilly's Redan may well be the first diagram by an American of a great hole in Scotland. In preparation for NGLA, CB Macdonald wouldn't sketch holes until his 1902 and 1904 trips to Scotland (i.e. several years after Tilly’s drawings). Crump, Wilson, et al. traveled to the auld sod much later than the dated Redan drawing. These artifacts support Tillinghast's position at the forefront of golf course architecture when it was at its nascent stage in America. Despite his reverence for Old Tom, Tilly followed no man; he was a leader right when the game and North America needed one.
If ever the Scott-Taylor family makes copies, I am in for two no matter the cost! When I jogged around Somerset Hills at dusk in 1986/7, I was always enchanted by Somerset's jaw-dropping Redan. That amazing hole was borne of this sketch. It really is neat to appreciate how AWT a) traveled b)observed c) understood and d) translated what he learned into the dirt after returning home.
You have to read Phil's piece (and his Feature Interview this month too) to understand how this gentleman David Scott-Taylor was included at dinner with three of the all-time greats. This doctor is quite a story in and of himself. His account of being shoulder to shoulder in the trenches of WWI with fellow Brits including one Alister MacKenzie is chilling.
Anyway, it is indeed a very special and proud moment to be a part of Phil's revelation of this information and diagrams. They are part of history and these two meaningful, tangible items give us pause as we try to better understand who deserves credit and for what during that crucial period in the development of American golf at the turn of the last century. We here at GolfClubAtlas.com generally plod along but I must say that this ranks as a genuine thrilling discovery.
As a historian, I can only imagine how Phil and Ian Scott-Taylor (who follows the Atlas) are feeling by bringing these treasures forward. We certainly thank them for sharing them with us first, a true honor.
Best,
-
Ran and Phil,
Thanks for sharing such an interesting find on a few different levels. I am sure the journal would be a powerful read.
Ran, get back to Somerset Hills. All the trees behind the Redan have been taken down. The hole just floats out there.
Phil, are you aware of the existence of any of the models of holes/greens made by Tillinghast?
Ran and Phil, what will take to get Tillinghast into the World Golf Hall of Fame?
-
Ran and Phil,
Thanks for sharing such an interesting find on a few different levels. I am sure the journal would be a powerful read.
Ran, get back to Somerset Hills. All the trees behind the Redan have been taken down. The hole just floats out there.
Phil, are you aware of the existence of any of the models of holes/greens made by Tillinghast?
Ran and Phil, what will take to get Tillinghast into the World Golf Hall of Fame?
+1-The # 2 Redan at Somerset Hills is an incredible golf hole. Majestic!!!!
-
Hi Mike,
I agree, Ran should get back to SH!
None of the many plasticene models made by Tillinghast are known to exist. Probably the vast majority of them were thrown away over time. It doesn't mean that there aren't any out theret, but rather that wherever they may be, those who possess them may not realize what they are.
To get Tilly into the Hall of Fame, and Harry Colt, Wm. Flynn, Seth Raynor, Perry Maxwell and so many other greats of golf course architecture will take one of two things. Either extreme pressure is put on both the committee which will make the RECOMMENDATION as to who deserves the lifetime achievement award to the new committee that makes the final decision. Also that the new committee be convinced that golf's great's worthy of being inducted into a "Hall of Fame" should include the great architects, especially as its a "lifetime achievement" category under which they qualify. For there would be no world-wide game of golf without someone designing the courses and there certainly wouldn't be the great Major championships or any other important tournaments of that type without great courses on which they are contested, because we have come to appreciate that great players are judged so only because of what they accomplish on great golf courses.
The second thing that can be done is for those who serve on these committees to grow a conscience aqnd recognize that entertainers, politicians and even some whose lifetime achievement in golf consisted of saying "switch from camera A to camera B" should not have come at the igoring of these great architects. By that I'm not saying that each of these to whom I refer don't deserve to be enshrined, rather that their enshrinement BEFORE these great architects, especially in the case of Tillinghast, lessens the accomplishments of all who have been enshrined.
Consider Tilly's accomplishments:
1- A 40+ year career as a golf writer/journalist/editor. The architect who wrote more about every aspect of golf, including architecture, than any other by a huge margin.
2- He was arguably the first great golf photographer. In fact Travis once wrote that the history of the game owed Tilly because of all of the photographs of tournaments, players and golf courses that he took. He carried his 5x5 camera with him everywhere he went and developed each individual glass negative and printed the photos as well. His photographic skills were so important that they aided Ben Hogan who visited him in the early 1930s at his home in Harrington Park. They worked on Hogan's swing together and Tilly filmed much of this. His granddaughter Barbara remembers how they would go into Tilly's basement dark room at night, develop the movies and then examine his swing frame-by-frame.
3- His 27+ month PGA Course Consultation tour during the 1930s enabled the PGA of America to survive during a time when many of their member pros and clubs had abandoned their membership so they could save their funds. Tilly only consulted at Clubs that had a PGA professional and who's dues had been paid up to date. This tour also changed the face of hundreds of courses across America and aided in the re-growth of the game as the country struggled to come out of the Great Depression.
4- Oh yes, there is also the matter of his golf course design work, both original and renovations...
Sorry to go off on that rant...
-
Mike: Thank you so much for the article and the drawings. Do you think that many players back then could play the Redan but hitting directly at a back left hole location?
-
Phil,
It is hardly a rant. Is there a list of the courses designed by AWT that have held major tournaments for men, women and seniors and Ryder Cups?
I suspect the list is pretty extensive.
Cheers, Mike
-
Mike,
Here's a list of Tilly courses on which have hosted major and other USGA national championships. It doesn't include those such as Bethpage & Baltusrol where future ones already have been scheduled:
Baltimore CC (5 Farms) – US Women’s Open, US Amateur, PGA Championship
Baltusrol (Lower & Upper) – 5 US Opens, 3 US Women’s Opens, 2 US Amateurs, PGA Championship
Bethpage Black – 2 US Opens
Bethpage Red & Blue - US Public Links
Brook Hollow GC – US Men’s Mid-Amateur
Cedar Crest GC – PGA Championship, US Public Links
Fresh Meadow CC (NLE) – US Open, PGA
Golden Valley CC – US Girls Junior
Hermitage GC – PGA Championship
Indian Hills CC – US Girls Junior
Newport CC – Us Women’s Open, US Women’s Amateur
Oak Hills CC – US Boys Junior
Oaks CC – US Girls Junior
Ridgewood CC – Ryder Cup, US Amateur, US Sr. Open, US Sr. Amateur, Sr. PGA
Rochester G&CC – US Women’s Mid-Am
San Francisco Golf Club – Curtis Cup, US Sr. Amateur
Shawnee CC – PGA, US Women’s Amateur
Somerset Hills CC – Curtis Cup
Swope Memorial – US Women’s Public Links
Tulsa CC – US Women’s Amateur
Winged Foot GC (Eats & West) – 5 US Opens, 2 US Women’s Opens, US Sr. Open, 2 US Amateurs, PGA
The above list does not include tournaments which were considered major championships of their time such as the Shawnee, Eastern & MGA Open championships and the numerous courses that have hosted PGA & LPGA Tour events. Also, as in the cases of Baltusrol and BCC 5 Farms, the listed ones are not all that these clubs may have hosted as they were the site of other championships played before the Tillinghast course was designed and created.
-
Wow. Great find. Thanks for sharing.
-
Terrific. Well done for sharing.
atb
-
Mike,
Here's a list of Tilly courses on which have hosted major and other USGA national championships. It doesn't include those such as Bethpage & Baltusrol where future ones already have been scheduled:
Baltimore CC (5 Farms) – US Women’s Open, US Amateur, PGA Championship
Baltusrol (Lower & Upper) – 5 US Opens, 3 US Women’s Opens, 2 US Amateurs, PGA Championship
Bethpage Black – 2 US Opens
Bethpage Red & Blue - US Public Links
Brook Hollow GC – US Men’s Mid-Amateur
Cedar Crest GC – PGA Championship, US Public Links
Fresh Meadow CC (NLE) – US Open, PGA
Golden Valley CC – US Girls Junior
Hermitage GC – PGA Championship
Indian Hills CC – US Girls Junior
Newport CC – Us Women’s Open, US Women’s Amateur
Oak Hills CC – US Boys Junior
Oaks CC – US Girls Junior
Ridgewood CC – Ryder Cup, US Amateur, US Sr. Open, US Sr. Amateur, Sr. PGA
Rochester G&CC – US Women’s Mid-Am
San Francisco Golf Club – Curtis Cup, US Sr. Amateur
Shawnee CC – PGA, US Women’s Amateur
Somerset Hills CC – Curtis Cup
Swope Memorial – US Women’s Public Links
Tulsa CC – US Women’s Amateur
Winged Foot GC (Eats & West) – 5 US Opens, 2 US Women’s Opens, US Sr. Open, 2 US Amateurs, PGA
The above list does not include tournaments which were considered major championships of their time such as the Shawnee, Eastern & MGA Open championships and the numerous courses that have hosted PGA & LPGA Tour events. Also, as in the cases of Baltusrol and BCC 5 Farms, the listed ones are not all that these clubs may have hosted as they were the site of other championships played before the Tillinghast course was designed and created.
Phil - No Walker Cups? Quaker Ridge had 1 in 97, and will have a Curtis Cup in a few years, making it one of only a few Met Area courses to hold multiple major USGA events, pro or am.
-
Mike Cirba asked me to post this for him:
Hi Phil,
Nice to see you back on Golfclubatlas. Thank you for sharing this remarkable information and the beautiful drawings. They certainly shift the focus and change the picture of some of our early understanding of golf in this country, particularly as influenced by the great courses and holes abroad. You mentioned that their finding may stir up some conjecture, which I believe is generally helpful as long as facts and conjecture are clearly defined and understood.
I think what those drawings prove is that artistic reproductions of famous holes were in and around Philadelphia at least a decade earlier than what was previously known and given Tililnghast's social circle I think there is very little doubt that these would have been circulated or at least have been shown to his close friends.
Any further conjecture would be tough to prove, particularly as relates to the creation of Merion. We do know that Richard Francis wrote in 1950 that "...Mr. Wilson went to the British Isles to study golf-course design, and returned with a lot of drawings which we studied carefully, hoping to incorporate their good features on our course."
Might those have been drawings Tillinghast gave him? Possibly. They could also have possibly been from CBM, who Wilson visited prior to going abroad, or they could possibly be sketches Wilson himself made of features he wanted to be able to reproduce in whole or in part.
One account of Wilson from an overseas newspaper said "...the object of Mr. Wilson's visit is that they may be kept as like the originals as it is possible for green architects to make them."
Which is cool, but of more interest to me is the next section, which indicates that much like Tillinghast, Hugh Wilson also took photographs of the famous holes.
"Mr. Wilson, who has already visited Formby and Hoylake paid a visit to Troon on Wednesday, and after a round with Harry Fernie he in the afternoon went over the course with Willie Fernie, and took snapshots of the course at various points, including the short eighth hole, the Sandhills bunker, and the eleventh hole. It is Mr. Wilson's intention to visit Prestwick, Muirfield, North Berwick, and St. Andrews before going south to inspect the courses in and around London."
Another possible source of drawings, or photos, and just certainly knowledge about the famous holes was Rodman Griscom. Jeff Silverman's new history book, Merion: The Championship Story goes into considerable detail regarding Griscom and his sister spending summers in the early 1900s under the tutelage of Ben Sayers at North Berwick, so Griscom certainly knew a redan from an Eden, and so on. As you know, Rodman Griscom was also a great friend of Tilly.
I’d also mention that although Wilson, Griscom, et.al. and Tillinghast were good and close friends, we also know that at least one of Tillinghast's updates about the Merion project took place directly from CBM while Tilly was at Garden City GC because Tilly wrote as much in 1912, referring to a conversation with CBM a year prior.
Overall, to me, I think this finding slightly redefines Macdonald’s accomplishments, putting more emphasis on his greatest achievement at The National being the creation of a single golf course with eighteen great (or near great) holes, some strategically patterned and some directly copied from great holes abroad. However, some later accounts (such as Whigham’s eulogy) virtually credit CBM solely for bringing the very concept and knowledge of what constituted a great golf hole to this country and your findings show that to be a bit of an exaggeration.
Thanks again for the marvelous contribution to golf course architectural history.
Mike Cirba
-
Jaeger,
That was a quickly put together list. Considering all the ones that have been held on Tilly courses I'm not surprised to have missed one or even more!
Many thanks...
-
A pleasure to read.
Thanks to the Phil and the Scott-Taylor family for sharing.
-
So who is the Father of American Golf Course Architecture??
-
Isn't that an interesting question now? The answer one gives is completely subjective and wilol be based upon the specific set of parameters that one believes defines the answer...
-
Great article Phil!! :o :o :o
-
Thanks Neil...
-
Frankly, I think Mr. Young ought to be invited to the podium at a "Hall of Fame" ceremony to read his reply #3 and list in reply #6. What more need be said?
-
RJ,
As much of an ego trip that might be, I'm quite sure that I'm not high on anyone's list for that privilege when or if that day ever comes...
Beside, I would speak about none of that. I would talk about Tilly the man, explaining how his passion for golf and those architects he personally knew and was deeply impressed by would drive him, if he was alive to accept the honor himself, to challenge those seated before him to induct them alongside him. That not having a separate wing for architects is a wrong that must be righted. That because too many PROFESSIONAL PLAYERS have recently been inducted who were borderline candidates at best forcing the Hall to make an even more egregious mistake, that is, changing it to an every other year ceremony without increasing the opportunity for these long-overdue golf course architects who deserve to be memorialized for as long as the game exists now will be shuffled off every other year. Meanwhile, new actors who provide good television coverage of tournaments, politicians whose sole impact on the game is showing their faces at tournaments & the occasional ailing golf-related figure who is now seriously ill will all once again get in before these true greats of golf. After all, doesn't the family of the ailing person as well as himself deserve to see it happen "while he is still alive?" Yet I ask this, why should Tilly's 4 grandchildren, all now well into their 80s with failing healths, not be worthy of this same privilege? Why should they be expected to wait any longer for the day when Tilly is inducted? Especially as every single person involved in the administration of golf and the hall of fame who has been asked by myself "Should A.W. Tillinghast be in the Hall of Fame?", and that number is quite substantial, has answered with a resounding YES!
No, I don't think that I'd be their first choice... But thanks for the opportunity to get back on that soap box for a moment! :)
-
Phil,
Fantastic stuff!! Thank you for caring and thank you for sharing.
Best,
Lester
-
My pleasure Les...
-
Phil
Many thanks for posting those sketches.
A couple of comments regarding the sketches. I note they don't have any yardages or a scale marked on them, likewise there is no indication of the elevational changes that you get on the Redan in particular. In that respect the plans look like the type of line drawingas that you got in newspapers of the day. Given the lack of detail what do you think they tell you, and what would they communicate to someone like Wilson who probably was already familiar with plans of St Andrews ?
Secondly, the Road Hole sketch defines the fairway. Off the top of my head I'm not sure I've seen this before on sketches of this type. Could be wrong but I thought there was lack of definition back then due to sheep and other grazing animals being unable to graze in a straight line ;D
Niall
-
The inclusion of fairway lines caught my eye as well. Not only does it not seem to fit with TOC, but it doesn't fit with the style of sketches of golf holes/courses from the same time period.
In my reading, I have found that fairway lines were rarely (if ever) depicted in the drawings and maps during this early period. Occasionally one might see a map or sketch for a new course where the hole corridors were depicted, but this was often because some sort of clearing or construction had apparently taken place. I would go so far as to suggest that the concept of a strictly defined, arbitrarily created fairway lines may not yet have been well established in the golf architect's lexicon.
Same goes of the the precisely shaped representations of the tee boxes in both drawings, especially the depiction of the tee box on the Redan sketch. I don't remember the details of every drawing I've ever seen, but I feel safe in saying that, generally,such details on drawings from the turn of the century were unusual, if they existed at all.
If anyone has any examples of Circa 1900 sketches that include specific fairway lines and/or detailed drawings of the shapes of the tees, I'd love to see them.
Thanks.
-
I might also add that in relation to the Road Hole, the sketch doesn't actually show the Road or was the road not built then ?
As an aside, I happened to be playing at North Berwick on Sunday with 3 other GCAers, one of whom inadvertently tried Tilly's alternative route to the hole. I'm sure there are others that know the hole better than me who could comment but Tilly's suggested alternative route seems an awfully high tariff type shot given the carry and then the fall away behind. If you were laying up would it not be better to lay up before the bunker and chip on from there ?
Niall
-
The sketches done by Tilly were done to depict the hole as it existed, although that is what was done, but as a means of personal study for him of how it was designed. These were the perceptions of a young man in the beginnings of teaching himself the intricacies of golf course design put onto a canvas for later study and conversations with others.
That they should appear different from hole design drawings of the day shouldn't surprise one but rather should be expected. They reflect what he saw and what he wanted to remember and think about.
-
From The Lurker:
Phil:
Vis-a-vis your Reply #24, how does one, at this point, determine what Tilly's specific intentions were when he made those two drawings in 1899 and 1901?
I am certainly aware of how multi-faceted Tilly apparently always was in that he was artistic (he drew), he wrote comprehensively on golf and architecture for years, and of course he was a golf architect of remarkable depth and breadth throughout his career.
Over the years, I have been most familiar with his constant writing and reporting on golf and architecture. For instance, without Tilly's writing chronology on the creation of Pine Valley, I could not have put together the timeline of the creation years of Pine Valley, as I did.
My specific question to you today is----if Tilly made those two remarkable early drawings of the Redan (1899) and the Road Hole (1901) for his own use in the study and perhaps future use for his architectural career (which was some years off at those points), then why did he give those drawings to the Scott Taylor family at that time? It seems to me the more logical reason he gave the Scott Taylor family those drawings shortly after he did them was because he probably did those two drawings specifically for artistic reasons.
-
Phil
I agree with the Lurker, the sketches appear to be more for artistic reasons rather than for any real documentation of the nuances of the design of the hole(s) as evidenced by any real design detail such as scale, sizes, contours, slopes etc. Also rather than appearing different to hole depictions of the time, they look remarkably similar to the type of basic plans routinely seen in contemporary newspapers. The obvious exception being the fairway outline that I alluded to in my earlier post.
I'm fairly sure TOC was still used for grazing at that time therefore I would have expected any differential between fairway and rough to be blurred. Either way it's a nice keepsake to have.
Niall
-
Niall,
I am a bit confused. You appear to be making contradictory statements. Can you clarify what you mean when you say, "rather than appearing different to hole depictions of the time, they look remarkably similar to the type of basic plans routinely seen in contemporary newspapers..."
with this earlier one, "Secondly, the Road Hole sketch defines the fairway. Off the top of my head I'm not sure I've seen this before on sketches of this type."
In addition David agreed with this second statement of yours. In reference to the fairway lines and precisely shaped representations of tee boxes he wrote, "I don't remember the details of every drawing I've ever seen, but I feel safe in saying that, generally,such details on drawings from the turn of the century were unusual, if they existed at all."
That is why I stated, "That they should appear different from hole design drawings of the day shouldn't surprise one but rather should be expected. They reflect what he saw and what he wanted to remember and think about."
Niall, Joe & the Lurker, these were not for artistic purposes. Tilly was studying the courses and specific holes in the U.K. for the specific purpose of understanding the concepts that define great course architecture and design. These drawings, as well as many others that he did constantly throughout his life show this. Remember too that he spent a great deal of time talking to others on these trips about golf architecture and design.
In addition, he also brought along his 5x5 camera and photographed everything from courses to players to St. Andrews itself. Many of these photographs can be seen in the pages of GOLF & other magazines beginning in 1901 and onward. He used the photographs of the holes and features (there is a wonderful one of the "whins" at St. Andrews as an example) in his studies.
As for why he delineated the fairway there are a number of possible answers:
1- That's what he saw on the hole.
2- He was defining not the fairway/rough line but the areas of "Hilly Ground" which is what he wrote on the drawing and not rough. This possibility is what I believe because when you compare the Redan drawing you'll see that he defined the areas of "Rough" on the hole.
3- Any of a multitude of possible reasons that one might come up with.
We'll probably never know the definitive answer.
-
Phil
If you read the next line in my post "The obvious exception being...." you will note there is no contradiction.
I do believe this exception is worth noting, not just because it's different to other similar sketches of the time, but also because it suggests there was some definition to the fairway. Bear in mind that in 1901 TOC was likely still being grazed by sheep, and that with links you would have minimal mowing anyway, then it's perhaps surprising that there was a noticeable defined edge between the rough and fairway on the ground.
As to the purpose of the sketch, if it was to note design ideas to pass on or as an aide memoir then frankly its fairly basic and doesn't go beyond anything already published at the time. I think you could say that even more about the Redan sketch.
Niall
-
Niall,
Put yourself in Tilly's place and time. He had just taken up the game a few years earlier. His knowledge of design principles was minimal at best when he began a systematic study of it. This was part of his purpose in the trips to the U.K., to study the great courses and holes and to discuss design theory with people such as Old Tom and others he would befriend who either understood design principles or were practicing architects themselves. An example of this was Tilly's friendship with MacKenzie at this time.
As for the sketches being fairly basic, why should that mean that they are artistic representations rather than a means of study? Remember that he also took photographs of holes. These would be used in concert for his studies and discussions about design with any he spoke with on the subject on both sides of the Atlantic.
The gifts of the sketches to Dr. David Scott-Taylor was because he found a kindred soul in him as one who also had a passion for understanding golf course design and architecture.
-
An example of this was Tilly's friendship with MacKenzie at this time.
Was Tillinghast friendly with MacKenzie prior to their meeting in St. Andrews, or had they just met via Dr. Scott-Taylor?
It's clear that MacKenzie was friends with his fellow Doctor by then. But this is still a few years before MacKenzie met Harry Colt at Alwoodley, and way before he was publicly known as an architecture enthusiast. From Colt's recounting of their first meeting, MacKenzie had been fascinated by the subject for a few years prior -- he said he had all sorts of photos and drawings -- but this 1901 meeting is the earliest I've seen of MacKenzie meeting with fellow architect(s) -- and only Tom Morris had actually designed a golf course by then.
-
I can accept PY's interpretation of the boundary lines to the Road Hole as nothing more than definition. It would be fairly silly to attempt to portray a hole without giving it some definition.
What intrigues me is that what lies beyond the green is defined as "bunker" rather than "road." Since the sketch is titled "17th Hole 'The Road,'" I would guess that the road actually existed at the time and that either the wall or the road might have been included in the sketch.
As PY indicates, AWT appears to have drawn what he saw. The two bunkers just off the tee on 17, to the left, are not in his drawing. He might have considered these part of the 2nd hole, to be excluded from the sketch.
-
Ronald
You’re a 21st century golfer. You are used to having everything defined from the teeing ground, to the path leading to the fairway, the fairway itself and then the different degrees of rough. You wouldn’t have had that in 1901. Mowing would have been a far less frequent occurrence particularly on a links. Then you have the blurred lines caused by grazing animals.
Even today, with much more manicured courses, the transition from fairway to rough on a lot of traditional links can be hard to spot at times so my point is that there wouldn’t have been that definition there to record so why is it on the sketch ?
Phil
Another mystery to me is how these great men could have dinner at the Scores Hotel in 1901 when it didn’t come into being until 1930’s, or at least the current Hotel of that name didn’t come into being until then. Was there another hotel of that name ? What was the address on the headed notepaper ?
Niall
-
Niall,
To quote a comparative linguistics teacher, arguing a point with a historical linguistics teacher:
?Estuviste alli? Entonces, ?como lo sabes?
Were you there? Well, then how do you know?
All we can do is suppose. To say that there would have been no definition in any man's eye is a bold claim.
If you want to call the sketches fraudulent, then do so.
-
Niall,
That's a good question. The original note is in Scotland. I'll see if I can get both another image of the entire note and information regarding the date of 1930.
Tom, this is the earliest information that I have for Tilly & MacKenzie. I'll see if I can locte anything else.
Ron, I don't see anythingw rong with a healthy debate and asking questions and am not offended by those that Niall and others raised. The answer for whether or not someone would show a defining line on a hole drawing in 1901, whether it defines fairway/rough line or separation of hilly terrain from flat is to me a semantic argument. Whether or not other drawings showing this same drawing style of a defining line had been used or not matters not. It is a question of why Tilly would have used it and he certainly can't answer...
I'm traveling today through the weekend and will chime in when I can although it will be limited...
-
Ronald
Let me assure you, I'm not that old. I have however looked at an awful lot of similar style drawings from that time, as well as read a lot of contemporary reports, and to top it all have seen quite a few photos as well. None of the drawings, that I can recall, showed defined fairways so it is an exceptional detail, at least to me. I spent a bit of time last night going through Scott Macphersons book which is the definitive one on story of golf at St Andrews and he has several photos of the time that show it was fairly rough and ready in comparison to today's highly maintained courses.
Do I want to call the sketch fraudulent ? No, I would like to find out more about it and the meeting of Tilly and MacKenzie.
Phil
Thanks for that. Look forward to hearing from you further.
Niall
-
Niall,
I've requested the copies. It will take a few days as it is the family's solicitor's office and part of a probate action with the death of Ian's mother several months ago.
I was able to learn that the original Grand Hotel was also known as the "Scores Hotel" as many who just played the old course would walk into its bar & restaurant to "tally up their scores." That is the genesis to how the modern Scores Hotel got its name. It is a single source and I'll see if I can confirm that further but I found that fascinating.
I'm off to pack for a flight to Albany, NY...
-
Thanks Phil, that would make sense.
Niall
-
It would be fairly silly to attempt to portray a hole without giving it some definition.
This is a "fairly silly" claim written by someone who apparently has no understanding in how courses were portrayed at this point in time. In 1901, courses were portrayed without strictly defined, arbitrarily created fairway lines. This was not "silly" at the time. It was commonplace. So much so that these sketches look to me to be outlandish in comparison to other such renderings at the time.
I could be mistaken, but if I am it ought to be easy enough to demonstrate.
Can can anyone come up with any Circa 1901 golf course sketches, maps, or plans which include such fairway lines and/or detailed drawings of the shapes of the tees?
-
I've got this from 1914, : http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pv_1_04_1914_Inky.jpg
Here's a Tilly from 1914: http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/ShawneeCCCourseSketchca1914.jpg
I'll keep looking.
And I've found them, thanks to the Ed Oden thread:
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj310/eko_gfl/PlanoftheGolfCourseoverStAndrewsLinks1875byTHodge001_zps3865917f.jpg
and
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj310/eko_gfl/TroonGCMap1888001_zpsd37517c9.jpg
It seems to be uniquely Scottish. If Tilly saw these sketches, or some of their ilk, he might have imitated them long before Al Mac drew his famous plan of The Old Course.
======
David, were you saying that I'm silly and have little knowledge? I just like to be clear on this one, as your words weren't. I realize that sticks were the norm for hole demarcation, so thank you for compelling me to find a few outliers.
======
Phil...I'm all for healthy debate. I thought I was contributing to one. It seemed to me that Niall insinuated that the sketch wasn't period-appropriate.
======
Niall...I know you're not that old!
-
Welcome back Phil, we need more historians.
Enjoyed the sketches and this discussion, very much.
-
Ron,
You guys needn't bother looking in 1914. Golf course architecture was an entirely different animal by 1914. The date on that work of art is "May 1901."
The sketches are not "period-appropriate."
As for your question, I think my words were clear.
-
David, there are always outliers. Tilly might have been that outlier. Is that outside the realm of your consideration?
Are you saying that the sketch is misdated?
I'm not a fan of this beating around the bush. Say what you mean, mean what you say and give Phil something to chase.
-
Ronald
Tilly may well have been the outlier and that he imposed fairway definition that wasn't on the ground at St Andrews because that was what he was used to back in the US, I don't know. I suppose it's possible, and if he did I would find that fairly interesting. I'm just not convinced that what he was representing ie. a clear definition between fairway and rough, would have existed on the ground at St Andrews.
Niall
-
Niall,
I understand now what you are chasing and I agree. If that is not what was on the ground at the time, perhaps it is what AWT imagined should be there. Who knows?
David has certainly been helpful in reminding us that |-----------------------O was the typical hole designation of the day. I look forward to the development of this thread.
-
I think the point is that Tillinghast drew what he drew, and whether he saw a fairway line or not he drew something that looks to us like a fairway line. Tilly was not a professional golf course architect or depicter of golf courses when he drew these, rather an enthusiastic amateur studying the great courses. Naturally one would expect he would be a keen reader and no doubt familiar with hole sketches of the day. He just chose in this instance to depict those holes with a fairway line. I don't see it as a crime. Also, given that he chose to give these sketches away suggests he did others that he kept, and perhaps these were different and more elaborate. But we only have what we see here to comment on.
Neil
-
Neil...there's nothing veiled in what you write. That's what we should be after.
It's precocious and prescient of AWT, then, to come up with a way to depict a hole that wasn't in vogue, some fifteen years before it began to standardize itself.
-
Phil recently started a new thread attempting to address the reasons behind the major problems with his recent Tillinghast article. Had he not mentioned it to me in a message, I might not have seen it. I checked with a few others and they hadn't noticed it either. I am copying his post here and will eventually comment on it here.
This is an important enough topic that I think all the information ought to be in the same place, and Ran's thread introducing the article seems to be the obvious place.
Hubris and a point of honor.
In my interview with Ran I speak of the importance of approaching information with “fresh eyes” and give some detailed experiences that I’ve seen during the course of the research work I have done for some clubs.
Well, I can now I fully understand the depth of my own statement on how one can make mistakes in properly understanding for I’ve fallen into the same trap myself. As a result it turns out that some of the details in the story behind the Tillinghast sketches were incorrect.
So, as a point of honor I am coming forward to admit the mistake, explain how it occurred and detail the actual events as they happened doing so directly from photographs of pages from the 1901 journal of Dr. David Scott-Taylor. I intend to answer any and all questions that may/will be asked and any criticisms leveled against me I will accept as being well-earned.
This is the genesis of the mistake’s discovery. At the beginning of this past week David Moriarty sent me a private email cc’ed to Ran in which he challenged the May 11, 2001, date for Tilly having been to St. Andrews. He said that he checked on shipping manifests and found only one and that it showed that Tilly and his wife arriving in Liverpool on July 20th. This was followed by some newspaper citations that showed Tilly playing in cricket matches in Philadelphia in both early and mid-May which would have made it physically impossible for Tilly to have been in Scotland on May 11th, the date I stated for the dinner at the “Scores” Hotel at which the Road hole sketch was to have been signed by Old Tom, MacKenzie, David Scott-Taylor and Tilly.
David did a very good job of research on this. He deserves the full credit for this find and I thank him for it. He chose to present it privately because he said the he was concerned for the hit I would take to my reputation and I believe that. In fact I’m sure that it will quite surprise most to hear that he & I actually spoke on the phone about the issues raised and did so pleasantly and civilly.
In my essay I credit the details surrounding the supposed May 1901 visit to the journals of Dr. David Scott-Taylor. This is where sloppiness on my part came in. I never actually saw the journal pages at the time I looked into the veracity of the sketches after I had been made aware of them by my friend, Ian Scott-Taylor. So how could I make the claim that the information I wrote about was found in them?
It is odd to come forward and admit to a mistake of this type and ask that some trust be given in what I am about to say, but still, that is what I’m doing. If anyone chooses not to give that trust I will understand.
I have been involved with a series of ongoing research projects for the Scott-Taylor family separate from the Tillinghast drawings. I am currently not at liberty to reveal what they involve and will not do so. They involve information found throughout many different volumes of the journals of Dr. Scott-Taylor and in each case I actually did see photographs of the relevant pages from them. They were exactly correct in backing up what the family had told me about the things they had me researching.
So why then didn’t I go through the process of procuring photographic copies of the journal pages for the Tillinghast sketches? My favorite author once wrote, “Logistics is the assassin of ideas.” That is what occurred here, that and hubris.
The logistics involved in getting the photographs of the journal pages for the other research was a long and laborious process due to a private family situation which I will not speak of here. This was greatly compounded by their being in the custody of the family’s solicitor’s in Scotland. Adding to this, it occurred at a time when I was also involved in far too many other research projects and I was flat out exhausted by the time I got to the Tillinghast sketches.
The hubris of not having the “fresh eyes” that I so pride myself in having comes in my belief that the information provided to me about how and when Dr. David Scott-Taylor received the Road hole sketch was true and accurate and that because on every other occasion when I needed to verify something similar via the journals that they were correct in every single detail.
That is why I accepted what had been told me by the family as being the truth because I knew they believed it and had gotten to the point where I had no reason whatsoever to doubt it. That was my egregious mistake.
Rather than comparing the mistakes with the new information that I will be shortly presenting and reference further on, I’m simply going to outline what the journals state happened and when. This information comes directly from transcripts of the journal pages referred to and was done by myself. The irony in all of this is that a dinner did take place at the Scores Hotel on May 11, 1901, at which time the Road hole sketch was signed by Old Tom Morris, Alister MacKenzie and Dr. David Scott-Taylor. The 4th person at the dinner was Dr. Scott-Taylor’s brother. Tillinghast was nowhere in sight.
Although there is a great deal more information especially about the relationships between Tilly, MacKenzie and Old Tom, I will leave those details for you to see when the details are properly and fully posted.
Here then is the chronology of events as told directly in the pages of the journal of Dr. David Scott-Taylor:
May, 4, 2011:
“Mum gave me my mail at breakfast, got a letter from the United States. Tilly sent with a letter more like a book chapter about golf and cricket, also with 4 hole drawings in it. He promised them at Christmas, guess he forgot.
“The road hole St Andrews, 4th Machrihanish, 11th Prestwick and Callender golf club, I guess Old Tom made an impression on Tilly the last visit here. I’ll put these with the other two he gave me when I met him, a nice set they’ll make too. All signed by Tilly 1901. By the looks of things Tilly will be here on July 1st so lots to catch up on and he wants to see a first class match whilst he’s here.
“Must remember to ask Mac next week about the next Roses match at Headingly or Old Trafford and if there is one, can we get Tilly there.”
So Tilly mailed the sketch of the Road hole to him and he received it on May 4, 1901. Two things to note: First that he was planning on asking “Mac” to make arrangements for Tilly to attend a cricket match. A later page details this as actually happening. Second, that it states that it was signed by Tilly “1901.” On the sketch you will see that the word “May” has been added. It is believed that Dr. Scott-Taylor himself wrote that word in possibly to provide a more exact date for when he received it.
May 11, 2001:
“Well after we finished we down to Old Toms shop in The links Close, you can’t miss it, it has a street lamp outside it, that just happens to light the shop sign, a standing joke with Old Tom who knew the town engineer.
“I had A.W.Tillinghast’s sketch of the road hole with me and asked Old Tom what he thought and would he sign it?
“The gruff old bugger looked at me and then the sketch “Mmmm” he said, “does it really look like that to an American now?”
“He looked at me again and chuckled” I sign it wee David for a price of a dinner,” Done’ said I.’
“When I told Old Tom that Alister MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since. I also offered Andra [Andra Kirkaldy who is also mentioned by name as being there in the shop] to join us but he had a previous engagement at the Royal Hotel. Tom explained “drinking buddies.”
Further down:
“At Dinner Old Tom and Mac where deep in to golf course design and what each would do with ‘Hell’ bunker on the old course, I took this opportunity of pushing Tilly’s sketch up the table to the jousting heroes.
“Mac and Old Tom dissected then the Road hole with its good and bad points, the green shape, the Road bunker, my brother was so bored he left for bed, excused himself and left.
“The Table of three where left to our own devices and conversation.
“At the end of the night we all laughed loudly, it was a good night.
“I asked Old Tom to sign the drawing as agreed and to my surprise Mac insisted to add his signature to the drawing.
“What a collection for me, and one for the scrapbook, with a grand after dinner story for the future.”
So here we see that the story behind Dr. Scott-Taylor having taken the sketch into Old Tom’s shop, asking him to sign it and agreeing to do so for the price of the dinner is correct and that there actually was a dinner on May 11, 1901, at the “Scores” Hotel at which the sketch was signed by Old Tom and Alister MacKenzie.
May 28, 1901:
“Got a parcel from Tilly yesterday with the medical journal in it I asked him to get. Will read it in the train on way down.
“I also got a note from him thanking me for my hospitality in St Andrews, typical of him. He’s a good friend.”
So here we see the irony of the thank-you note. It was written by Tilly on May 12th and because it was in the family documents it became assumed that the reference to the “hospitality in St. Andrews” was referring to the dinner from the night before on May 11th. That is also how the family mixed in Tilly to the dinner by the mistake of not having reviewed the journal pages themselves for a number of years. By that I’m not even beginning to imply that this is their mistake, rather it is stated so that an understanding of how the mistake occurred may be understood by all.
In addition, when you get to read the actual journal page I’m quite certain that all will be intrigued by the reference to what was contained in the medical journal that Tilly sent him.
July 20, 1901:
“An old friend arrives today with his wife whom I have not met, so this will be a first.
“The telegram said the ship was to arrive today in Liverpool at the Cunard docks. Tilly and his wife are traveling first class on the Campania, very posh.
“Arrived in Liverpool around 3pm when I got out of the Station I bought a Daily Post afternoon edition for a read and to see if the Campania had arrived. After finding a café on the High St for tea and bun, I walked over to the hotel. As elegant as ever ‘The Midland’ all the attendants rushing around in white coats very posh indeed. I enquired at the desk if Mr. & Mrs. Tillinghast from America had arrived.
“The desk clerk informed me they had and he would inform them I was waiting.
“I felt I was in Parliament.
“I sat in the foyer waiting for them reading the days news of which there wasn’t much apart from the House of Lord sitting on the Taff Valley case and Morocco signing a deal with France. Tilly walked up with this elegant lady. After our greeting of old friends Tilly introduced his wife Lillian, she was timid and to me a little shy of Tilly. Mmm got me wondering that did.
“By the sound of things they had a good passage and where glad to be back on dry land.
“I thanked Tilly for his drawings and told him about the Old Tom dinner, he laughed, and remarked, he would have loved to have been there to join in the discussion. He remarked he was looking forward to seeing Old Tom and chatting. I‘d like to be a fly on the wall for that I think, so would Mac. Now there’s a dinner table.
“He also asked if I got the Journal on Heart surgery. I said I did and thanked him for it along with the note. I also informed him of Mac’s (Alister MacKenzie) invitation to Old Trafford on the 25th to see Lancashire and Gloucestershire play cricket and to Leeds to visit Mac before they traveled north to Scotland.
Further down:
“Tilly was excited in both, though I think Lillian was not as pleased. I think this trip is going to be hard for her, Tilly is quite enamored with the golf course visiting. He produced this box thing, a camera he said looked more like a box for holding tea in to me, well there you go.”
It ends with this observation:
“I left Tilly sitting in the Lounge ordering another brandy and soda. I just managed to catch the Mail train from Lime Street to Crewe. I got home at about 1.30 am exhausted from the evenings events. It was wonderful to see Tillinghast again and meet Lillian, with much pondering on the train home, she has her hands full and the golf world has a genius or mad man knocking at the door, only time will tell.”
So here we see that the date Tilly arrived in Liverpool matches exactly with the date in the Journal and that both the dinner with Old Tom & MacKenzie and the receiving of his thank-you letter was discussed.
With Ran’s permission I am preparing detailed corrections to the essay that will be inserted and replace the mistaken passages mentioned above. These will include photographs of the actual journal pages so that all will have an opportunity to judge their veracity for themselves and to compare the quotations I cited from them above for accuracy. I will refrain from answering any questions until that is put up as my answers will only reflect the information found there. I would suggest that questions hold until it is put up.
I will, though, answer one of the questions already raised right now. I’m doing so because the answer has been sitting in the wonderful Ed Oden thread “A Compilation of Routing Maps, Plans and Architectural Drawings.” I received the following from Mike Cirba who found it, but first the questions/comments that it answers:
Niall Carlton commented in post #21:
Secondly, the Road Hole sketch defines the fairway. Off the top of my head I'm not sure I've seen this before on sketches of this type. Could be wrong but I thought there was lack of definition back then due to sheep and other grazing animals being unable to graze in a straight line
David asked this in post #22:
If anyone has any examples of Circa 1900 sketches that include specific fairway lines and/or detailed drawings of the shapes of the tees, I'd love to see them.
I believe this is a proper answer. It is found on page 14 of the thread, comment #347. Cristian’s text accompanying it says, “This is a picture of the 1898 routing of RSG (Sandwich), which is visible on the wall of the men's locker room. It is a beautiful copy of a drawing which my photo does not do justice (especially holes 13 and 14).” Note the fairway lines:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Sandwich_1898_zps7066ea0f.jpg) (http://s364.photobucket.com/user/PhiltheAuthor/media/Sandwich_1898_zps7066ea0f.jpg.html)
Once again my apologies for making these mistakes. They were made solely by me and I own them. Any criticism for making them is deserved and accepted.
-
Three photos of the area around the 17th hole.
1891 - I believe this was taken from the 2nd tee.
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/gca/oldcourse1891_zps61ca8119.jpeg) (http://s99.photobucket.com/user/cadcaddo/media/gca/oldcourse1891_zps61ca8119.jpeg.html)
1900
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/gca/oldcourse1900_zps9339bc67.jpeg) (http://s99.photobucket.com/user/cadcaddo/media/gca/oldcourse1900_zps9339bc67.jpeg.html)
1910
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/gca/oldcourse1910_zps4f84c8b2.jpeg) (http://s99.photobucket.com/user/cadcaddo/media/gca/oldcourse1910_zps4f84c8b2.jpeg.html)
-
wait................. does this mean that Tillinghast designed Merion? ;D
-
I approach this story from the point of view of an Alister Mackenzie fan, and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't stack up.
I can accept that MacKenzie and Scott-Thomas had become friends in the Royal Army Medical Corps during the Boer war; indeed MacKenzie had just returned from South Africa at the time of the dinner in St Andrews in 1901, so it is conceivable that he had looked up an old friend shortly thereafter - in St Andrews.
The assertion in the extract from the journal however, is that MacKenzie was also already friends with Old Tom Morris.
“When I told Old Tom that Alister MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since.
In 1901 Alister Mackenzie was a 30-year old Leeds doctor fresh from the Boer War who had only just started playing golf after his rugby playing days were brought to an end by injury. Commensurate with his inexperience he clearly had trouble breaking a hundred with any consistency and had a handicap of 18.
Yet we are asked to believe that his company and opinions on golf course architecture were sought out and embraced by none other than Old Tom Morris? How convenient that he not only signed the sketch ( a very strange thing to want to do) but also dated it for authenticity should some GCA nerds a century on want to discuss it!
The journal also places MacKenzie at Scott-Taylor's side in France in April 1917. All evidence however, suggests that MacKenzie was actually in London at that time at the Special Works School in Kensington Gardens.
In the MacKenzie Timeline, Scott-Taylor's grandson is credited with the following information for late 1922;
Mackenzie shares a train journey with his friend Lt. Col. Surgeon David Scott-Taylor RAMC who MacKenzie knew through his time in the Medical Corps. MacKenzie had been visiting Colt and was returning north via London, they both got off at Chester, and carried on their discussion in the buffet at Chester. MacKenzie later carried on by train to Liverpool.
If Ian Scott-Taylor went out of his way to share the details of this rather uneventful episode with MacKenzie historians, why did he keep the rather more important events in St Andrews two decades earlier to himself?
Interestingly, Ian Scott-Taylor has at least two versions of how his grandfather and MacKenzie met.
http://www.golfbusinessnews.com/news/people/scott-taylor-made-honorary-member-of-alister-mackenzie-society/
Even more interestingly, Mr Scott-Taylor is a golf course architect!
I would be very interested to know more about the provenance of those signatures.
The more I think about this story the more I am reminded of the Hitler Diaries...
-
Duncan,
One of the members of the MacKenzie Society has known of the Tillinghast sketches for as long as I have. In addition, if those who are responsible for the MacKenzie timeline have added citations such as this I'm pretty sure that you can at least accept that they believe the provenance and the documentations and proof offered to them before they did so.
When the corrected essay is put up on site later this week you'll be very surprised as to what is mentioned about MacKenzie in them and his relationship with Old Tom in 1901 and with Tilly as well.
The Journals, from which this information is taken from have been in the hands of the family solicitors since the untimely passing of Dr. David Scott-Taylor in 1933. Ran himself has seen the proof of this and wrote the following on the Hubris thread:
"What I can speak directly to is that I have personally seen with my own eyes proof positive that the paper/journals have been in the care of the lawyers and stored by their firm at their offices since the death of David Scott-Taylor in 1933. To me, that means we are looking at material of age."
Sorry to disappoint, but there's no Adolph here...
The reason that what the family has in their possession has not been seen publicly before this is due to a family dynamic invovling privacy and what they have long considered their family heritage...
-
Duncan,
I agree with all that and am glad you brought it forward. There is also a corollary problem with the sentence you quoted:
“When I told Old Tom that Alister MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since.
Before or since? “Before or since” has meaning only if the author had extended experience not only prior to the event in question, but also has significant experience after the event in question. In other words, the author has to be looking back over some significant passage of time. Not a few hours.
But this is supposed to be a journal, written within hours of the event in question. “Before or since” sounds as it it came out of a memoir. As a journal entry, "before or since" makes no sense.
__________________________________________
As problems go with these supposed journal entries, this one is just the tip of the iceberg. I hope to be able to elaborate later today.
-
So David,
I see that you're quoting from the actual journal pages that have yet to be published on here. For the benefit of everyone else, would you please tell them where you got it from?
-
So David,
I see that you're quoting from the actual journal pages that have yet to be published on here. For the benefit of everyone else, would you please tell them where you got it from?
I don't know what you are talking about Phil. Perhaps you should review Duncan's post. Or perhaps you should review your own post on the other thread.
Is it possible that you still haven't actually read the supposed journal pages?
-
David,
I don't have to review Duncan's post as I read it and know where he got it from. I'm quite surprised that you're not challenging the MacKenzie Society for putting information into the MacKenzie timeline that may be in doubt.
Forget the quote from 1901 and consider the one from 1922: "Mackenzie shares a train journey with his friend Lt. Col. Surgeon David Scott-Taylor RAMC who MacKenzie knew through his time in the Medical Corps. MacKenzie had been visiting Colt and was returning north via London, they both got off at Chester, and carried on their discussion in the buffet at Chester. MacKenzie later carried on by train to Liverpool."
Where do you think that bit of information comes from along with other ones? Might it be from other journals that have not even been hinted at. Would those who manage the MacKenzie Timeline put information on it that they haven't properly vetted or have the tiniest doubt about its veracity?
David, you are very well aware that I have seen, read and personally transcribed the pages. Feel very free to let everyone know how for there was no reason to take that jab at me when you said, "Is it possible that you still haven't actually read the supposed journal pages?" If this will be an invective filled discuission I will end it here. You know that I've acted professionally, honestly and honorably in our behind the scenes discussion. It should be kept at that level.
Also, I notice that with your DIRECT knowledge that the other phrase comes from the May 11, 1901 journal page that you aren't challenging the veracity of the MacKenzie Society and the incredible timeline.
The question that you should be asking is why and when did they receive them and who sent them? That leads to a final question, how can they put faith in the person and what was sent?
By this I'm not asking anyone to question them, in fact just the opposite. What I am simply doing is defining what this discussion should be and will be about. That is that there is but a single issue here. Were the journals written at the time they speak of and how can this be proven?
Since it appears that the "discussion" of the journals has begun without their even being seen by but a few, let me add this. It is not fair to discuss them until they have been put on the site for all to see. I will answer the questions posed at that time and not before. So I would suggest that you save them, and whatever personal barbs you care to hurl my way until then. :)
-
Phil.
1. You falsely accused me of quoting journal pages that you haven't yet posted. I haven't.
2. My comment was in jest. Of course you must have read the journal entries. I just found it funny that you tried to come down on me for posting a quote that both you and Duncan had previously posted.
3. I am not interested in the Mackenzie Timeline right now. But if they are relying on that journal, then I'd hope they have the sense to reconsider. Maybe I'll approach them in a week or two.
4. I don't think there is much more for you and me to discuss, Phil. I tried as best I could to explain this stuff you privately, to no avail. So now i will bring it out publicly.
Thanks.
-
David,
I'll accept that you truly mean that you meant that comment in jest. I would strongly suggest that you try putting a smiley after any others that you might write as this will certainly remove any doubt as to possible meanings that shouldn't be read into it. That is why I did that very thing at the end of my post.
As I've told you in private, please feel very free to air your concerns and beliefs. I will answer as best I can. This will not be a drawn-out argument and I know that is not what you want either.
I just ask that you wait until the revised essay is put up on the site as others looking in will not be able to judge anything without the context of what is in it. I think at this point, since you didn't say so in your prior post, that you acknowledge that I have sent you the transcripts of what is in the journal pages after you asked to see the journal pages I will include in the revised essay that will be posted alongside them and that I told you that I personally did the transcribing and that you have also not had the actual journal pages shared with you. You will see them at the same time as everyone else does. That this was done because you admitted that as you had already begun working on what you want to say regarding your concerns that I recognized that it was a reasonable request and honorable thing to do. And so I sent it.
-
No. No more waiting. I will post when I am ready to post. Probably tonight or tomorrow.
-
As a nonpartisan observer of this conversation, the possibility that Old Tom Morris and Alistair MacKenzie may have been more than passing acquaintances in 1901 is a thought full of intrigue.
At first blush, it is hard to think that this was the case. In 1901, MacKenzie was not a prominent golfer, was not engaged in the designing of golf courses and from all accounts spent his time in England, not Scotland. He had been out of the country for at least a year prior the purported date of this dinner meeting, and before that time had been engaged in the study and practice of medicine. A passing glance through the MacKenzie timeline, as noted by Duncan, lends little in the way of support.
Perhaps there is a part of the record that has not yet come to light. Perhaps the two men met at Leeds, or they had other mutual acquaintances that had brought them together. Whatever the case, the idea that MacKenzie was discussing golf, let alone golf course architecture, well before he fell under the tutelage of Harry Colt would be a significant
At this point, I'd like to see further support for this theory. We often throw around burdens of proof like we are living in the world of academia. The truth is, the level of citation, documentation and reference that we use hereabouts wouldn't past muster in the loosest of academic publications.
I look forward to seeing how this progresses. If the conversation needs an ombudsman, I'll happily volunteer.
Civilly,
Sven
-
David,
I see that you're still avoiding admitting that you have seen the transcripts of teh journal pages. Why? As you undoubtedly will be referencing them all must know your source. After all, isn't that exactly what you're demanding of me? I think that it is important as we begin this discussion that all can see that we've been honest and open with each other behind teh scenes.
If you still won't I'll leave it at that. Regardless of what you post i will not respond to anything you put up until the revised essay is put up on site.
Duncan, I apologize as I forgot to address a number of points tat you made and wanted to do so before any more back and forth with david occurs. You wrote:
I can accept that MacKenzie and Scott-Thomas had become friends in the Royal Army Medical Corps during the Boer war; indeed MacKenzie had just returned from South Africa at the time of the dinner in St Andrews in 1901, so it is conceivable that he had looked up an old friend shortly thereafter - in St Andrews.
Actually that isn't how or when they met. It was after a medical conference that DS-T attended and in which MacKenzie gave a talk in Edinburgh. They met during a rugby match played after it in which DS-T played.
The assertion in the extract from the journal however, is that MacKenzie was also already friends with Old Tom Morris.
“When I told Old Tom that Alister MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since.
In 1901 Alister Mackenzie was a 30-year old Leeds doctor fresh from the Boer War who had only just started playing golf after his rugby playing days were brought to an end by injury. Commensurate with his inexperience he clearly had trouble breaking a hundred with any consistency and had a handicap of 18.
Neil Crafter has already posted elsewhere that he can show MacKenzie playing at least as early as 1898. As noted a source as Wikipedia, and I freely admit that I state that with tounge as far in my cheek as possible, that "MacKenzie had been a member of several golf clubs near Leeds, England dating back as far as the late 1890s. These included Ilkley between 1890 and 1900, and then Leeds Golf Club from 1900 to 1910..." for whatever that's worth. With his passion for the game and obviously for the courses he was already learning about it is not a leap at all, just a step to see how Old Tom & he would have met and begun speaking together.
Yet we are asked to believe that his company and opinions on golf course architecture were sought out and embraced by none other than Old Tom Morris? How convenient that he not only signed the sketch ( a very strange thing to want to do) but also dated it for authenticity should some GCA nerds a century on want to discuss it!
And yet there is never a doubt that Tilly and Old tom, ane even more unlikely duo, were talking about golf and architecture from 1898 onward.
The journal also places MacKenzie at Scott-Taylor's side in France in April 1917. All evidence however, suggests that MacKenzie was actually in London at that time at the Special Works School in Kensington Gardens.
Sorry Duncan, not all evidence palces him there. At least one piece, the journal of David Scott-Taylor places him in France to meet with superior officers for a short period. This is not a flippant answer. The reality is that we absolutely do not know the day-to-dy activity that MacKenzie had during the entirety of WW I. To think that he wouldn't have gone to the front lines on at least one occasion seems highly unlikely for how could he do his job if he had no first-hand knowledge with which to back it up?
In the MacKenzie Timeline, Scott-Taylor's grandson is credited with the following information for late 1922;
Mackenzie shares a train journey with his friend Lt. Col. Surgeon David Scott-Taylor RAMC who MacKenzie knew through his time in the Medical Corps. MacKenzie had been visiting Colt and was returning north via London, they both got off at Chester, and carried on their discussion in the buffet at Chester. MacKenzie later carried on by train to Liverpool.
If Ian Scott-Taylor went out of his way to share the details of this rather uneventful episode with MacKenzie historians, why did he keep the rather more important events in St Andrews two decades earlier to himself?
This is an answer that you will not like. He and his family had personal reasons for giving out this information when they did. It will remain that simple for a while longer.
-
Phil,
I am not casting doubt on your integrity. I am not challenging the fact that these 'journals' have been under lock and key for 80 years. I am not even questioning the role of Ian Scott-Taylor, although he is not so far coming out of all this very well.
I actually hope that it is all true, and that Alister MacKenzie really was a friend and confidant of Old Tom Morris (and Tillinghust for that matter) as early as 1901. It would put a different perspective on his whole subsequent career.
Currently however, I remain sceptical and suspect that Dr David Scott-Taylor was probably a fantasist who concocted these 'journals' in later life in the light of subsequent events as an exercise in self-aggrandizement.
If further evidence proves that I am wrong and that these journals were actually written contemporaneously I will give my heartfelt apologies to all concerned.
I will also be very pleased for a major discovery will have been made.
-
Duncan,
Therer simply is no answer to give to your line of reasoning and so I won't... :)
-
Mike,
Here's a list of Tilly courses on which have hosted major and other USGA national championships. It doesn't include those such as Bethpage & Baltusrol where future ones already have been scheduled:
Baltimore CC (5 Farms) – US Women’s Open, US Amateur, PGA Championship
Baltusrol (Lower & Upper) – 5 US Opens, 3 US Women’s Opens, 2 US Amateurs, PGA Championship
Bethpage Black – 2 US Opens
Bethpage Red & Blue - US Public Links
Brook Hollow GC – US Men’s Mid-Amateur
Cedar Crest GC – PGA Championship, US Public Links
Fresh Meadow CC (NLE) – US Open, PGA
Golden Valley CC – US Girls Junior
Hermitage GC – PGA Championship
Indian Hills CC – US Girls Junior
Newport CC – Us Women’s Open, US Women’s Amateur
Oak Hills CC – US Boys Junior
Oaks CC – US Girls Junior
Ridgewood CC – Ryder Cup, US Amateur, US Sr. Open, US Sr. Amateur, Sr. PGA
Rochester G&CC – US Women’s Mid-Am
San Francisco Golf Club – Curtis Cup, US Sr. Amateur
Shawnee CC – PGA, US Women’s Amateur
Somerset Hills CC – Curtis Cup
Swope Memorial – US Women’s Public Links
Tulsa CC – US Women’s Amateur
Winged Foot GC (Eats & West) – 5 US Opens, 2 US Women’s Opens, US Sr. Open, 2 US Amateurs, PGA
The above list does not include tournaments which were considered major championships of their time such as the Shawnee, Eastern & MGA Open championships and the numerous courses that have hosted PGA & LPGA Tour events. Also, as in the cases of Baltusrol and BCC 5 Farms, the listed ones are not all that these clubs may have hosted as they were the site of other championships played before the Tillinghast course was designed and created.
Newport has hosted a US Open and 2 US Amateurs as well.
-
Duncan
I have sent you an IM and I won't get into the general discussion of your posts on here, except to clear up a couple of things.
Mackenzie's early golf
I have recently found Mackenzie's earliest recorded competitive round, dating back to 11th February 1899 when he played in the monthly medal of the Leeds GC, scoring 124 (24) net 100, which was good enough for 8th place. His own writing in Spirit of St Andrews, written around 1933, says that 35 years ago he was first a member of the Leeds golf club, which would put the date around 1898. Clearly he wasn't a very good golfer when he started playing seriously. It is important to know that although Mackenzie was born and brought up in Normanton in Yorkshire, his parents were Scottish and I have no doubt Mackenzie considered himself Scottish too. There were regular holidays in Scotland growing up to the family 'home' in Lochinver in Sutherlandshire. He was introduced to trout fishing at the age of six, and undertook hiking, hunting and other Scottish pursuits. Not all that hard to imagine that golf might have been one of these. Then there is his university years, certainly possible he played golf at Cambridge, and to date I haven't looked for any evidence in that direction but I plan to.
April 1917 in France
The last edition of the Chronology has Mackenzie placed at the camouflage school in London on 17 March 1917 and then on 7 May 1917. The journal entry of David Scott-Taylor has them meeting in France, near Arras, on 16 April 1917. Mackenzie was travelling with another Lieutenant from the Royal Engineers and two sappers, and had a briefing with the local brass. Mackenzie left the next day to go back to England. This fits in quite fine with the timeline, and it is very likely that Mackenzie made such field trips around this time, as the war and the trenches were in France and Belgium not in London, and they couldn't just pull all the men out of the trenches and send them back to England for training, so a lot of it would have had to be done 'in situ'. Here is a note in the Chronology, which comes from the "Camera vs Camouflage" document prepared by Mackenzie and Lt. Klein
MacKenzie gives demonstrations on trenchmaking “to units in the Northern Command, at the Special Works School in Hyde Park, the S.M.E. Chatham, and the other R.E. Training Centres, and in France…”
I hope the above helps put things in context.
Neil
-
Neil,
I haven't received your PM, although I have received several others supporting my scepticism and line of questioning.
You might find it easier to email me at golf@duncancheslett.com
Rgds
Duncan
-
Add me to the list of those supporting your skepticism.
-
Duncan
Not sure what happened to the IM I posted it but doesn't seem to be there now. I did copy the text so I will email it to you.
-
Gents
Let me nail my colours to the mast and say that I am very much a sceptic. With regards the most recent posts let me make a couple of comments.
MacKenzie Timeline
As someone who has contributed bits and pieces to the Timeline over recent years and who is a member of the hard core group of researchers ably marshalled by Neil Crafter, I’m more than slightly uneasy as to how an entry in the Timeline has suddenly taken on such significance and weight that some see that as being the final word and an end to all discussion on the matter.
The Timeline has been produced by the hard core group but also other enthusiasts and assorted helpers who have provided information gleaned from various sources including MacKenzies public and private writing, various club records, and press articles. Largely the information is accepted at face value (this isn’t a legal document after all) and taken on trust with little or no verification. If it seems reasonable and fits with what is already there then it is in. For example, if there is a newspaper snippet suggesting MacKenzie provided advice to a particular club then “we” (usually Neil but not always) will contact the club concerned for more information. If the club have no information or as happens on occasion, fails to respond, then the newspaper article is still included even though there is no “verification”.
For all the lack of academic scrutiny that Sven refers to, the Timeline is a valuable source of information on one of the great figures of golf course architecture and as such the various versions of the Timeline have been made freely available on line. Unfortunately by making this information so freely available it makes it possible for the information to be used for nefarious purposes.
Provenance of the Journal and other material
Phil in his essay and Ran in his introduction to the thread about Phil’s essay make much of the provenance of the journal. Ran refers to the material having been kept by various firms of solicitors. In his post he details that it has been held by the following law firms in an unbroken chain: S.R. Dew to Dew & Prothro to Prothro & Williams and finally to Eilian Williams Esq. the current solicitor. How long they have been in the hands of Mr Williams, neither Phil or Ran make clear. It’s also not clear whether the material is still in the hands of Mr Williams although it is suggested that it is being held by a solicitor.
From a quick google search, a Mr Eilian Stuart Williams, solicitor, works with Tudor Owen Roberts Glynne & Co, in Holyhead which is approx. 85 miles from Chester. None of the firms of solicitors mentioned above appear to be still active however various business listings sites still list a firm of solicitors known as S. R. Dew Prothero Williams Solicitors also of Holyhead. This firm was reportedly closed down by the Office of Supervising Solicitors in September 2001 with a Mr Stephen Puleston Williams who ran the firm subsequently convicted of embezzlement and forgery of property deeds.
In terms of the provenance of the journal etc it would be comforting to know that neither this company nor Mr Stephen Williams acted for the Scott Taylor family, nor that Mr Eilian Williams has had any connections with either the other Mr Williams or the aforementioned company. Perhaps Phil could make enquiries through Mr Scott Taylor to clarify ?
Notwithstanding the above, two questions struck me when I first read that the journal etc was in the keeping of the family solicitors. Firstly, given that the nature of the material appears to be entirely private, how did it come to be in the possession of the solicitors in the first place and why was it kept for so long ? The second question was what exactly was Mr Williams signing to when he signed the affidavit ? Was he testifying that Scott Taylor family papers had been in the possession of the solicitors, or was he testifying to what was in those family papers ? In other words could he testify that the papers included Tilly sketches, or MacKenzie plans for example ?
Now why should we make an issue over such matters particularly given my comments regarding the information in the MacKenzie Timeline. Well the answer is quite simply that the scope of the discoveries here is huge. Who knew for example that MacKenzie visited St Andrews as early as 1901, and that he was on such friendly terms with the Grand Old Man of Golf ? I’ve never before seen any date given for MacKenzie being at St Andrews nor have I heard of him meeting Old Tom. Likewise the early interest in design by Tilly and that two prominent gca’s were connected long before their respective careers took off.
For good or bad Phil posted his essay and following some shortcomings that were pointed out to him he is to post a revised essay in due course. Ran has continued to support the authenticity of the material that the essay was based on despite I understand strong reservations from a number of well-respected parties. Given that this site exists to promote frank discussion on golf course architecture I hope he will allow sensible discussion to develop that might go some way to finding answers. It’s also to be hoped that the material that has been held back is put forward for scrutiny in early course rather than only hinted at. Here’s hoping.
Niall
-
Niall,
Your contribution is very interesting.
I received today an email from Neil Crafter assuring me that the Scott-Thomas journal and the signed Tillinghust plan are indeed genuine and that he has "no doubts as to their authenticity and veracity."
I was prepared to accept this - until I read your post. That you have now also come out as a sceptic makes me wonder.
If we take the Tillinghust sketches and the Scott-Thomas journals as one package, there can be only three possible explanations;
1. That everything is true; MacKenzie and Morris were great friends years before anyone had previously though that the young Alister had any interest in golf course architecture, they both signed the Tillinghust sketch, and that Scott-Thomas's journal is an accurate contemporaneous account of what he saw and experienced day by day.
2. That Scott-Thomas fabricated his own journal and the signed sketch for whatever reason.
3. That the journal and/or the sketches are forgeries produced more recently by person or persons unknown, presumably in the hope of financial gain.
My own scepticism was aroused by the assertion that MacKenzie and Old Tom Morris were not only acquainted as early as 1901, but that they had apparently been good friends for a while.
“When I told Old Tom that Alister MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since."
My problem with this is that we have never heard an inkling of it. MacKenzie wrote extensively about golf course architecture for the rest of his life. At no point however, did he ever mention that he had discussed the topic in depth with the Grand Old Man of Golf. He wrote specifically on many occasions about St Andrews, but never once mentioned that Old Tom Morris had been a friend and possibly a mentor.
MacKenzie spent an evening discussing GCA with Harry Colt in 1907, an event that Colt later wrote about in the forward to Mackenzie's book. It doesn't look as though the close relationship with Morris was mentioned then, either.
At the very least all this is very odd indeed. Almost as odd as Alister MacKenzie insisting that he add his signature to a sketch that frankly had nothing to do with him.
How convenient that not only signatures but also dates were added to the sketch. The evidence in this story is all too bloody neat!
I would love to know what it is that makes you sceptical, Niall.
-
Thanks for that very interesting post Niall.
Definitely worth looking into further.
-
Niall,
I've requested the copies. It will take a few days as it is the family's solicitor's office and part of a probate action with the death of Ian's mother several months ago.
I was able to learn that the original Grand Hotel was also known as the "Scores Hotel" as many who just played the old course would walk into its bar & restaurant to "tally up their scores." That is the genesis to how the modern Scores Hotel got its name. It is a single source and I'll see if I can confirm that further but I found that fascinating.
I'm off to pack for a flight to Albany, NY...
The problem with this explanation is that the street on which the Grand Hotel sits was known as The Scores for decades at least before the hotel adopted that name. See http://maps.nls.uk/view/78055336 (http://maps.nls.uk/view/78055336) - a map from 1912 that shows the hotel as the Grand and the street as The Scores. This map - http://maps.nls.uk/view/74416776 (http://maps.nls.uk/view/74416776) from 1853 shows the same thing. Therefore, I conclude that the Scores hotel most likely acquired its name because of the street on which it is located.
Edited to add: This guide to St Andrews says that the medieval Swallogait became The Scores in the 19th century when the area was developed for housing, and that the name came from the Nordic word 'sker' or Scots 'scaur', meaning a cliff top. See http://ishbel.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/StATour.pdf (http://ishbel.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/StATour.pdf)
-
Adam, thanks for bringing forward that information. I for one am glad to hear that the name did not come from early golfers heading there to " "tally up their scores" in St. Andrews. In my mind I had started calling it the "Card and Pencil Hotel."
-
Following through in my post under Phil’s "Hubris" thread, the updated/corrected account of the Tillinghast drawings and how they came into David Scott-Taylor’s possession is now posted in the Best of Golf section/Artist/AW Tillinghast. The erroneous statements regarding Tillinghast being present at the dinner in St Andrews have been expunged and Phil's corrected account is now in place with additional journal pages to better explain the matter. For Phil’s original July account, click http://www.golfclubatlas.com/tillinghast-student-of-golf-course-architecture/.
Tongues have been wagging since we took the article ‘live’ two weeks ago. People fall into two camps: 1) those that are trying to get their head around what these drawings mean, and 2) others who don't embrace this material because they question its authenticity. No single topic since GolfClubAtlas.com began in 1999 has generated more direct phone calls to me than this. GolfClubAtlas.com is in the unique position for such a debate play out. My only hope as expressed to David and others is that this doesn’t become another Merion debacle fueled by boorish, ego-driven behavior that turns everyone off an otherwise fascinating subject. Tactics like making harsh accusations and adding the throwaway line like ‘I hope I am wrong and will apologize if I am’ are non-constructive, inflammatory and bush league. We all love the history of golf course architecture and can be passionate but don't let your passion imperil another's civil interaction.
GolfClubAtlas.com brought this story forward because it is potentially very significant to our understanding of golf architecture and only when material like this is in the public domain can researchers, writers, historians, bloggers and et al. evaluate and comment. The discussion needs to be civil if it is to be meaningful. Petty responses and half-baked opinions will deprive the interaction of substance.
I asked for a photograph of a cover to one of D-S-T’s journals and below is what Phil sent:
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/book1914.jpg)
Given its date, I suppose that this is the one that D S-T references as being in the trenches with MacKenzie during WWI. That very thought is chilling and without question should remind us that reaching this far back in time is simultaneously perilous and exciting. Surely, we can all agree to that. As Tom Paul told me yesterday, it is ‘…one of the most fascinating stories ever in golf’ and we have ring-side seats for what will occur in the weeks and months ahead.
Best,
-
Thanks to Ran for preserving the Original Version (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/tillinghast-student-of-golf-course-architecture/) of Phil's story. When future readers (and potential purchasers) consider the credibility of this New Version, they ought know that this story is incompatible with the Original Version in many key components. To this end, I ask that Ran add a link to the Original Version (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/tillinghast-student-of-golf-course-architecture/) within (before or after) the New Version. As it is now, unless future readers happen upon this thread, they would have no way to knowing that the Old Version even exists, or how to navigate to the Original Version. It doesn't even show up in the "In My Opinion" index, and it is too much to expect anyone to try to dig through the archives.
Why does it matter? Because the contents of the Original Version (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/tillinghast-student-of-golf-course-architecture/) cast considerable doubt on the veracity of the new version. Below is just one more of many examples.
-
The Disappearing Score's Hotel Letterhead.
Here is how the Original Version (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/tillinghast-student-of-golf-course-architecture/) described the May 12, 1901 Note:
"In the journal which detailed this gathering was found another priceless treasure, a thank-you note written the day after the dinner on Score’s Hotel letterhead thanking his “old Friend David Scott-Taylor” for the evening they enjoyed the night before signed by Tilly."
The fact that the note was written on "Score's Hotel letterhead" was critical to the Original Story because it put Tillinghast in St. Andrews the day after the supposed May 11, 1901, Scores Hotel dinner had taken place. Supposely, Tillinghast wasn't just in St. Andrews, he was still at the same Hotel!
But here is how the New Version (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/best-of-golf/tillinghast-student-of-golf-course-architecture-b/) described the same note:
"[David Scott-Taylor] received . . . a 'note thanking me for my hospitality in St. Andrews… ' [] This note was written on May 12, 1901, and evidently took 16 days to arrive."
Let's set aside (for now) many of the dubious aspects of this new story, and focus on just one: the Score's Hotel letterhead. The description no longer references that the note was "written on Score's Hotel letterhead." So what happened to the Score's Hotel letterhead?
I asked Phil about this after he had come up with this new story and he was adamant that the note had been written from Philadelphia on Score's Hotel letterhead. (He even claimed it was a common practice of Tillinghast's to send letters on stationary from hotels long after he has stayed at those hotels. I still await proof on that one.)
As I said elsewhere, Phil requested that Ian Scott-Taylor provide him with a full image of the note on the Score's Hotel letterhead.
Where is that photograph? Was it sent as Phil requested? If not, why not? I am curious to see a letter dated May 12, 1901 on letterhead from the Scores Hotel. Especially since, according to Niall and Adam, the Scores hotel didn't even exist until the 1930s.
Or is the story now that the Note never was on "Score's Hotel" letterhead? If so, then why did Phil tell us otherwise? And why did he insist to me that it was on Score's letterhead even after changing his story? Surely the part about the "Score's Hotel letterhead" was not part of the family legend? Not when the family must have had the note in front of them in order to have forwarded Phil a copy of part of the note.
-
My prediction;
This saga will get messier and messier and messier until finally a devastating and mysterious fire will take place at a solicitors' office in Holyhead, destroying all evidence of the DST journals...
The Tillinghurst sketches will be sold for a tidy sum, but not as much as originally hoped for.
-
My prediction;
The Tillinghurst sketches will be sold for a tidy sum, but not as much as originally hoped for.
Not so tidy after the buyer reads these discussion threads.
-
Tactics like making harsh accusations and adding the throwaway line like ‘I hope I am wrong and will apologize if I am’ are non-constructive, inflammatory and bush league.
Ran,
As the miscreant in question I felt compelled to go back and see what it was I had actually written that prompted this rebuke. Here it is;
Phil,
I am not casting doubt on your integrity. I am not challenging the fact that these 'journals' have been under lock and key for 80 years. I am not even questioning the role of Ian Scott-Taylor, although he is not so far coming out of all this very well.
I actually hope that it is all true, and that Alister MacKenzie really was a friend and confidant of Old Tom Morris (and Tillinghust for that matter) as early as 1901. It would put a different perspective on his whole subsequent career.
Currently however, I remain sceptical and suspect that Dr David Scott-Taylor was probably a fantasist who concocted these 'journals' in later life in the light of subsequent events as an exercise in self-aggrandizement.
If further evidence proves that I am wrong and that these journals were actually written contemporaneously I will give my heartfelt apologies to all concerned.
I will also be very pleased for a major discovery will have been made.
These words reflect exactly my genuine feelings and thoughts at the time I wrote them as an aficionado of Alister MacKenzie. There were no 'tactics' involved, and I am not even sure that my theory regarding David Scott-Taylor could be described as a 'harsh accusation'.
Something about the whole story just 'smelled wrong' to me.
Since then of course, evidence has been mounting that the journals were not written by David Scott-Taylor at all. I would contend that that evidence is now approaching the point of being compelling.
The sketches? I've no idea. One has to ask however; if the sketches are genuine why would anyone bother constructing the journals as a back-story?
PS Reddish Vale is looking great - no small thanks to you! When are you coming back to take a look?
-
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/otmd.jpg)
(http://www.ianscott-taylor.com/images/water_avalley.jpg)
-
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Fatbaldydrummer/IMG_20140802_141530_zpsldfpt6a_edit_1406985756543_zpstxi1hzsr.jpg) (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/Fatbaldydrummer/media/IMG_20140802_141530_zpsldfpt6a_edit_1406985756543_zpstxi1hzsr.jpg.html)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Untitled-2.jpg)
-
Thank you Mr Bonnar. An interesting find.
I spent a bit of time last night looking at the Road Hole sketch, trying to make sense of it. Like "Tilly's" sketch of the Redan, there is no scale or sizes given yet when you compare it to other scaled plans or aerial photos that are in Scott Macpherson's book (which by the way is a remarkably definitive account of the evolution of golf at St Andrews) the relative sizes of the stretches of wall skirting the Road Hole are remarkably in proportion. As are the shape of the green, bunkers etc. Furthermore the angles where the wall changes direction is absolutely spot on.
Let me suggest that the chances of anyone being able to guestimate that on site without doing a detailed survey are close to zero. Was Tilly equipped to do a detailed survey ? Clearly he was a multi-talented individual but was surveying one of his skills back in 1901 ? If he was so equipped and did carry out a detailed survey then why is the sketch so lacking in detail, and more crucially why aren't there any sizes or a scale ?
I'd suggest that the sketch was based on an existing plan. The question is what plan and when was it produced ?
Niall
-
When I was first alerted to the amazing similarity between the signatures of Ian Scott-Taylor and his grandfather I laughed it off. Indeed my post comparing them was meant as a joke. How could anyone be so stupid as to forge his grandfather's signature by simply signing his own but changing the forename?
Martin's even more similar version is beginning to make wonder, though!
Would there be in existence a copy of Dr Scott-Taylor's signature from a totally independent source?
That's your homework for the weekend, boys... ;)
-
Game Point Bonnar!
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2cnjhad.jpg)
-
In Phil's essay, he tells us that Scott-Taylor was called on to attend Queen Victoria in her final illness:
"A call went out for a physician from one of the ships to be sent to Osborne House immediately, for a physician in the Royal Navy automatically had the standing to examine the Queen. And so, without being told why or who he was going to see, Lt. David Scott-Taylor was shuttled over and immediately shown to the Queen’s chambers. He would attend the Queen while awaiting the arrival of her physician’s. The Queen quietly died in her sleep on January 22nd."
However, as this diagram makes clear, it is impossible for Scott-Taylor to have been both a medical officer and a lieutenant in the Royal Navy in 1901. Medical officers did not achieve fully commissioned rank until 1918.
http://www.pdavis.nl/Ranks.htm#RAN (http://www.pdavis.nl/Ranks.htm#RAN)
-
Game Bonnar/Lawrence/Moriarity/Carlton?
-
Page 210 of this edition of the Glasgow Medical Journal shows Scott-Taylor passing the final examinations of the Edinburgh College of Surgeons in January 1916.
https://archive.org/stream/glasgowmedicaljo85glas#page/210/mode/2up (https://archive.org/stream/glasgowmedicaljo85glas#page/210/mode/2up)
The University of Edinburgh has an online database of matriculated students for the period in question. As yet, and despite extensive searching, I have not been able to find Scott-Taylor in this database.
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1368858/?ref_=filmo_li_tt (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1368858/?ref_=filmo_li_tt)
How about our own remake of this movie? Watch the trailer for great golf action. ::) ;) ;D Gib?
-
This is from Max's Lounge member Alexy who noticed something similar about the two drawings.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/16gedmx.jpg)
-
A few other things to note about the Road Hole sketch;
1 - the sketch shows a wall, presumably a boundary wall, running down the side of the 16th from behind the 17th tee. According to Scott MacPherson's book there was no wall and never had been a wall.
2 - the sketch shows two lines of play,presumably for the tiger and for the rabbit. Given there are no sizes or scales it is a bit of a guestimate to determine the length of shots but I'd suggest the tiger drive looks as though its well over 200 yards while the rabbits drive is just under. Both have taken a line that cuts over the railway yards to some extent. When this sketch was supposed to have been produced, the gutty ball was still be used with the Haskell coming in in 1902. A newspaper snippet from that time suggests that a good drive went c.170 yards, while JH Taylor who had won the Open at St Andrews in 1900 had an average drive of 180 yards while FG Tait the recently killed St Andrews golfer and one of the longest golfers of his day had an average of 200 yards.
3 - J.O.F.Morris, a son of Old Tom and himself a professional golfer, wrote a description of St Andrews for the Golfers Handbook in 1887/1888 in which he described the 17th hole. He described the "narrow course" as being a drive between the corner of the wall and the bunker while stating there was plenty of room to go left of the bunker. Clearly that area was in play at the time of the gutty yet it isn't represented by this sketch.
4 - fairway line - with reference to the RSG plan, as a matter of fact it doesn't actually show a fairway line. What it shows is the rough differentiated from the fairway by markings presumably meant to represent long grass. Interestingly it doesn't show defined greens or tees but then they may have been defined by a colour wash that has since faded. The important thing is that even Paterson in his detailed sketch of the Road Hole (1911 or 1912) didn't define the fairway and indeed neither did MacKenzie in his 1924 plan.
I had intended to write something up in a bit more detail but in all honesty it hardly seems worth it with now with the more recent disclosures. Are we maybe now approaching the end game as Tommy suggests ?
Niall
-
Tommy
That was the point I was making in my earlier post.
Niall
-
Niall, Yes, absolutely! Its just that I'm getting so many emails from people telling me of things that they've noticed, its hard to keep remembering them all! ;)
Yes, I think its Game, Set and Match..... That is unless Phil or the seemingly missing IS-T have something more the Solicitor's want to release....
-
Might I ask a stupid question? As a member of this discussion group, why hasn't Ian Scott-Taylor weighed in? I have a feeling I know why at this point but today's posts beg for a response from Ian, especially Martin's posting of the similar signatures.
-
My apologies to all for not being around for all of the fun yesterday, I was unable to because of an urgent private matter.
I will be answering questions put on here already and more that I am sure will be coming my way. I will provide as much information that I can that does not impact on the family’s right to privacy, and despite the near rabid show of personal entitlement they do have one, and that I am legally allowed to by law as there are probate issue’s involved due to the recent passing of Ian’s mother.
If I cite that as a reason I’m quite certain that I will be vilified by some and that it will be viewed as hiding, or worse yet, participating in a scam and cover-up of the worst sort! Anyone who believes that doesn’t know me and is free to believe as they wish and say it.
In my opinion, regardless of the specific attack on what was written, this all boils down to a single two-part issue. Were the journals written by David-Scott Taylor during his lifetime and how can that be proved?
I will primarily be addressing that question today.
Below I’m going to be directly quoting from letters sent by the family attorneys to separate members of the Scott-Taylor family. I will NOT be publishing the letters. These are private legal documents and will remain such. How then can I have any belief that a single person would accept them at my word? Because I’ve sent photographic copies of the actual letters to Ran Morrissett. I would find it beyond the realm of any possibility that someone on this site would question his veracity and honor if he were to say that what I’ve referenced and quoted from in them is not true. He has the freedom to comment or not on them and anything written here about them and say his honest opinion as to what I’ve written.
The first letter is dated 15 December, 1998. It was addressed to Ian Scott-Taylor. It references an: ADDENDUM TO WILL.
“It was nice to see you and your father again last Friday and I do hope that I can assist you in being able to amend the above matter as quickly as possible. As agreed, you and your father have set out in the amendment that the items now in our possession legally are yours in the will.
“The items discussed at our last meeting include the
1. Items from your grand father. The gand fathers diaries and sundry items.
3. Various drawings.”
The above referenced letter is part of the legal papers filed in two separate estate probate actions (both Ian’s father & mother). This makes it unchallengeable for its veracity.
Note the direct reference to the diaries and drawings. Also, for those who have questioned their being kept at the various law offices through the years, note that it clearly states that they are currently in their possession. This is at a time when all parties are alive, thus showing that the family was entrusting them to the care of the attorneys.
The second letter is dated 7 September 1965. It was addressed to “David Scott-Taylor,” Ian’s father:
“Further to our last meeting… I can confirm that the will of your mother Mrs. Ethel Scott-Taylor [David Scott-Taylor’s wife and widow]… has been ratified and the documents are ready for you to sign and pick up.
“I can also confirm the items in the office, will remain here in our care under your instructions. Your father’s effects together with a set of diaries,a nd set of drawings.”
This above referenced letter is also part of the legal filings in the probate of the estate of Ian’s grandmother and therefor unchallengeable for its veracity.
Once again note the direct reference to the diaries and drawings. Again the direct reference that drawings and journals have been in their possession and that they will “remain here” per the direct instructions of Ian’s father.
For those who have been entertaining the bizarre notion that Ian Scott-Taylor manufactured or forged these, this uncontestable proof that they existed in 1965 also uncontestably proves that the FOUR YEAR OLD Ian Scott-Taylor could not have done that!
Now we add in the aphidavit that is part of the documents in the current probate and that Ran has already attested to its veracity. That is, that the journals of Dr. David Scott-Taylor, along with the drawings, have been in the hands of the various solicitors for the family since 1933.
These are all uncontestable legal documents as they have already been accepted as such by the probate action!
What does that mean in this “debate” that has been waged? It disproves every negative thing said.
First, as they have been in the solicitor’s hands since the death of Dr. David Scott-Taylor, and he died UNEXPECTEDLY of a massive stroke, it again proves that these were the sole product of HIS hand and no others! It is time for this attack on the veracity and honor of Ian Scott-Taylor to stop! Regardless of whether one can’t find an explanation for why he and his family have been silent about these sketches and the items in their collection for all these years, the fact is that they have. Their reasons for doing so are theirs alone, as is their reasons for allowing these to come to the light of day now. Those reasons, all of which I know, I can attest to as being honorable ones.
Secondly, that those who are so freely arguing that the journals had to be written by a “modern hand” based on the “history of idioms” as they know it are clearly WRONG. The phrases in question all pre-date 1933since that is when they were written.
Third, that the drawings mentioned in these journals must also be as presented. The peripheral stories contained within the journal pages, e.g. the mine disaster in Wales and the announcement of the French-Morocco treat the morning of July 20th are also unquestionably true. In fact, even the cricket match at Old Trofford that DS-T mentioned that Mackenzie would take Tilly to has now been verified as the account of the match can be found in the 26 July 1901 issue of the Sheffield Evening Telegraph. For those Cricketphiles amongst the group, this is what the brief article reported:
“This match was commenced at Old Trofford this morning, there being no play yesterday. [Evidently they were rained out of the scheduled match.] The visitors had the same team as against Derbyshire, whilst Cuttell and Eccles re-appeared in the home side. Gloucester won the toss. The weather is somewhat threatening, but with the exception of three-quarters of an hour the rain held off. The downpour then was not very heavy, and play went on as usual after the luncheon interval.”
A good number of questions, both public and private, have argued against these drawings being real are based solely on the notion that the information presented in the journals presents a different picture of Alister MacKenzie than that of which they are aware. They cite such things as information found on the Mackenzie Society webpage and introductory information prefacing the incredible MacKenzie Timeline. They have even cited Tom Doak’s writings. As the information from the journals was not available to any and all when these were written what else would one expect to see written? Therefor that is again proof of nothing. I daresay that these would have been written differently if the information found in the Dr. David Scott-Taylor journals had been available to them.
There are two questions to which I will respond at this moment.
The first is David’s question regarding why I changed the wording in the second essay and removed the reference to the Score’s hotel letterhead. Of all people I would think that he would respect that I did it because I have yet to receive the copy of letter showing everything and so that is the sole reason I didn’t. If and when I do he’ll be among the first to know…
Second is the question as of David Lawrence as to how Dr. David Scott-Taylor could have gotten the rank of Lieutenant in the Royal Navy since, as he put it, “However, as this diagram makes clear, it is impossible for Scott-Taylor to have been both a medical officer and a lieutenant in the Royal Navy in 1901. Medical officers did not achieve fully commissioned rank until 1918.”
Instead of taking my words, let’s take those as found on the website of “The National Museum/Royal Navy” where they write:
Lieutenant
The rank of Lieutenant can be traced back to 1580 with the simple reason of being an understudy to the Captain in case of accident or illness, although they were not permanently established. After the restoration, Samuel Pepys introduced an examination to test the abilities of the rank and by doing so transformed their status from mere understudy to an actual job with particular duties attached. The senior lieutenant, known as the First Lieutenant and was responsible for the organisation of the ship and administration under the guidance of the Captain. This post eventually turned into the rank of Commander. He was responsible for maintaining discipline and navigation and with the junior lieutenants responsible for ensuring the crew carried out their duties. He was in charge of watches. Lieutenants received their commissions for particular ships and the position within the officer ranks. An officer was required to have at least six years service at sea before passing the examination for promotion to Lieutenant. It was possible for the officer to pass many years at this rank until the eventual distinction between Lieutenants of eight years service and the eventual establishment of the rank of Lieutenant-Commander."
"WARRANT OFFICERS
Warrant officers were the heads of specialist technical branches of the ship’s company and reported directly to the Captain. For administration they reported to the different boards which governed naval affairs such as the Navy Board, Victualling Board and Ordnance Board. They were usually examined professionally by a body other than the Admiralty and had usually served an apprenticeship. In the eighteenth century, there were two branches of Warrant Officer, those classed as sea officers, who has equal status as commissioned officers and could stand on the quarterdeck and those classed as inferior officers (keeping no accounts). Of the Warrant Officers, five were classed as standing officers, warranted to a ship for her lifetime whether in commission or not. When in reserve, they were borne on the Ordinary books of the dockyard and employed in maintenance of the ship. There was a change in the nineteenth century when some warrant ranks were transferred to commissioned rank and the branch of Engineers was introduced. It became necessary to distinguish between types of officers as to which ranks could command and those who could not – basically Military and Civil (equivalent to the modern Executive and Non-Executive officers). After 1847, only three warrant ranks remained."
"Surgeon
Surgeons were warranted to ships by the Navy Board. Their examining boards were conducted by various bodies including the Barber-Surgeons Company, Sick and Hurt Board, Transport Board and the Victualling Board up until 1832 when the Admiralty became responsible for their qualifications. They were the only medical officers on the ship and was assisted by one or more Surgeon’s Mates (inferior warrant officers). They had the right to walk the quarterdeck and became a fully commissioned rank in the nineteenth century. They were responsible for the sick and injured, performing surgical operations as necessary and dispensed medicine. They were required to keep a journal of treatment and advised the Captain on health matters."
Adam, you are mistaken. He was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in the months following his care of the Queen and this is why I referred to him as such.
I will answer serious questions only and after seeing some of what has been posted, will not respond to mockery.
-
No, you did not Phil. You referred to 'Lt. David-Scott-Taylor' being shuttled over to see the Queen.
-
Furthermore, the existence of diaries and drawings does not necessarily correlate to THESE PARTICULAR diaries and drawings. I should have thought that would be obvious.
-
Eric,
Ian has not posted because I advised him NOT to. Consider the cruelty of the mockery being shown here. Tommy Naccarrato's post of the phony letter is an example of the worst of this and is disgusting. There is simply no call for that. No, it is far better that I answer questions in his place, especially because we are talking about MY WRITINGS and not his.
I just posted a long and serious response to the earlier questions. That is what this debate should be about and the way it should present itself.
Again, as the documents cited above have been legally accepted and can be trace the journals as existing back to 1933, the arguments as presented so far are simply incorrect.
Adam, when I wrote that I simply misspoke as I was well aware of his naval rank and have often referred to him as lieutenant in other discussions both private and public.
The more important point, which I note you ignored, is that there were Lieutenants in the Royal Navy in 1901 which is what you disagreed with in your earlier post.
-
Agree completely with Adam.
"Mockery?" What year was that word invented?
-
Eric,
Ian has not posted because I advised him NOT to. Consider the cruelty of the mockery being shown here. Tommy Naccarrato's post of the phony letter is an example of the worst of this and is disgusting. There is simply no call for that. No, it is far better that I answer questions in his place, especially because we are talking about MY WRITINGS and not his.
I just posted a long and serious response to the earlier questions. That is what this debate should be about and the way it should present itself.
Again, as the documents cited above have been legally accepted and can be trace the journals as existing back to 1933, the arguments as presented so far are simply incorrect.
Adam, when I wrote that I simply misspoke as I was well aware of his naval rank and have often referred to him as lieutenant in other discussions both private and public.
The more important point, which I note you ignored, is that there were Lieutenants in the Royal Navy in 1901 which is what you disagreed with in your earlier post.
Phil, there have been lieutenants in the Royal Navy since time immemorial. But, as the chart I linked to earlier showed MEDICAL OFFICERS COULD NOT HOLD THAT RANK until 1918.
-
Eric,
That is a good point. What would correlate to them is the itemized list of the estate which will not be shared at this time. These do refer to the journals and drawings. Accept that or not...
Adam, again you miss the salient point, that a medical officer could become a Lieutenant if the promotion took them beyond the duties of a medical officer.
-
Phil, I would love you to show me a case of a medical officer being promoted to the rank of an executive officer in the Royal Navy. The Navy does not and did not hand out ranks as a reward for good deeds. Ranks relate to their roles on board ship. Lieutenants were responsible for supporting the Captain in the running of a ship. Medical officers were responsible for administering medical care.
-
Adam,
I believe I just did...
Pat, once again you get hung up on a phrase. There is no question that the journals were written by Dr. David Scott-Taylor PRIOR to his death in 1933. Why he sued the phrases he did when he did can't beanswered today with anything other than that 5 years-ols argument, because he did.
I'm quite sure that some future historian studying the internet will question what was in the mind of this Pat Mucci who had a strange proclivity for refering to everyone as "Moron." The fact is that you do and that DS-T did write what is in the journals.
-
Furthermore, it should be noted that promotion to lieutenant in the Royal Navy entails one's name being entered on the Navy List and a note of this being published in the London Gazette. Records of all commissioned officers are included on the National Archives website here - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/royal-naval-officers-service-records.htm (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/royal-naval-officers-service-records.htm). There is no trace of Scott Taylor receiving a commission in the Royal Navy, in 1901 or at any other time.
Here is the London Gazette entry from 1916 when Scott Taylor received a temporary commission as a lieutenant in the Royal Army Medical Corps.
(http://i.imgur.com/OaO7rix.png)
No such Gazette entry exists for his purported commissioning in the Royal Navy.
Here, as additional evidence, is his medal record for his service in WW1. Note he is listed as having joined up in the 'naval service' before transferring to the RAMC, in which he served as a sergeant before the promotion to lieutenant I noted in 1916. He was later promoted to captain. (http://i.imgur.com/B10D5h4.png)
-
Hi Phil - help me to understand this better. I will ask a question that I don't know the answer to; then I will state what I think I know/learned from your updated essay; and then I will ask a second question. (Of course, if I've gotten something wrong in the statements I gleaned from your essay, please correct that as well).
Question: At what point/month in 1901 do you believe Tilly visited St Andrews?
Statements:
1. Tilly was not at the May 11 1901 dinner with Scott-Taylor, Old Tom and Dr. Mac.
2. Tilly had earlier in 1901 sent Scott-Taylor a set of 4 golf hole drawings, including one of the Road Hole, which Tilly had signed and dated 1901.
3. Scott-Taylor notes in his journal that he received these drawings on or about May 4, along with some of Tilly's writing about cricket and golf, and news that Tilly would likely be there in July.
4. Scott-Taylor brought the Road Hole drawing to his May 11th dinner, which is when Old Tom, Dr Mac and Scott-Taylor signed it.
5. On May 28, Scott-Taylor writes in his journal that he has received a note from Tilly (written on May 12? On scores letterhead?) thanking him for his hospitality in St Andrews.
Question: if Tilly was not there on May 11, and wouldn't be there until July, what "hospitality in St Andrews" was Tilly thanking Scott-Taylor for?
In other words, and to repeat my first question: When do you believe that Tilly was in St Andrews in 1901? Do you believe Tilly had been there between January-late April 1901?
Because if Tilly had not been there during those early months, and if he was only in St Andrews in/after July, the only way I can see for Scott-Taylor to bring a Tilly Road Hole drawing (dated 1901) to a May 11 1901 dinner was for the Tilly to have seen/photographed the hole prior to 1901 but to have only set pen to paper that year, 1901, and dated it as such.
But if that is the case, i.e. if Tilly wasn't in St Andrews until July 1901, again I find myself wondering what "hospitality in St Andrews" Tilly could've been thanking Scott-Taylor for (in the letter received on May 28, 1901)? Was it for a visit the year before?
Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Hope i haven't added to the confusion.
Peter
-
This whole thing reminded me of something. Perhaps I'm off base but with a little googling, I came up with what makes sense to me as a comparative dynamic of human nature. It took the words and explanation of a woman analyzing that 'something else' that this episode reminds me of to draw the comparison for my limited understanding of such matters. This, from "Distinguished Educator", Lori Steinbach:
http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-nature-significance-the-royal-nonesuch-453339 (http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-nature-significance-the-royal-nonesuch-453339)
I can't help but also reflect back on the general theme by this same great American Author, Mark Twain as he wrote his delightful book:
"A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court", and is a sort of reverse process in his story of trying to fool the folk of aniquity with tricks of modernization, but here an attempt to fool modern folk with an antiquitization of the past.
Mockery? I'm not smart enough to mock this on my own, all I can do is Google. But seriously folks, there are actual very smart people on this forum that do not get fooled, to which I thank them for their diligent and scholarly integrity. This ought to serve as a very good lesson, IMHO.
-
I can't tell what the angle is, but this whole thread seems like an episode of "American Greed"
I wouldn't have thought anything (perhaps I'm gullible, and frankly didn't care much about these lost drawings to begin with, though am now fascinated by the whole thing), but once you look at that drawing with a little skepticism, the thought that all those architects would sign and date that sketch just seems ridiculous.
What I wonder is, why does anyone believe (or want to believe) so strongly that these are authentic?
-
once you look at that drawing with a little skepticism, the thought that all those architects would sign and date that sketch just seems ridiculous.
What I wonder is, why does anyone believe (or want to believe) so strongly that these are authentic?
Exactly Kevin.
The notion that the supposed participants at that dinner would so conveniently all sign and date the sketch is preposterous. I am sure that it is this that aroused the suspicions of so many here.
As for those believing strongly in the sketches' authenticity, again you are spot on in my opinion. Historians so want to be in at the discovery of game-changing new evidence that occasionally they allow their hearts to rule their heads. Professional ego.
My earlier allusion to the case of the Hitler Diaries was a perfect example, and a near perfect analogy to this case.
Phil,
Please don't make a fool of yourself. Tommy's spoof letter was just that - a spoof. It was funny.
You are already coming across as a pompous prig. Please don't be a humourless pompous prig.
-
Phil, Thanks for trying to begin to address just a few of the plethora problems with these Scott-Taylor documents. I have a few brief comments and questions.
1. The Two Solicitor Letters.
If you have been basing all your claims of unassailable authenticity and an unbroken chain of title on these two letters, then you have drastically overstated your claims.
2. The Date Supposed Journal Entries were Written.
If, as you state, that the words and phrases in the journal entries were in use in 1901 (or 1917 for those entries) then surely you can come up with some examples.
- What are some examples of the phrase “drinking buddies” having been used in 1901?
- How about the phrase “very posh” to connote luxurious conditions?
- How about the phrase “not my cup of tea" to express dislike of something?
- Same questions for each one of my examples listed in my post on the other thread.
Surely if these were in use in 1901 or 1917 you can come up with some examples.
3. "Golf Course Design".
Along the same lines as above, since you are a historian of golf course architecture, please provide us with some specific examples from 1901 or earlier of the use of the phrase “golf course design” or related phrases such as “golf designer.”
4. Peripheral Stories Contained in the Journal Entries.
The peripheral stories could have come straight from newspaper accounts (and in some instances David Scott-Taylor is supposedly reciting what he had just read in the paper.) All that information is easily accessible by anyone with an internet connection. Surely you realize that, don’t you?
5. The Note on Score’s Hotel Letterhead.
You wrote: “. . . I have yet to receive the copy of letter showing [the letterhead] . . . .” Phil, you requested that a photo of the letterhead be sent on July 23. Why haven't you received it? What excuse has he given for failing to send you this image?
Is Ian Scott Taylor still claiming that May 12, 1901 note was on Score's letterhead, or has he changed this aspect of the story as well?
6. The Solicitor's Affidavit.
On July 23 you requested of Ian Scott Taylor a "Certified copy of the solicitor's affidavit stating that these have been in their possession since your grandfather's passing along with their knowledge of them prior to that date." I take it by your request that as of July 23 that you had not even seen the actual affidavit? Is this correct? Has it been sent? If not, why not? What, specifically, does the affidavit say?
7. Why the Journal Entries Have Not Been Brought Forward Earlier.
On July 22 you wrote to me the following :
"One other thing which I left out and just rememberred. The family will not allow the journal entries in which Dr. David Scott-Taylor recounts the dinner at the scores Hotel to be shown at this time. It is because there is some highly personal family information also found on that same page which they do not wish for anyone to see. That was the reason I put the journal page from 1918 in which Dr. Scott-Taylor writes of meeting up with his good friend Alister MacKenzie on the front lines of WW I in the essay as it gives a glimpse of their close friendhsip." (my emphasis)
Obviously your representation was false. Why did you falsely represent that the reason you could not post the May 11, 1901 entry was because the entry contained "highly personal family information?"
I have more questions, but let's start here. Thanks in advance for your answers.
-
The authenticity of these documents appears to hinge completely on an affidavit and two letters from a solicitor on Anglesey stating that various journals and sketches has been in the possession of his firm and predecessors since 1933.
There appears to be no proof whatsoever that the journals and sketches that we have been discussing for the last week or so are actually the same documents that have been under lock and key in Holyhead.
Has Phil Young studied the documents in the solicitor's office?
Has the solicitor or one of his staff copied the documents and sent them to Phil direct?
Or has Phil been reliant on the word and good faith of a member or members of the Scott-Taylor family?
-
Duncan
I would go further and ask whether the solicitor was aware of what these plans were, and what was in the journal. Indeed I already have asked that question of Phil and I'm waiting for an answer. Because material was left with various firms of solicitors over a period of time doesn't mean that what is being presented was part of that material, which is why I have asked both on here and direct of Phil, what exactly has the solicitor testified to ?
Niall
-
Phil
As I see it there are two inter related issues here. The first issue is the provenance of the material and the second issue is the inconsistencies in the material, namely the plans.
With regards to the provenance I posted some questions regarding that which resulted in us having an email exchange. I would ask you now to post your responses to my questions.
With regards the material here are some questions off the top of my head;
Sketches - what's your take on how these sketches are proportionately in scale with published scaled drawings of later vintage ? Why do they show features that never existed eg. wall to side of 16th green, but miss out others such as the road on the Road Hole, the railway sheds and the fence seperating the road and course just short of the 17th green on Road Hole ?
Scores Hotel - the Grand Hotel was never known as Scores Hotel yet that was the name put on the sketch. You suggested that was the name of the restuarant within the hotel which I think I have heard claimed in relation to the new development but have never read anywhere else. Ignoring the fact that they surely would have been a bit more careful naming the correct hotel on the sketch, where did you come by the information relating to the name of the restuarant ?
Timescales - as previously asked elsewhere, can you please outline what you now consider the timeline to be, and how the dates etc on the sketches fit in with that.
Thanks
Niall
-
Phil,
any comment AT ALL regarding the images I posted?
regards,
Martin.
-
Guys,
My appologies for being off till now and this will be short. I'm not avoiding anything at all. Martin, I've yet to get there and will do so in the morning.
Niall, no, I did not say that the Grand hotel was known as the Scores hotel because " thatw as the name of the restaurant within the hotel" which is what you misread what I wrote to mean. I said that it was referred to as the Scores Hotel back then because that is where many of those who played would go to after their rounds were over and where they added their scores. It became so well known locally because of that when the new hotel was built they took on that name for themselves.
I'd like to clear up a few things as there are anumber of guys who are "deeply concerned" for me as to how this will effect my reputation and possibly that research work I do for my clients. I've received emails and phone calls including from a number who simply can't see how I am correct. I want all to know that I deeply appreciate these gestures, that I am and will remain fine no matter the outcome and that its the discussion and the truth that counts.
There is one rumor that I would like to put to rest before it goes any further. It was said to me today that they learned that I "had been thrown out of the Tillinghast Association." That is absolutely NOT true. I am and remain a member of the Tillinghast Association in good standing. What I did was resign my position as the official Historian and member of the Board of Directors of the Association. I did this without any prompting, suggestions made, conversation with or even an email suggetsing this from my fellow Board members. teh reason I did so goes back to my beginning conversations with david. I told bothe he & Ran that if it turns out i was wrong about the May 11th date that it would be proper for me to do that. I've said this several times here and I'll say it again. I own my mistakes and my personal concern is that this one would reflect badly on the Tillinghast Association and that it was proper and fitting for me to do so. The remaining Board members remain my friends and have my deepest respect.
The last thing I want to correct is misinformation that is being placed on the thread as true about Dr. David Scott-Taylor. An example of this is the newspaper clipping of an event that occurred in Australia in which a "Dr. david Scott-Taylor" was tried for murder following a failed operation. This was NOT Ian's grandfatehr. It was another person with the same name who happened to also be a doctor. I can especially appreciate this because in high school I dated a lovely young girl who some years later would marry Philip Young, an airline pilot.
The reason this can be proven as not being DS-T is because at the time of the trial hew as at work in South Wales attending to the health care needs of the coal miners...
I'm turning it off for the night. I'll be posting some new information and answer more questions, including Martin's, in the morning...
-
Phil,
Be well. We've met and shared some great quality time together. You know none of this is personal and as you so perfectly state, it's the truth that counts. It's only golf!
Best regards,
Martin.
-
I've removed said post until further notice.
-
Joe,
With all due respect, Tom Paul gave up his posting rights when he departed this site. I think it's entirely inappropriate for you or anyone else to be posting on his behalf on this or any other thread.
Regards,
Martin.
-
Joe,
With all due respect, Tom Paul gave up his posting rights when he departed this site. I think it's entirely inappropriate for you or anyone else to be posting on his behalf on this or any other thread.
Regards,
Martin.
No biggie, Martin. Post removed.
-
Having just discovered these threads, and having read them as they are interesting reading...
I'm reminded of all the excitement cold fusion generated circa 1988.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
-
The last thing I want to correct is misinformation that is being placed on the thread as true about Dr. David Scott-Taylor. An example of this is the newspaper clipping of an event that occurred in Australia in which a "Dr. david Scott-Taylor" was tried for murder following a failed operation. This was NOT Ian's grandfatehr. It was another person with the same name who happened to also be a doctor. I can especially appreciate this because in high school I dated a lovely young girl who some years later would marry Philip Young, an airline pilot.
The reason this can be proven as not being DS-T is because at the time of the trial hew as at work in South Wales attending to the health care needs of the coal miners...
Phil,
The murder case in Australia has no relevance to our discussion here and the newspaper clippings were posted purely because they were of some mild background interest.
I have no idea whether there might have been two David Scott-Taylors practicing as ships' doctors in the early 20th century (although on the face of it this seems unlikely) and frankly do not really care.
I am happy to accept your assertion that the botched operation in Sydney was not carried out by Ian's grandfather, as clearly this is important to somebody.
Presumably however, our Dr David Scott-Taylor - an avid keeper of a daily journal - will have recorded exactly what he was doing in March 1926. Just as he will have recorded what he was doing on every other day of his life from at least 1901 until his sudden death in 1933. So far we have only seen the journal entries for a handful of days which interest us specifically with regards to golf course architecture.
What about all the other thousands of pages?
Clearly someone has read them all very carefully indeed. How else would they have chanced upon the reference to Alister MacKenzie in France in 1917?
Or the meeting on the train in 1922?
Mackenzie shares a train journey with his friend Lt. Col. Surgeon David Scott-Taylor RAMC who MacKenzie knew through his time in the Medical Corps. MacKenzie had been visiting Colt and was returning north via London, they both got off at Chester, and carried on their discussion in the buffet at Chester. MacKenzie later carried on by train to Liverpool.
In an interview with 'American Golfer' last year Ian Scott-Taylor talks about his grandfather's relationship with Alister MacKenzie and gives a very different account of how they knew each other. Strange that, because the version on the Mackenzie Timeline quoted above is credited to one Ian Scott-Taylor.
“My grandfather, Dr. David Scott-Taylor, and Doctor MacKenzie first met in Edinburgh,” Scott-Taylor recalls. “Grandfather was at the university’s medical college, was a scratch golfer and also had the reputation as a fine rugby player. MacKenzie was keen on rugby and they became fast friends. They both served in the British Army during World War I and later my grandfather became a surgeon at Chester Royal Infirmary and would host MacKenzie at his home there and also in Wales at Holyhead. On one such visit to Holyhead, grandfather took MacKenzie to Nefyn to play and he was so struck with the dramatic cliff top holes that he set about looking for land to emulate what he had experienced. I believe this trip became the inspiration for his design of Cypress Point and also his work at Monterey Peninsula Country Club’s Dunes Course.”
http://americangolfer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/golf-architect-ian-scott-taylor-made.html
Dr Scott-Thomas must have recorded these visits in his diary. How else would Ian know about them? His grandfather died 30 years before Ian was born.
It would be interesting to see the journal entries detailing these meetings.
It would be even more interesting to see the journal entries for all the uneventful days in between!
-
Where is Melvyn?
-
"I was able to learn that the original Grand Hotel was also known as the "Scores Hotel" as many who just played the old course would walk into its bar & restaurant to "tally up their scores." That is the genesis to how the modern Scores Hotel got its name. It is a single source and I'll see if I can confirm that further but I found that fascinating."
Phil
You are correct, you didn't say it was the restaurant that was called the Scores, my mistake. What you actually said is posted above. I haven't been able to find where I iread that the restaurant in the hotel was sometimes called the Scores but fairly sure it was to do with the recent development of Hamilton halls which does make it sound suspiciously like marketing fluff to me. A bit like some of the nonsense you get from caddies. Either way I've never heard of the hotel itself being referred to as the Scores Hotel.
Can you say what your source is for the Grand Hotel being referred to as the Scores Hotel ?
Niall
-
I can't tell what the angle is, but this whole thread seems like an episode of "American Greed"
I wouldn't have thought anything (perhaps I'm gullible, and frankly didn't care much about these lost drawings to begin with, though am now fascinated by the whole thing), but once you look at that drawing with a little skepticism, the thought that all those architects would sign and date that sketch just seems ridiculous.
What I wonder is, why does anyone believe (or want to believe) so strongly that these are authentic?
Kevin
That was my reaction as well. I just thought that this was all too fantastical. From that perspective I've been a sceptic since the outset and as the inconsistencies for want of a better expression have mounted up, that scepticism has increased. With regards the signatures all on one bit of paper, what's the chances ?
Let me put it this way, MacKenzie was a golfing non-entity at that point even if he was a big pal of Scott Taylor. Lets say if I was lucky enough to get Jack Nicklaus's autograph on say the commemrative 5 pound note that the Royal Bank of Scotland produced a few years ago, you can bet your last cent that not even my best friend would have been allowed to add his signature to it.
Niall
-
Spot on Niall.
The presence of MacKenzie's signature on that plan is the single most important thing that makes the whole story unbelievable.
And someone's biggest mistake...
It always troubled me that the signature was exactly like Dr Mac's signature in later life. Most peoples' signature changes over time slightly; at 50 it is not normally exactly the same as it was at 30.
The Scott-Taylor signature of course, transcends generations! ;D
-
I actually disagree with that Duncan. In my opinion, there are two smoking guns in this case.
One is the 'Scores Hotel' designation on the Road Hole plan, when we know that the Scores did not come into existence until after 1930. We have this claim that this was an informal name for the Grand based on golfers using the place to tot up their scores (a claim in support of which no evidence has been offered); but this ignores the rather more obvious reason for the name change, that the name of street on which the hotel is located was changed from Swallowgait, as it had been since medieval times, to The Scores, when the street was developed for housing at some point in the 19th century - and before 1853, as the street plan of that date I posted shows.
The other is the WW Johnson plan of the Redan that Martin Bonnar posted yesterday. The similarities between the two drawings are too pronounced for this to be coincidental.
It is not possible for either of these documents credibly to be judged authentic.
-
I agree totally Adam.
These inconsistences became clear later after further research however. MacKenzie's signature was obviously wrong right from the start.
-
I hate to pile in with more cirscuspectual stuff, but...
Fristly I must admitt that I haven't read either biography of Old Tom but...
Is it likely he would have attended a Dinner in a hotel? Until about 1980 proffesional Golfers wern't even welcome in the Clubhouse. I can image MacKenzie in his Kilt and Tillinghust in a DJ, but did Old Tom wear anything but tweed? I am sure he dinned at the table of his friends like Lord Leitrim, but Hotels were the last repositories of snobbery. The story reads like a lost Chapter from Tommy's Honour.
-
This will be but a brief note. I promised that I would spend a good deal of the day today responding to past posts and answering questions. Unfortunately I will be unable to. I mentioned in my earlier post that I was unavailable on Friday due to a personal matter. This was due to my oldest son undergoing more than 6 hours of complicated oral surgery. Today he is having complications and so I have to help him deal with these.
My apologies and hopefully tomorrow I can get back to the fray...
-
Game Point Bonnar!
Why are you so gleeful about this?
-
Game Point Bonnar!
Why are you so gleeful about this?
Because Martin's discovery was a revelation and one that takes us a big step closer to establishing the truth.
I know for a fact that Tommy is not in the least gleeful about some of the game's leading historians having damaged their reputations (irrevocably?) by their unquestioning backing for this story and their scornful dismissal of any suggestion that things may not be as they seem.
That is a spectacle no-one could or should be gleeful about. Neither is the current situation of Ian Scott-Taylor.
Establishing the truth is what matters. That and the well-being of Phil's son.
-
Thanks Duncan!
Some people just can't get over rejection.....
-
Game Point Bonnar!
Why are you so gleeful about this?
Because Martin's discovery was a revelation and one that takes us a big step closer to establishing the truth.
I know for a fact that Tommy is not in the least gleeful about some of the game's leading historians having damaged their reputations (irrevocably?) by their unquestioning backing for this story and their scornful dismissal of any suggestion that things may not be as they seem.
That is a spectacle no-one could or should be gleeful about. Neither is the current situation of Ian Scott-Taylor.
Establishing the truth is what matters. That and the well-being of Phil's son.
Duncan which of Phil's posts are "scornful"? To me it does seem the heat has come from one side in this debate.
-
Tony,
It wasn't necessarily Phil and it wasn't necessarily on the open forum...
-
Too obvious a fake for mine. Most likely this 'controversy' has been constructed deliberately to keep the GCA folk busy whilst Hawtree builds an island green on The Old Course.
And it's working perfectly.
-
Phil, I hope all is well with your son and family.
When you are able to return to this issue, I’d like to add one crucial question the many above. This one cuts directly to the heart of your assertions about provenance, possession and control of the Scott-Taylor material.
Isn't it true that you have previously represented that the Scott-Taylor Material was actually stored in a box underneath the bed of Ian Scott-Taylor’s mother?
Thanks.
-
That is a spectacle no-one could or should be gleeful about.
OK, sorry for interpreting the meticulous parody letter as anything but a celebration of a world in which the Tillinghast minutiae is increasingly error-free.
-
Post deleted on reflection as inadvisable
-
Yes, it sure seems like folks are enjoying this, despite claims to the opposite. Otherwise, why all the chatter and "jokes"? Let Phil respond. If folks aren't careful, nobody will want to present any historical info on this site. And who could blame them they way folks carry on? A mistake is a mistake. Let Phil take as long as he needs to sort stuff out. What is the hurry anyway? You lot make bloodhounds seem chilled.
Ciao
-
Mike,
Here's a list of Tilly courses on which have hosted major and other USGA national championships. It doesn't include those such as Bethpage & Baltusrol where future ones already have been scheduled:
Baltimore CC (5 Farms) – US Women’s Open, US Amateur, PGA Championship
Baltusrol (Lower & Upper) – 5 US Opens, 3 US Women’s Opens, 2 US Amateurs, PGA Championship
Bethpage Black – 2 US Opens
Bethpage Red & Blue - US Public Links
Brook Hollow GC – US Men’s Mid-Amateur
Cedar Crest GC – PGA Championship, US Public Links
Fresh Meadow CC (NLE) – US Open, PGA
Golden Valley CC – US Girls Junior
Hermitage GC – PGA Championship
Indian Hills CC – US Girls Junior
Newport CC – Us Women’s Open, US Women’s Amateur
Oak Hills CC – US Boys Junior
Oaks CC – US Girls Junior
Ridgewood CC – Ryder Cup, US Amateur, US Sr. Open, US Sr. Amateur, Sr. PGA
Rochester G&CC – US Women’s Mid-Am
San Francisco Golf Club – Curtis Cup, US Sr. Amateur
Shawnee CC – PGA, US Women’s Amateur
Somerset Hills CC – Curtis Cup
Swope Memorial – US Women’s Public Links
Tulsa CC – US Women’s Amateur
Winged Foot GC (Eats & West) – 5 US Opens, 2 US Women’s Opens, US Sr. Open, 2 US Amateurs, PGA
It may not be a major but Scarboro Golf & Country Club (redesigned by Tilly circa 1925) in Toronto has hosted four Canadian Opens (40,47,53,63) won by Sam Snead, Bobby Locke, Dave Douglas and Doug Ford and the 1958 Canadian Am.
FYI - Stanley Thompson was designing Cedar Brook (later Cedar Brae) Golf Club across the street around the same time so it is possible that he met Stanley Thompson at this time.
But this thread seems to have gotten a bit beyond this issue. :P
-
Not sure if this was added but Baltimore CC also hosted a Walker Cup and the Senior's Players Championship.
-
Bump
-
Wow!
Take a break from GolfClubAtlas.com and who knows what you'll. Looks like one heck of a kerfuffle, dustup, donnybrook damn! it's hard to write like it's 1901!
-
it's hard to write like it's 1901!
Nobody would ever need to.