During those times they were under “Mum’s bed.” Again, I have always stated that they were stored at the solicitor's office.
Miraculously now the Scott-Taylor that is written about in the press clipping that Ian's family has in their family records that was passed on to Phil and just posted is not Ian's grandfather's obituary but that of another Scott-Taylor, the one that you have "found"?
Really? Do you have an inkling of how preposterous that sounds?
if you look closely at the clipping you will see that it is just that, a clipping from an actual newspaper. Not a microfilmed copy from a library or a scan from an online newspaper archive, but an original piece of the actual newspaper. How do you suppose the family obtained that David? The simplest explanation in this case is the best, that the family cut it out of the newspaper it was printed in a short while after his death.
- I didn't "ask for" another round of tests to be done, and I certainly didn't ask them to be done by super-secret unidentified "experts" of Ian's choosing. As I have said before, such reports mean very little until they face critical scrutiny, and given that these guys aren't yet even willing to "put their name on it" no such critical scrutiny can yet take place.
The final report, which Phil understands will be ~ triple in length from the brief, is due to be submitted to the family around the first of the new year. Maddening to both Phil and me, the solicitors advised that the names/institutions who did the work not be released, at least until the final document is compiled/presented. Anyway, lots of detailed information is contained within Phil’s update and GolfClubAtlas.com is playing its role: acting as a platform for topics to be debated on golf course architecture in a respectful manner.
This entire thread and the "essay" it is based on are ridiculously premature. Until the final report and the identity of the "Agency" and experts are available it is entirely worthless and proves nothing. It is not worth debating at this point.Phil,
Neil,
Do you really believe that, if something odd might have happened on the MacKenzie census form, then there is "a likelihood that exactly" the same thing happened on the David Scott-Taylor census form?
Like many here you seem to be confusing mere possibility with absolute probability.
David
I sense your tone is getting a bit strident.
My understanding is that the authenticators used it in verifying signatures.Neil,
Well that was quick. I just reached out to Phil on the telephone and had a very brief conversation that did not end amicably. His answer was an unequivocal No.
He will not provide any information about David Scott-Taylor's family or upbringing until I not only post the census form, but also provide him with all my facts and reasoning backing up my opinion that the person on the census form is Ian's grandfather.
It is unreasonable for him to demand that I turn over my research to him, especially given the nature of my past dealings with Phil and Ian, so we had nothing further to discuss.
So much for moving the conversation forward.
It was anything but quick and it wasn't a conversation.It lasted less than a few minutes. That seems quick to me. You are correct it wasn't much of a conversation though. I proposed my deal, and then it was mostly Phil yelling at me about how I had done this and that and needed to do this and that. I told him "nice talking to you" and hung up.
Phil,
an authentication is never a mathematical proof in the sense that it cannot be wrong. Many attributions and authentications have been wrong in the past. Forgeries have gone undetected for decades, despite an armada of experts being on the task.
Phil,
an authentication is never a mathematical proof in the sense that it cannot be wrong. Many attributions and authentications have been wrong in the past. Forgeries have gone undetected for decades, despite an armada of experts being on the task.
They know that absolute certainty just isn't possible.
David E
Interesting to hear that you think the authentication report may be a fake.
I can assure you that the report is not a fake, and was contributed to by a host of different specialists in their fields from across Britain's top institutions. But don't take my word on that.
Neil, I don't think the conversation will suffer much if you refrain from discussing anything further with me. As for your supposed apology, nice to see you are still keeping classy.
David E, just a question re your last comment - I wonder how would you propose to test the bona fides of the experts?
David E I thought you had said about testing their bona fides?Apologies, poorly worded.
Britain's most prominent science 'expert' - Lord Monckton - is neither a Lord or a Scientist
Phil,
I don't approve of the use of subterfuge. But "terrified"? Really? By a call from the USA that she seems to have handled with ease? You aren't overstating things just a little?
I have no idea who made the call. I first learned of it when I saw Phil's post today.
Surely the experts are paid to give their opinion in a professional capacity for interested party's consumption?
Peer review and scrutiny is what they are being paid for. Anonymous verification or authentication is a complete contradiction in terms. Defies all logic. Would you pay an institution to verify something if they insisted that their verification remain anonymous?
Unless of course the owner doubts the material and wanted it verified for personal reasons.
Why some are like a dog with a bone with this is there are so many immediate problems and the initial shooting down as described in the hubris thread.
Piss or get off the potty springs to mind. Put it all out there or put it back under the bed.
Neil, while I appreciate your comments on the signatures, I wonder if perhaps you might have missed the main point?
Whatever you or I might think about the signatures from the diaries, they have not been authenticated and are themselves at question. Experts cannot use questionable, unauthenticated documents as the control group. Yet that is exactly what you and Phil have said the unnamed experts have done here.
Surely you understand the inherent problem with using unauthenticated, challenged documents as the control group, don't you?
As for your questions about what a "forger" might do, you'd be better off asking a "forger" but I'll do my best to answer. (By the way, "forger" is your word here, not mine.)
1. I imagine one would try to make signatures as similar as possible, but I also imagine that this is no easy task. It would be extremely difficult to create one convincing fake signature, and even more difficult to repeat the process multiple times. With an unaccomplished and inexperienced "forger" I'd expect quite a lot of variance, especially early on, and especially if the signatures were in a form where erasing or starting over wasn't an easy option. Like in a long and detailed diary, for example.
2. I imagine anyone trying to falsify a signature would not want the signature to lead back to his or hers, but again, it seems this would be a very difficult thing to do. Try to sign your own name in a completely different style and have it still look like a real signature. It isn't easy. If you read the boilerplate language in the "report" it talks about how certain writing characteristics are reproduced "unconsciously," so it seems that some of the "unconscious" characteristics might show through despite the efforts of the signer to make the signature different. In the case of Ian Scott-Taylor, it seems it would be very difficult to avoid, given that he shares two names with David Scott-Taylor.
3. I am glad we at least agree that there are similarities between Ian's signature and that of his grandfather. But while you may have learned from your father, Ian Scott-Taylor did not learn from his grandfather. His grandfather passed away a generation before he was born. In fact, Ian's father did not learn from Ian's grandfather either, because, sadly, Ian's grandfather passed away less than 6 months after Ian's father was born.
The legend of Ian's grandfather obviously plays a large role in Ian's life, but the reality is that Ian's grandfather was only married to Ian's grandmother for about a year before he passed away. (This is part of the reason why I am so curious whether Ian really knows about the personal details of his grandfather's life before this brief marriage with the heartbreaking ending.)
You ask about the Will. How could I come to any conclusion about the Will when I have not even seen it and do not know anything about it? For that matter, how can you have already decided that the Will authenticates all of the signatures when you haven't even seen it and don't know anything about it? There is nothing magical about calling a document a Will which makes it beyond scrutiny. While I am withholding judgment on the alleged "Will," it certainly doesn't bode well that it is not even indexed in the National Registry.
By the way, did anyone else notice that on the third alleged David Scott Taylor signature, the date is written in the American Date Format of Month, Day, Year?
"April 14th, 1914"
In England, Wales, Scotland, India and most of the world, the Format is Date, Month, Year.
Looking back at the few journal pages which have been posted, it seems that David Scott-Taylor was a bit schizophrenic when it came to which which format to follow. Sometimes he followed the American Format, sometimes that of the rest of the World.
Anyone have any explanation as to why this might have been?
It seems unlikely that someone with his background would fall in and out of the American Format. It seems much more likely that a ex pat Welshman who has been living in the Unites States for some years might.
Your idea that they would take the diary signatures as a control group to compare with the drawing signature - or vice versa - is laughable, but then I think you knew that already. I haven't seen the will signature myself, and have had no need to ask to see it.
Only in America is the completely illogical (and rather confusing) month/day/year format - 10/9/14 - used.
Only in America is the completely illogical (and rather confusing) month/day/year format - 10/9/14 - used.
Here's the logic: in America we typically say October 9, 2014. So we write the date with numbers in that order as well. If we said 9 October 2014, my guess is we would write the first two numbers in reverse, as people do in many other parts of the world.
I prefer yyyymmdd on anything digital for the reason you said. Works great for indexing and sorting.
I'd like to add one other thing the phone call came from the United States!
The police where notified and a report has been filed.
Mark,
You wrote: “I don't approve of the use of subterfuge. But "terrified"? Really? By a call from the USA that she seems to have handled with ease? You aren't overstating things just a little?”
No Mark, and as I see has already posted, I am actually UNDERSTATING the incident in what I wrote. As Ian also stated the family has contacted the police.
Ryan,
You wrote: “Stole my sentiments. It was a misguided golf anorak who rang up. Not Jack the Ripper.”
Sorry Ryan, but different people react differently. As I mentioned to Mark above I actually downplayed the incident. It didn’t happen to you, and more importantly, it didn’t happen to your wife or daughter (if you either or both). If one of them received a strange phone call asking for personal information, refused to identify themselves or the company they represented they work for and it shook them up, I think your attitude would be a bit different.
John Kavanaugh, thank you for understanding.
So far, to me anyway, the two threads containing all the back and forth are at least as interesting as the underlying items being discussed.
So please provide the proof that this is from an accepted copy of Ian’s grandfather’s signature since, during the first third of the 20th century during the time that his grandfather was alive, there were at least two other Dr. David Scott-Taylor’s that the various British medical societies have knowledge of, including the gentleman down in Australia that was mentioned in the first “discussion” and who most definitely was not Ian’s grandfather.
So either there were two David Scott-Taylors from "Alyth" studying medicine at University of Edinburgh in 1894, or that is our guy.
[The] person whether they are a member of GCA or Max’s Lounge, who decided to call Ian’s sister yesterday.
As you hypothesize I hope you are considering how common identity theft was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Regarding the trial in Australia of a David Scott Taylor, at that time David Scott Taylor was working a ship's doctor sailing between the UK and Sydney.
By the way, did anyone else notice that on the third alleged David Scott Taylor signature, the date is written in the American Date Format of Month, Day, Year?
"April 14th, 1914"
In England, Wales, Scotland, India and most of the world, the Format is Date, Month, Year.
Looking back at the few journal pages which have been posted, it seems that David Scott-Taylor was a bit schizophrenic when it came to which which format to follow. Sometimes he followed the American Format, sometimes that of the rest of the World.
Anyone have any explanation as to why this might have been?
It seems unlikely that someone with his background would fall in and out of the American Format. It seems much more likely that a ex pat Welshman who has been living in the Unites States for some years might.
I have to agree with Neil here, David.
In the UK the use of 9th October 2014 and October 9th 2014 are completely interchangeable and most people will use both formats depending upon their inclination at that time.
Only when the date is digitised do we have a set format. We use the entirely logical day/month/year format - 9/10/14
Only in America is the completely illogical (and rather confusing) month/day/year format - 10/9/14 - used.
Regarding the Road hole drawing: “These signatures were compared with copies and originals of the four persons indicated on the drawing.” Also, “In conclusion, all signatures were made by gentlemen with their right hand. Three different inks were used on the documents. Of note, A.W. Tillinghast’s signature and drawing were made in one ink consistent with an American manufacturer. Dr. Scott-Taylor and Dr. MacKenzie’s signatures were written in a fountain pen with separate ink. Mr. Morris’ signature was made with a dipping pen and is in another ink. This concludes that all the gentlemen’s signatures on this document are genuine and are written at the time dated. This proves that the documents are genuine.
Phil:
Why are you still arguing about this on Golfclubatlas? What are you hoping will happen?
Bart
So, MacKenzie, DST and Old Tom are sitting round the table having a yarn and DST suggests that they all sign this plan. So why would there be two pens ?
Just a thought.
Mr. Moriarty, thank you for your last post, and your magnificent conclusions. I must say you seem to know far more about my family than we do, but then again you seem to know a lot about everyone's posts. The only sad thing about this Sir is that you will and have scared away people who wish to post work or interesting threads for us followers of GCA. Bye the bye we do know who called my family thanks to the police service, don't we, you obviously know because you know everything else. We will not be posting on this thread as is seems to be a pointless exercise. No matter what we post you will sir attack it with your usual gusto, so why put any one through the agony. Any way I must bid you good night sir as I'm going to finish my '0' gauge Stanier Black 5 model. I'm sure you could give us chapter and verse on the steam engines history ? Good night sir.
As bad as making this unethical call to the old lady was, it is not an ounce better to spread unsubstantiated rumours about David Moriarty having any knowledge of it.Indeed. Having made that allegation Ian Scott-Taylor should either substantiate it or apologise. I'm not holding my breath.
Especially since it is claimed that the police has found out who the caller was, any comment linking David Moriarty with the case is implied to have come from these police investigations.
Ulrich
_____________________________________________________
Duncan and Niall, while you are considering date formats, perhaps you could help an ignorant American understand another seemingly strange British convention . . .
I'd always heard that over there people have long been weighed in "stone." So I was a bit surprised by the reference to the supposed long hitting American golfer named Fitzroy: "The tallest, thinnest bloke I ever saw. He had to be 6’5’’ and 170 lbs dripping wet."
Shouldn't this read, He had to be 12 stone dripping wet?
(Never mind that the saying wasn't in use at that point in history, or that nothing else checks out about this supposed May 11, 1901 competition at The Old Course anyway.)
Making that phone call was clearly not a very classy act by whoever did it, and I'm sure the recipient didn't appreciate it, but the police?
I'm trying to imagine the reaction of a hard - pressed desk sergeant to the complaint of a middle - aged lady about a phone call from an American bloke asking questions about some drawings and diaries that are something to do with her brother who lives in America...
Now then I have a question for all you smart folks out there,
Show me a copy of Alister MacKenzies war record, can you smart folks out there find it?
The same diary entry (again if my memory serves me right) refers to DST trying to get 9 holes in. A curious expression back then. A few holes or a game of golf maybe, but 9 holes ? Furthermore, where exactly was he going to get these 9 holes ? Assuming he's based in St Andrews, there was only the Old and the New, both of which were/are typical out and back routings so 9 holes would have left him just about as far from town as he could get. That leaves the Jubilee which back then was only 12 holes. So did DST decide to play the first nine of the Jubilee only and leave the other 3 ? Doesn't seem likely.
Niall
Now then I have a question for all you smart folks out there,
Show me a copy of Alister MacKenzies war record, can you smart folks out there find it?
The Aussie newspapers differ as to whether DST was medical officer of the Borda or of another ship belonging to a different line. P&O, though, has tremendously detailed personnel files for its officers available in London. it will be Interesting to check those out.
So everything about being Sir Walter Scott's grandson, being mentioned in despatches five times etc. etc. is based on what an unsuccessful itinerant middle aged and possibly lecherous doctor told an impressionable young Holyhead girl as he wooed her to the altar...
The incident in Australia suggests that he wasn't a tremendous success at whatever surgical procedures he did undertake.
@Bogey - I disagree about taking this offline as I find this whole series of threads fascinating - perhaps it is like watching NASCAR for car wrecks.
Seeing new items that are a century old, like a scan of a census form, newspaper clippings from Australia or a military record, is very interesting and we are seeing the whole authentication debate/process happen in real time. I do agree that emotions are getting carried away from time to time and that behaviour could be a little more civil.
Just a note about dating convention in early part of C20th: had a quick look through several Harry Colt docs from back then and he used dd/mm/yy if digital but Month/day/year if the month was spelled out i.e. he has a letter headed with April 23rd 1926 with an attached bill showing 23.4.26
Just a note about dating convention in early part of C20th: had a quick look through several Harry Colt docs from back then and he used dd/mm/yy if digital but Month/day/year if the month was spelled out i.e. he has a letter headed with April 23rd 1926 with an attached bill showing 23.4.26
Thanks Paul, I'll cross that off the list.
____________________________________________
Bogey, I tried my best to deal with this offline, to no avail. I went to Phil privately and proved to him that substantial portions of Ian's original story were false, despite their representations that Ian's story came directly from the diaries. So far as I am concerned, the whole thing should have ended then, and I privately encouraged both Phil and Ran to distance themselves from the whole affair. But Phil went all in with Ian, and Ran keeps having them back so they can try and make their case, so here we are.
So while you are judging harshly for participating, keep in mind that Ian and Phil are the ones who have come to gca.com (on three different occasions) trying to pass off this material as authentic. If that doesn't open up the material to public scrutiny, then what does?
And we aren't just talking about two Tillinghast drawings and a diary. Ian claims to have dozens of sketches, drawings, and paintings by various famous architects and of various famous golf course and holes, and I've been informed that they have engaged in efforts to try and sell part or all of the collection. If so, and if the material is not what they represent, then that ought to be brought out publicly.
If you don't want to read it, then don't.
Just a note about dating convention in early part of C20th: had a quick look through several Harry Colt docs from back then and he used dd/mm/yy if digital but Month/day/year if the month was spelled out i.e. he has a letter headed with April 23rd 1926 with an attached bill showing 23.4.26
Thanks Paul, I'll cross that off the list.
____________________________________________
Bogey, I tried my best to deal with this offline, to no avail. I went to Phil privately and proved to him that substantial portions of Ian's original story were false, despite their representations that Ian's story came directly from the diaries. So far as I am concerned, the whole thing should have ended then, and I privately encouraged both Phil and Ran to distance themselves from the whole affair. But Phil went all in with Ian, and Ran keeps having them back so they can try and make their case, so here we are.
So while you are judging harshly for participating, keep in mind that Ian and Phil are the ones who have come to gca.com (on three different occasions) trying to pass off this material as authentic. If that doesn't open up the material to public scrutiny, then what does?
And we aren't just talking about two Tillinghast drawings and a diary. Ian claims to have dozens of sketches, drawings, and paintings by various famous architects and of various famous golf course and holes, and I've been informed that they have engaged in efforts to try and sell part or all of the collection. If so, and if the material is not what they represent, then that ought to be brought out publicly.
If you don't want to read it, then don't.
No one is buying it. You have made crap up, fudged facts and called out dead relatives. You are an embarrassment to the game of golf and any serious discussion, factual or fiction. I thank God everyday you continue to post as it proves to mice and men that I, no matter the effort, will not be the biggest douche to bag a deer.
I thank God everyday you continue to post as it proves to mice and men that I, no matter the effort, will not be the biggest douche to bag a deer.
Maybe you who make unfounded claims get sued for the money you cost the estate.This thread has enough problems without your particular brand of nastiness. Please leave it alone and go back to making fatuous comments about slow play, you're so much better at that.
The same diary entry (again if my memory serves me right) refers to DST trying to get 9 holes in. A curious expression back then. A few holes or a game of golf maybe, but 9 holes ? Furthermore, where exactly was he going to get these 9 holes ? Assuming he's based in St Andrews, there was only the Old and the New, both of which were/are typical out and back routings so 9 holes would have left him just about as far from town as he could get. That leaves the Jubilee which back then was only 12 holes. So did DST decide to play the first nine of the Jubilee only and leave the other 3 ? Doesn't seem likely.
Niall
Niall,
Interesting observations, especially about rugby. Per the 9 holes, I suppose he could have just meant to head out and play some mix of holes such that he ended where he wanted, or, simply played as long as possible such that he made "the turn" in time to get back the house. We've all snuck out as kids from a particular hole and played some routing that ended us back at either the clubhouse or where we started. Or, for the Old Course, played 5 out and 4 back...except there would be no reason to as you'd inevitably come to the conclusion (if you where only going to play "9 holes") that you'd might as well play 10. Honestly, very interesting.
I would love for these stories to be true, but, there seem to be too many abnormalities from what I know and have read. I do wish that all those intimately involved to could recognize their tone. Anyone checking in would think some of y'all are children. It's like I tell my (private) high school students whom I "meet" through them having to be spoken to about respect or language : "This is my first impression of you. Is this a good example of who YOU are?" And, then they recognize it.
Cheers
There are plenty of subtexts and personal ego and financial motivation, and axes being ground based on past perceived transgressions that have gone on among this GCA tribe. This thread has given both an opportunity to pursue the ideal of sifting and winnowing, and the forum for axe grinding and ego puffery.
And, who is being pompous, who is being disingenuous, and who is being dishonest here, and who is being true to the pursuit of facts, no matter how inconsequential the truth in this particular matter is related to the grand scheme of things?
So, does this process and debate teach us anything about ourselves or human nature. I think so...
For us trained at lesser institutions, please summarize with simple words in short sentences what it is that we might have learned (about ourselves AND human nature).
As to the plaque, I wonder whether the donors would have it removed if alive today.
Will
Some things to bear in mind in this discussion;
IST was looking to play on a Saturday morning with apparently no pre-arranged tee-time. In 1901 there was a ballot process although not sure if it was in operation that early in the season. Either way the course was busy and therefore the opportunity to "cut-in" would be extremely limited. Over crowding was a big issue at St Andrews at the time which is why the Jubliee subsequently got extended and the Eden was built.
Both the Old and the New have/had out and back routings, meaning the turn is nearly as far from the town as you are going to get, so why decide only to play 9 holes knowing you couldn't cut in. Also, assuming you could cut-in on the Old course, how would you manage to play a number of holes totalling 9 ? No logical answer if you think about.
Niall
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/DST19010502EdinburghEvNwsAmPrtcpnts.jpg)
For what it's worth, the England and Wales death index lists a "David Scott-Taylor" and a "David S. Taylor" as having died in Chester in December 1933 at the age of 58. One is on the page under "S" for Scott-Taylor and the other is on another page under "T" for Taylor. Both references point to the same volume and page number so are presumably the same person. This information is consistent with the death notice previously posted.
<picture snipped>
On the bright side, you've proven convincingly that there were several golf course architects present in St. Andrews that week. If only Colt and Herbert Fowler and John Low had stopped in for dinner at The Scores! :o
As Martin said, "do" is short for ditto. Meaning same club affiliation as above. So C.E. Gilroy was a member of the R&A. A quick search suggests that C.E. Gilroy was Charles Edward Gilroy of Dundee, who was a golfer and a cricketer.
Even though this issue is not particularly mysterious, as someone who used to study literature and folklore I can't stay away.
I want to go back to the beginning here, as I just reread the Hubris and a Point of Honor thread. Has any explanation, plausible or otherwise, been given for why the family would make up a story about Tillinghast's whereabouts, when subsequently revealed journal entries contradicted it?
David.
There doesn't appear to be a knock-out blow in the case against the diaries/sketches being authentic. If there s a case, it is a conglomeration of suspicions and things that don't quite check out.
Is it possible for you somewhere in a thread to provide a summary of all the suspicions and inconsistencies that are left hanging at the moment?
David.
There doesn't appear to be a knock-out blow in the case against the diaries/sketches being authentic. If there s a case, it is a conglomeration of suspicions and things that don't quite check out.
Is it possible for you somewhere in a thread to provide a summary of all the suspicions and inconsistencies that are left hanging at the moment?
Maybe not a knockout blow, but the ref should have stepped in long ago to save further punishment. Of those who followed the threads closely, is there anyone left who's prepared to say they've not been swayed by David and co's unanswered questions/discrepancies?
The opening post of the hubris thread, in my opinion, says how this has happened and continued to happen.
As I had already posted the family had now decided to make the drawings, diaries authentications and more available to authenticated researchers and historians. The names would be made public.
Because of this beyond stupid stunt that may never happen now… And its your own fault.
David.
There doesn't appear to be a knock-out blow in the case against the diaries/sketches being authentic. If there s a case, it is a conglomeration of suspicions and things that don't quite check out.
Is it possible for you somewhere in a thread to provide a summary of all the suspicions and inconsistencies that are left hanging at the moment?
The newspaper cutting I was expecting to find but didn't was the obituary which Phil has posted repeatedly from the start, the source of which he has, as far as I can tell, never revealed.
Surely referencing articles such as this is a basic practice in historical reporting?
[image clipped]
In which newspaper was this obituary published?
Niall, quite honestly I would say to any club or entity in the position to "purchase" alleged drawings that purport to give provenance and authenticity to work promised to be done and to be faithful to an original archies style and intent; CAVEAT EMPTOR!
If you have the resources to bid up for such "validation" via a commercial trade for a so-called collectible, then you enter the arena of such trade or auctions as a risk. If validation is so important to the traditions or value in financial or historical integrity terms, then you must entertain the sort of sifting and winnowing of authenticity of such artifacts or documents... and it is the acquiring entities duty to do so. Ask all the difficult questions and seek all the facts.
As alluded to in my previous, IMHO, I don't think this set of coincidental circumstances of a heretofore unknown meeting of these golf architecture historical figures has mattered at all to the actual quality of the GCA product or art of design that we have from our modern day archies. If some modern day archie says he/she is channelling some classic era archie, again I say Caveat Emtur. ::) ;D
The battle has essentially been over since the very beginning, but some are still not ready to accept this.
David Elvins
You suggest that the knock out blow has yet to be dealt. I'd beg to differ and suggest that not only has IST been knocked out but he long ago left the ring on a stretcher
Many of the arguments are picking around the edges. Let's say DST liked to exaggerate, does it mean that the drawings are fake? Rarely a day goes by when the details of someone's newly published memoirs are not debated.
I think many people have made a good case but Ian Scott-Taylor has an authentication report and Neil Crafter and Phillip Young in his corner. Both men have seen the authentication report and are willing to back its judgement. Both men are experienced historians and men of good standing.
RJ
For some like me who have tried to find out about the work and methods of the old dead guys, Dr MacKenzie in my case, the danger is that our understanding of these guys becomes distorted. That to me is the real danger.
Here again are the images mentioned by Martin. According to Martin, he first image is the 1912 architectural rendering of the Redan, which as Martin says was obviously a result of a survey. The second image is the questioned AWT painting, dated 1899. The third is an overlay Tommy did for another thread. The two images are nearly exact.
I've just finished reading Phil's latest essay and all I can say is wow. Paper and ink of the period therefore must be genuine, really !! Learned experts give opinion that documents are genuine and Phil triumphantly states this as proof. Sorry Phil it's just an opinion.
Other "experts" read the diaries and acclaim them to be genuine because they mention the sinking of the Titanic and the outbreak of WWI !! Amazing. Presumably you can write away to get this expert accreditation ?
Duncan, Your hypothesis that David Scott-Taylor may have concocted these diaries (and presumably the related material) in the early 1930's is an interesting one, and it is one that others have shared with me offline. But I think the facts point to a more modern hand both in the case of the various drawings and also in the case of the diaries. Among other reasons . . .
David Elvins, are there reliable methods to determine age based on the coloured sections? The statement says ink and coloured sections.
I've just finished reading Phil's latest essay and all I can say is wow. Paper and ink of the period therefore must be genuine, really !! Learned experts give opinion that documents are genuine and Phil triumphantly states this as proof. Sorry Phil it's just an opinion.
Other "experts" read the diaries and acclaim them to be genuine because they mention the sinking of the Titanic and the outbreak of WWI !! Amazing. Presumably you can write away to get this expert accreditation ?
Whilst not as dismissive of the Phillip's essay as you, I have many concerns.
Concern 1.
Phil's representation of the methodology used. To quote Phil: "So exactly what were the various processes and means used to authenticate the sketches and diaries, and what determinations were made?......Before going through the results of the examination of the individual Tillinghast drawings I’ve chosen to include the following two sections that were included. They are detailed and explanatory of how they went about the testing process:"
What follows is roughly 1300 words directly lifted into the report from a lecture/paper written as a general summary of modern forensic documentation examination. It is general and generic information and to allude to it being some sort of methodology for the investigation is stretching the truth. It actually provides the golfclubatlas reader with no information on how the specific documents were examined and is therefor a waste of 1200 words to quote it in Phil's essay. Since it is only background reading, a link to the paper that duplicates these words (http://www.step.org/forensic-document-examination-science-today) would have been far more appropriate, especially as it contains other paragraphs that provide greater context to the available testing methods. Information specific to the testing actually performed would have been far more interesting to the reader.
Here again are the images mentioned by Martin. According to Martin, he first image is the 1912 architectural rendering of the Redan, which as Martin says was obviously a result of a survey. The second image is the questioned AWT painting, dated 1899. The third is an overlay Tommy did for another thread. The two images are nearly exact.
Would it be possible for Tillinghast to have done the road hole sketch and the Redan sketch some time after 1912 - based on copying available survey drawings? I assume that knowing Old Tom Morris might give him access to survey drawings of the Old Course at least?
Is it possible that only the dates on the drawing are forgeries?
Concern 2.
The inconsistency of these two statements in the report.
“One of the most frequently requested examinations is to determine the date when a particular signature or piece of writing was made. Sadly, there are no reliable techniques for dating ink on paper despite the efforts of forensic scientists over the last thirty years."
and
“With the permission of the Solicitor and Scott-Taylor Family samples were taken on the ink and coloured sections to determine age and composition of the materials,
Quote from: DMoriarty on Today at 03:24:31 AM
Duncan, Your hypothesis that David Scott-Taylor may have concocted these diaries (and presumably the related material) in the early 1930's is an interesting one, and it is one that others have shared with me offline. But I think the facts point to a more modern hand both in the case of the various drawings and also in the case of the diaries. Among other reasons . . .
David,
I agree that my hypothesis is not a perfect fit and sounds far-fetched in places. However, the notion that Ian Scott-Taylor is a dumb enough idiot / arrogant enough psychopath to fabricate the whole thing and think that he could get away with it is also rather far-fetched.
One or other scenario must be the truth, however.
So, for the conspiracy theorists, the "experts" can't prove that the documents weren't written some time after the fact.
I suggest that there are more than just these two scenarios that could be the truth. For instance, the diaries and drawings might be legitimate.
Other "experts" read the diaries and acclaim them to be genuine because they mention the sinking of the Titanic and the outbreak of WWI !! Amazing. Presumably you can write away to get this expert accreditation ?
Duncan,
The story about the "Scores Hotel letterhead" is the main reason why your hypothesis and Phil's hypothesis both fail. Even if there was a colloquial name for the Grand Hotel, it wouldn't be on the letterhead.
Frankly, I am not sure why you keep trying to explain away the factual problems with their story in favor of your admittedly "far-fetched" hypothesis.
There surely must have been some material from Ian's grandfather though; something that kick-started this whole saga. Are you suggesting that Ian just dreamed up the entire story featuring a random ancestor of whom he knew nothing?
How much longer can this go on?
Concern 2.
The inconsistency of these two statements in the report.
“One of the most frequently requested examinations is to determine the date when a particular signature or piece of writing was made. Sadly, there are no reliable techniques for dating ink on paper despite the efforts of forensic scientists over the last thirty years."
and
“With the permission of the Solicitor and Scott-Taylor Family samples were taken on the ink and coloured sections to determine age and composition of the materials,
The way I read this is that they tested the ink and the paper separately for age and found that each were the appropriate age. What they "sadly" can't test for was when the old ink was written on to the old paper. So, for the conspiracy theorists, the "experts" can't prove that the documents weren't written some time after the fact.QuoteQuote from: DMoriarty on Today at 03:24:31 AM
Duncan, Your hypothesis that David Scott-Taylor may have concocted these diaries (and presumably the related material) in the early 1930's is an interesting one, and it is one that others have shared with me offline. But I think the facts point to a more modern hand both in the case of the various drawings and also in the case of the diaries. Among other reasons . . .
David,
I agree that my hypothesis is not a perfect fit and sounds far-fetched in places. However, the notion that Ian Scott-Taylor is a dumb enough idiot / arrogant enough psychopath to fabricate the whole thing and think that he could get away with it is also rather far-fetched.
One or other scenario must be the truth, however.
Duncan,
I suggest that there are more than just these two scenarios that could be the truth. For instance, the diaries and drawings might be legitimate.
Concern 2.
The inconsistency of these two statements in the report.
“One of the most frequently requested examinations is to determine the date when a particular signature or piece of writing was made. Sadly, there are no reliable techniques for dating ink on paper despite the efforts of forensic scientists over the last thirty years."
and
“With the permission of the Solicitor and Scott-Taylor Family samples were taken on the ink and coloured sections to determine age and composition of the materials,
The way I read this is that they tested the ink and the paper separately for age and found that each were the appropriate age. What they "sadly" can't test for was when the old ink was written on to the old paper. So, for the conspiracy theorists, the "experts" can't prove that the documents weren't written some time after the fact.QuoteQuote from: DMoriarty on Today at 03:24:31 AM
Duncan, Your hypothesis that David Scott-Taylor may have concocted these diaries (and presumably the related material) in the early 1930's is an interesting one, and it is one that others have shared with me offline. But I think the facts point to a more modern hand both in the case of the various drawings and also in the case of the diaries. Among other reasons . . .
David,
I agree that my hypothesis is not a perfect fit and sounds far-fetched in places. However, the notion that Ian Scott-Taylor is a dumb enough idiot / arrogant enough psychopath to fabricate the whole thing and think that he could get away with it is also rather far-fetched.
One or other scenario must be the truth, however.
Duncan,
I suggest that there are more than just these two scenarios that could be the truth. For instance, the diaries and drawings might be legitimate.
What, no presumption of guilt? Get your head on straight. There is no need to wait for all the facts when we have a fine jury ready to declare a verdict.
Ciao
In any case, arguments like "if he is caught lying about the letterhead, then that proves the entire story is false" do not hold up to scientific standards of stringency. There may well be a few authentic pieces to the collection and a bunch of add-ons that aren't. The only sensible way of researching this mess is to look at each item seperately, but we do not even have a list of items.
To publish artificially created excerpts of an inventory, as was done here, is a teaser or, if you will, advertising to create interest in a forthcoming sale. Why people here go out of their way to punch holes into a piece of advertising is beyond me. It's not very valuable work on both sides.
Probably one of those deals that as the years wore on, more and more folks who were there at the tourney amended the story a bit, kind of like the number who actually saw some famous game grows well above stadium capacity over the years.
While David Moriarty might be the most vocal sceptic, and certainly the one who seems to have the most time on his hands, he is most certainly not alone.
This is not a personal vendetta against anyone; most of us had never heard of Phil Young or Ian Scott-Taylor before this story broke. It stems from outrage felt by many at the clear attempt to pass bogus documents into mainstream acceptance and thus distort the general understanding of history.
John, the problem with your condemnation of David Moriarty is that he has quite clearly been proven right. Phil and Ian's entire story lies in tatters.
You talk about 'haters'. Pot, Kettle, Black.
John, why don't you point up the ignorance in David's posts in this thread... and show why he is wrong? Maybe I'm mistaken, but seems like all I've seen from you is name-calling, without addressing the issues at hand.
btw, David is not alone in his position. Seems like almost everyone who is investigating this on this thread keeps coming up with anomalies, that support the questions David raised.
http://www.ianscott-taylor.com/about.htmlCan Neil or Phil, who have seen the authentication report confirm that it was not produced by the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments (whether of Wales or Scotland)?
Ian Scott Taylor
At the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments, Scott-Taylor worked on some of the most environmentally sensitive sites in the UK. He became an expert on historic landscapes and site recognition and remains one of the only golf course architects in the British Isles to work on heritage and ecological issues for the British Government.”
http://www.rcahmw.gov.uk/
http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/
John, why don't you point up the ignorance in David's posts in this thread... and show why he is wrong? Maybe I'm mistaken, but seems like all I've seen from you is name-calling, without addressing the issues at hand.
btw, David is not alone in his position. Seems like almost everyone who is investigating this on this thread keeps coming up with anomalies, that support the questions David raised.
http://www.ianscott-taylor.com/about.html
Ian Scott Taylor
“He studied at West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education, City and Guilds London Institute and the University of Wiltshire, where he received his Ph.D in Engineering Design.
At the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments, Scott-Taylor worked on some of the most environmentally sensitive sites in the UK. He became an expert on historic landscapes and site recognition and remains one of the only golf course architects in the British Isles to work on heritage and ecological issues for the British Government.”
Tony,
Perhaps Ian's site was referring to Wiltshire College. Engineering Design sounds more like a college course than a University engineering degree.
So, is the purpose of this thread really to "authenticate" the sketches and diaries?
Perhaps Ian's site was referring to Wiltshire College. Engineering Design sounds more like a college course than a University engineering degree.His LinkedIn profile also says University of Wiltshire.
Wiltshire College is a tertiary college of education founded in 2002 by the merger of Chippenham Technical College, Lackham College and Trowbridge College.[1] Consolidation was completed with the merger of Salisbury College, which commenced in January 2008.
So, is the purpose of this thread really to "authenticate" the sketches and diaries?
Lou, I think Phil and Ian's purposes behind this thread and the related IMO were twofold:
1. They wanted to (again) try and convince readers that the diaries and sketches are authentic.
2) According to Phil, he also wanted to "add more information in answers to some of the questions that I am sure will come my way" and to provide "specific answers" to our questions about the authenticity of the documents.
.....
It would be great if they, you, or anyone else would try to address this growing list of problems. But with facts, not with righteous indignation.
Lou,
You are lumping an awful lot together, and unfairly so.
.....
As for your thoughts about how this issue doesn't merit the treatment it is receiving, and your aspersions of my motivations and the motivations of others, I disagree, but it is not worth getting into it. I know why some of us think this is worth pursuing, and your approval or agreement on this issue matters very little to me.
Tony,
You did not cross my mind when I commented on the resume. Were you the originator of this line of inquiry? Maybe you can take all the guessing out of it and tell us about the implications. Is it that if Ian is found to have "augmented" his credentials he is likely to have forged the documents? Would the marketing materials for your company survive the scrutiny of a line-by-line review? Would one error- say perhaps an exaggerated attempt at putting your best foot forward- bring into question the integrity of your firm? If the answer is yes, then the vast majority of us would be up the creek. Anyways, sorry if you took offense. None was intended.
Of course it would be best if Ian would set the record straight. It is my nature not to let falsehoods in the record go unchallenged. If it was me I'd do that. There are others, President Bush 2 among them, who won't dignify the nonsense with a response. I think that this approach has some merit, but one has to be comfortable with the reputational risk.
Clearly you and I have formed different opinions as to what the implications are that many, many facts presented have been proven to be incorrect ,including inventing a place of higher education and claiming a Doctorate from it.
Neither you nor anyone else have chosen to make the counter argument that (m)any facts do actually support the authenticity of what we've been shown so far.
As well as implying that you think the points I've made have been insignificant and perhaps even a little naive, you have questioned my motives. Let's just stick to the facts and let people make their own minds up.
BTW Feel free to critique the following and after reporting back allow people to decide it's relevance to my contributions to this discussion group.
www.enterpriseplants.com
Let Phil get his arms around these matters and get back to us. If he learns that he's been had, he'll tell us.
Won't claim I have read every post in this thread, but can't help thinking it might have been better to delay this thread until the party doing the authenticating could be identified and/or published their final report.
For now at least, it seems like this has only undermined the credibility of the documents in question.
Will be interesting how this plays out from here.
I have a question. Has anyone ever met Ian? From the "proof" I have seen here I doubt that he exists. This is beginning to look like an elaborate ruse. I'm just not sure who is the butt of the joke.If this is a ruse then it appears that someone has been working on it for several years as IST has Twitter accounts, etc that go back that far. And he also shows up on some golf club web sites, like Hopkinton and appears to have been mentioned in articles in newspapers and magazines. If this is a ruse then I commend the person who invented IST as they have spent a lot of time and effort doing this.
I think we need to calm down a fraction. Ian exists :) I've never met him in the flesh, but have spoken to him on the phone and communicated with him via various electronic channels. He's very Welsh and likes to go on a bit.....I don't think anyone really thought otherwise. This was John K, in mid-rant, throwing an absurdity out there.
The notion that Phil is working on a Fight Club like fictional book centered around a golf historian with two personalities is no more far fetched than other theories I have read here. The made up call to "Ian's" sister was genius.
The term College can also refer to a School with pupils aged upto 18 or an institute of further education like Wiltshire College (which has been proven existed after he emigrated). Wiltshire College and The Open University are two distinct entities. The Open University is about distance learning and degrees are nearly always awarded to people who have finished their ‘formal’ or full time education.Here is what Wikipedia says about Wiltshire College: Wiltshire College is a tertiary college of education founded in 2002 by the merger of Chippenham Technical College, Lackham College and Trowbridge College.Consolidation was completed with the merger of Salisbury College, which commenced in January 2008.
I think we need to calm down a fraction. Ian exists :) I've never met him in the flesh, but have spoken to him on the phone and communicated with him via various electronic channels. He's very Welsh and likes to go on a bit.....Manti Te'o said something very similar...
In 1976, the three institutions came together to form the West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education, which eventually became Swansea Institute of Higher Education. In 2008, the Privy Council gave permission for the institution to be renamed Swansea Metropolitan University and, several years later, the institution merged with the Lampeter and Carmarthen campuses to create the new UWTSD.
Here's his artists web page which explains the PhD... And has a picture.
http://ian-scotttaylor.artistwebsites.com
The Story of Lt. David Scott-Taylor and the Queen
According to Ian and Phil, 1901 was a big year for Ian’s grandfather, and not just because of the May 11thScoresGrand Hotel dinner withthreetwo golf luminaries. Five months earlier, Dr. David Scott-Taylor had been a young officer, a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy, and was serving as ship’s surgeon on naval vessel assigned to protect 81 year old Queen Victoria, who was “vacationing” on the Isle of Wight. But all was not well with the Queen.
By early January she was feeling weak and unwell and growing increasingly drowsy, dazed and confused with each passing day. . . . For those serving her at Osborne House, the Queen’s illness was more than a national crisis. Near the end they realized that a doctor was needed and quickly. At the time her personal physicians were back in London which created a dilemma, for only a physician with a high standing could examine the Queen and there were none on the island.
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.
This, according to Phil and Ian, was a major turning point in Ian’s grandfather’s life and a key event in their story, for his brush with real Royalty had led to his introduction to high society and golf royalty, thus setting the stage for all that followed.
It was because of his support of the actions of the court officials and the Queen’s personal physicians that this formerly unknown naval surgeon gained the regards of many at the highest levels of the government and his reputation as both an officer and a gentleman rose dramatically over-night. Among the privileges to come the way of this young man who passionately loved golf was acceptance into the R&A as an unofficial member where he was welcomed at the club and its luncheons, dinners and events.
I know what you are thinking . . . acceptance into the R&A as an unofficial member? A remarkable claim in and of itself. But the even more remarkable claim is that Lieutenant David Scott-Taylor had been rushed to the care of the dying Queen, because her “personal physicians were back in London.” Like most of the Ian’s stories about his grandfather, this one just doesn’t check out. I say this after conducting quite a bit of research into the vast amounts of detailed information (from newspaper accounts, memoirs, diaries, histories, etc.) describing the last days of the Queen. I’ve found no mention anywhere of a young naval officer having been rushed to the aid of the Queen. More than that, the detailed descriptions of Queen Victoria’s life and death make the story impossible for me to believe.
But don’t take my word for it. Check it out for yourselves. Good starting points are two relatively recent books which painstakingly detail the last days of the Queen. One is titled, The Last Days of Glory: The Death of Queen Victoria (2001) by Tony Rennell, the other is Ask Sir James (1989) by Michaela Reid. Both books provide an extraordinarily detailed look at the Queen’s medical care at Osborne House and before, read them and you will realize that Ian’s story cannot possibly be accurate. The sources are the books range from newspaper accounts, to contemporaneous letters, to memoirs written by those who were there, to official court bulletins, to post mortem medical reports, but the most significant sources for our purposes are the detailed diaries of Sir James Reid himself. Reid was not only the Queen’s primary physician, he was a close advisor, and he was with her constantly near the end.
The books and related material leave no doubt; there was never a time at Osborne when the Queen was without access to her own doctors. Like Windsor Castle, Osborne House had its own medical staff. And the Queen and Royal Family also had an extensive “Medical Household” consisting of Physicians-In-Ordinary, Physicians Extraordinary, Surgeons-In-Ordinary, Surgeons Extraordinary, and two levels of Apothecaries (who were general practitioners) at their beck and call. (The structure, distinctions, and responsibilities are more fully explained in the books referenced above.) There were multiple of each in both England and Scotland “so in an emergency there would be at least one available” and the Queen would never be without medical care.
The person most directly involved in taking care of the Queen was Sir James Reid, Queen Victoria’s senior Physician-In-Ordinary, Head of the Royal Medical Household, and her Resident Medical Attendant. He had no other medical practice. Wherever Queen Victoria went, so went Sir James Reid. He traveled with her everywhere, and he had quarters in each of her Royal residences, including Osborne House, and tended to her multiple times a day no matter where they were. Incredibly, when Reid was on duty he was not even allowed to sleep anywhere but the current Royal residence of the Queen. He was a prominent doctor and had been knighted, but he nonetheless had a curfew. He even had to seek permission to dine away from the current Royal residence. And when he was on vacation, one of the other Physicians-In-Ordinary was there in his stead, although Reid was often consulted and called back if the Queen so desired.
To give an idea of what the Queen expected of him, here is a directive she had written to him in 1898 (after he had already served her for close to two decades) about his continuing responsibilities after his pending marriage to one of the Queen’s Ladies in Waiting.
I think it's absolutely necessary that Sir J. Reid and Miss Baring should know exactly what their position will be when they are married. Sir James knows that considering my age, I cannot well allow him to leave his present post. This will entail that he must continue living in the House wherever we are, excepting [preapproved vacations.] He must always, as now, come round after breakfast to see what I should want, and then back before lunch. He must also in the afternoon, before he goes out, do the same. Of course as a date shorten and in the winter, he would go out earlier and come back earlier. Sir James should always ask if he wishes to go out for longer, or to dine out, returning by 11 or 11:30. His wife should not come to his room here, nor to the Corredor, we're some of the Royal children live. At Windsor she might occasionally come to his room but this must not interfere with his other duties. It is absolutely necessary that they should be fully aware of these conditions so that they cannot complain afterwards.
And this was when she was relatively healthy. Over the next few years, her health would decline, an her need for care would grow. Given Queen Victoria’s age, her many health issues, and her hypochondriac-like tendencies, the Queen was almost always in need of medical advice and care. She had been battling various medical ailments even before the annual move to Osborne House, so she was most certainly never without medical care during her time there. By the time they arrived at Osborne House in the winter on December 18, 1900, she was in need of near constant care. "From [her arrival at Osborne] onwards, until her death, the Queen did did not go down into the dining room for her me meals but had her food taken to her room and was to all intents and purposes an invalid." This was 81 year old Queen Victoria, and her health was slipping even before she arrived at Osborne. The idea that she would be on an island without immediate access to medical care is preposterous.
While the Queen's staff provided to her other needs, Sir James Reid and her other doctors provided her with medical care. In addition to Reid and the medical staff at Osborne House, another of her physicians-in-ordinary, Sir Francis Laking arrived on January 5th so that Reid could get some rest for a week. But this did not mean Reid headed back to London. It only meant that Reid would, theoretically, be able to spend a bit more time with his wife in a cottage she had rented near Osborne while he was serving there. The reality was that Reid never really got a rest, as the Queen insisted on seeing him, and Dr. Laking wasted too much of his time. According to his Reid’s wife he only managed to eat two meals at the cottage during this entire week, and the rest of the time was spent at Osborne House. (The Queen was quite particular about who cared for her right up to the end, and the idea that she would allow an unknown Naval surgeon to care for her makes no sense.)
As the Queen's condition worsened [in addition to Sir James Reid, Sir Francis Laking, and Dr. Hoffmeister (Queen Victoria’s Surgeon Apothecary at Osborne House0] other of her doctors traveled to Osborne House aid her, including Sir William Jenner, who had been her primary physician-in-ordinary prior to Reid. But Sir James Reid was the physician most directly involved, and he is the one who provided the best record of the Queen’s medical care, and the most convincing evidence that Ian’s story is inaccurate. From Ask Sir James:
“During the period of Queen Victoria’s final illness and death Reid wrote a minutely detailed account of all that occurred. And he was with the Queen constantly, hour by hour, day and night, tending to her every need, he, more than anyone else, was in a position to record accurately the events which took place.”
The diary transcripts from the last week of the Queen's life are included in the book, as are many other entries and references, and there is no reference to a young naval surgeon having been called in, and really no purpose for such a call to have been made. (Unlike the supposed David Scott-Taylor Diary entries, the information in Sir James Reid's diaries can be confirmed by numerous independent sources.)
I could go on, but you get the picture. Queen Victoria was constantly surrounded by her own medical staff up to the moment of her death, and after. Her doctors were there. There was no need or call for a young Naval surgeon to care for her.
Once again, Ian’s story does not check out.
Here's his artists web page which explains the PhD... And has a picture.
http://ian-scotttaylor.artistwebsites.com
"It is quite possible that Queen Victoria was actually a man pretending to be a woman."
Quite possible? That would probably come of surprise to her nine children. And to her primary physician, who upon examining her after her death noted that she had a prolapsed uterus.
It is quite possible that Queen Victoria was actually a man pretending to be a woman. In cases such as this it is not uncommon to call in a private surgeon.
Here's his artists web page which explains the PhD... And has a picture.
http://ian-scotttaylor.artistwebsites.com
I could be wrong, but I'm 99+% sure that Dr. Scott-Taylor's painting called "Turnberry at War--1943" is of the 8th green on the Kintyre Course, which was not existent in 1943.
Here's his artists web page which explains the PhD... And has a picture.
http://ian-scotttaylor.artistwebsites.com
I could be wrong, but I'm 99+% sure that Dr. Scott-Taylor's painting called "Turnberry at War--1943" is of the 8th green on the Kintyre Course, which was not existent in 1943.
Looks like that green to me too. Did it not exist on the old Arran course before and after WW II? In any event Ian wasn't born until 16 years after 1943, so he clearly took artistic license in painting a scene from before he was born. I presume the ships in the background are meant to be warships.
Thank you David Moriarty for filling in/destroying more of the details once again.
While I realize that some on here find parts of this to be tangential, I personally consider it to be highly relevant, simply because.....
From my perspective as something of writer/researcher, I believe that if someone is going to come along with a story which significantly changes otherwise well-recorded history, their new version needs to add up pretty much completely. There are, of course, quirky historical outliers - cases where an event is reported one way via multiple sources, then somewhat differently elsewhere, and you are left with at least a seed of doubt. And in that spirit, I would caution against discounting any new narrative simply because not every single detail fits perfectly. But.....
In this case, I personally viewed what parts of the Scott-Taylor materials I was familiar with to be fraudulent even before any of them appeared on GCA. Then, once a few parts were posted here, numerous points of the narrative, big and small, were quickly called into question. If, in response to that, either Ian or Phil Young could have meaningfully defended the great majority of the questioned points, the story might have had a chance of holding up. But from what I can see, they've defended relatively little - and what they have presented is from secret materials that cannot be viewed, the content of which seems to have changed as needed, and which were "authenticated" by people who won't let their names out because they don't want to be questioned by amateurs on a golf architecture website (as someone with family fairly high up in the art business, that last part actually made me laugh out loud).
So for me, the bottom line is that beyond the possible odd outlying fact/inconsistency, Ian and Phil's story had to add up more or less completely to be credible - and based on the work of David Moriarty and several others here, it seems apparent that they are many, many miles away from getting over that bar. Indeed, it strikes me that for those so inclined, perhaps a better use of research time going forward might be to see if there's any significant aspect of this story that actually does check out as clearly and demonstrably true.
As I say, outliers... ;)
Adam,
Thanks for the link to the Glasgow Medical Journal. I missed it first time around.
The DST I have the service record for was discharged 19 March 1916 in Portsmouth with a commission in the RAMC. I wonder how he could have passed the final exam on 21 January 1916 in Glasgow while still in the service at Portsmouth? Could it be that these are two different David Scott Taylors?
I'd be happier if we could find a clear link between this DST and Ian.
Adam,
Thanks for the link to the Glasgow Medical Journal. I missed it first time around.
The DST I have the service record for was discharged 19 March 1916 in Portsmouth with a commission in the RAMC. I wonder how he could have passed the final exam on 21 January 1916 in Glasgow while still in the service at Portsmouth? Could it be that these are two different David Scott Taylors?
Bryan, I think the exam was in Edinburgh, not Glasgow. And I don't think it was a "final exam" in the sense of an exam given at the end of medical school. From what I can gather the "Triple Qualification" or "Triple Conjoint" was a licensing examination (or series of examinations.) I don't think one necessarily had to be a traditional student at medical school to take the examination. I don't know if it is true, but I've read somewhere (wikipedia?) that the test was sometimes considered a "backdoor" route to practicing medicine, presumably because one could become licensed without formally completing medical school at one of the traditional Scottish institutions.
In short, I don't think we should assume that David Scott-Taylor was studying medicine in Edinburgh (or Glasgow) in 1915 just because he passed the Triple Qualification in January 1916.
Also, Bryan, thanks very much for posting all that information from David Scott-Taylor's service record. As you indicate, it is definitely the same David Scott-Taylor on the Medal Records and on the 1911 the census records. It also seems to be the same guy who was passed his first exam at University of Edinburgh in 1894, wouldn't you agree?
It's possible, maybe even probable, but there is no definitive link to the guy who passed his first triple qualification exam in 1894. By the way, it was not the "University". I believe the conjoint Royal Colleges conducted the exams.
That said, I am somewhat confused as to why you still think this might not be Ian's grandfather. You wrote, "There are other David S Taylors out there as well as many David Taylors. And names may be misspelled and dates and ages may be wrong. It's still open in my mind." While it is true that there are other David S. Taylors and David Taylors, we aren't looking for just any David Taylor. We are looking for a David Scott-Taylor who matches the general description of Ian's grandfather. Here are some details about the David Scott-Taylor we seek:
1. Name: He went by David "Scott-Taylor" with the Scott-Taylor hyphenated, which much rarer than "Taylor."
2. Age: He was born sometime in the mid 1870's.
3. Residence as a child: Ian and Phil have refused to tell us where he lived once he came from India, but the diary entries indicate that his family lived somewhere around Dundee. (His train journey to from "home" are to/from Dundee.)
4. Medical Education: Phil and Ian have said he studied Medicine at the University of Edinburgh in the mid-1890's. Phil has even argued that the person listed as "David Scott Taylor, Alyth" in the 1894 Edinburgh Medical Journal was most definitely Ian's grandfather, although I imagine he'd like to take that back about now.
5. Service in Royal Navy: Phil and Ian have said that his grandfather enlisted in the "Royal Navy" after medical school.
6. Service in Royal Army Medical Core. Phil and Ian have said that Ian's grandfather was discharged from the Royal Navy during WWI and became a commissioned officer the Royal Army Medical Core.
7. Residence at his time of death. At the time of Ian's Grandfather death in 1933 he was living and working in the Chester area.
While Phil and Ian vehemently deny that the David Scott-Taylor we have found is Ian's grandfather, he seems to be a very good match.
1. Name: The David Scott-Taylor we have found hyphenates his last name, just like Ian's grandfather.
His name was not hyphenated in either the 1894 or 1916 medical exams. Nor was it hyphenated on his service record.
2. Age: The David Scott-Taylor we have found was born in or around 1877.
3. Residence as a child: The David Scott-Taylor we have found listed himself as from Alyth, which 17 miles from Dundee, and listed his next of kin as from Dundee.
4. Medical Education: The David Scott-Taylor we have found listed himself as a "medical student" when he enlisted, and "David Scott-Taylor, Alyth" passed his first exam toward "Triple Qualification" at Universlty of Edinburgh in 1894.
As per above, not the "University".
5. Service in Royal Navy: The David Scott-Taylor we have found enlisted in a branch of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marine Light Infantry, in 1898.
6. Service in Royal Army Medical Core. The David Scott-Taylor we have found was discharged from the Royal Navy and given a temporary commission in the Royal Army Medical Core in 1916.
7. Residence at his time of death. The family of the David Scott-Taylor we have found seems to have relocated to the Chester area sometime before 1933. His first wife died in Nantwich (20 miles from Chester) in 1931. His son lived in Chester and had a granddaughter in Chester. His daughter lived (and died) in the Chester area.
This seems to be a very strong match to me. Do you really think there was a different David Scott-Taylor who also matches the description? That would be remarkable, wouldn't it?
Sure, there are points that match, but there is no definitive link going backwards from Ian to his grandfather and first wife or to his medical school and birth even. If Ian and Phil categorically deny this guy as the grandfather, then I'd think you'd want to find definitive proof before accusing them of lying. They have more information about the family than the rest of us do. I assume that you were trying to get the information from Phil about DST's first wife and children to confirm the link. (And, I know that they haven't provided that, so you don't have to reiterate it).QuoteI'd be happier if we could find a clear link between this DST and Ian.
I would too, and I think we will eventually. But in the interim probabilities have to play a role here, don't they? Why do we need to rely on "probabilities" in the interim? What's the rush to judgement. Either we'll find proof one way or another or Ian and Phil will provide verifiable information. What good does it do to be probably right in the interim.
Doesn't it seem highly improbable that there would just happen to be another "David Scott-Taylor" who so closely matches so much of the description. Doesn't it seem even more improbable that, if there was another, that none of us can thus far find any evidence of his existence?
Why can't we find DST's birth record? Or, where he was in the 1901 census or the 1891 or 1881 census? Why didn't DST pass any more triple qualification exams between 1895 and 1898? Why would he enlist in the Infantry? How would he have passed the triple qualification exam in 1916 after 18 years in the infantry (and on ships) and before he was discharged? There's lots of unanswered questions.
Of course, if Ian and Phil would answer even the most basic questions about Ian's grandfather, such as the names of his first wife and family members, the search would be a lot easier. We'd know for certain whether or not their story check out. But so far all they have been willing to say is that the David Scott-Taylor we have found is most definitely not Ian's grandfather. Not much help really, unless of course they are wrong.
Perhaps a less adversarial approach on all sides would have led to a more informative conclusion at this juncture. But, it didn't, so here we are.
If it turns out the David Scott-Taylor we have found is Ian's grandfather, then I trust that even you will agree that their story is fiction.
I'd agree that it would mean that the Queen Victoria story was fiction. It would certainly cast doubt on his ability to be in St Andrews in May, 1901. Does it mean that the whole diary is fake? Or, that the drawings are fake? I don't know. You, and others, have raised some interesting questions that haven't been put to rest. So, we're at a state of impasse. This is not a debate that should be won on probabilities either way.
I keep being reminded of the JFK assassination - even with a Warren Commission and myriad investigations since there is still no widely held understanding of the truth of what happened. And, that event had a lot more evidence and scrutiny that David Scott-Taylor ever had. The truth in this case may always be ephemeral.
For your edification you could read the British Medical Journal of 1892 that lays out in excruciating detail the requirements and processes for achieving the "triple qualification".
I'd agree that it would mean that the Queen Victoria story was fiction. It would certainly cast doubt on his ability to be in St Andrews in May, 1901. Does it mean that the whole diary is fake? Or, that the drawings are fake? I don't know.
I hope Phil and Ian never run out of rope.Why?
I hope Phil and Ian never run out of rope.Why?
I hope Phil and Ian never run out of rope.Why?
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
I hope Phil and Ian never run out of rope.Why?
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Greetings, Professor Falken
Kavanaugh likes to pretend that my questions have been unconscionable.
To the contrary, others and I have asked only a few simple questions. If their story were true, then the questions that drove them away should have the ultimate softballs:
They were asked to identify some basic details from Ian's grandfather's life, including the identity of his first wife and children.
If their story were true, then such information would have give us a few more data points with which to verify Ian's story, and thus shoot down my hypothesis.
But if their story is false, it becomes a much more difficult question for them to answer.
My point? It is far from just me, Kavanaugh. My guess is this will continue until there is no doubt in anyone's mind whether or not the material is authentic. Bryan seems to think there is a still a chance it is all real, so there is that.
As for the two of us, Kavanaugh, I have a proposal. You are a betting man, so how about a wager? If Phil and Ian's story and the related paintings and drawings turn out to be authentic, I'll delete my membership here and never post on this discussion board again. But if it turns out that any portion of the material is not authentic and/or any material part of their story is false, then you will delete your membership and never post on this discussion group again. So how about it? Is it a bet? Some here would consider either outcome a win.
Phil thinks they are real. Or at least he claims he does.
Had I thought Phil was a "bad person" I never would have tried to bail him out of this mess in private. Rather than listen to me and others, he chose to go all in with Ian's new story, and came back with second and now a third IMO. That still doesn't make him a "bad person" but it does mean that this will play out in public no matter how painful it may be for you and others watch.
Besides, Phil is obviously not the one driving their story.
First, the only bully here is you. You have no interest in any of this but are only here to harass and malign me. Second, Phil and Ian aren't finished. When they are, and when we know as all we can know about the authenticity of this material, I'll be finished too.
I am going to go back to ignoring you now.
You should know.
..............................
7. This is the one where you really lose me. I asked you whether or not you agree that, if we have found Ian's grandfather, then their story is fiction. Your answer makes no sense to me:
Quote
I'd agree that it would mean that the Queen Victoria story was fiction. It would certainly cast doubt on his ability to be in St Andrews in May, 1901. Does it mean that the whole diary is fake? Or, that the drawings are fake? I don't know.
Honestly Bryan, the above baffles me. Ian and Phil have the diaries, and these diaries are supposed to be a daily accounting of Ian's grandfather's life. They have told us unequivocally that the David Scott-Taylor we have found is NOT Ian's grandfather. That Ada Clara was not his first wife. That Ronald was not his first son. That he was an medical officer in the Royal Navy, not a Sergeant in the RMLI.
If Ian's grandfather's diaries cannot even get his wife right, or his children, or his occupation, then their story (and the diaries) are fiction. Surely you can admit at least that.
Bryan seems to think there is a still a chance it is all real, so there is that.
My prediction: nothing significant will come of this, just like nothing came of the Merion debates, which were conducted in the same "spirit".
Anyone any idea why Ian Scott-Taylor might have taken down his Facebook page in the last few days? I quite enjoyed having him as a 'friend', despite his embarrassing habit of sharing neo-nazi Britain First propaganda.
When Ran shared with me the email he received this morning I was beyond stunned. When Ian admitted to me that he had indeed faked the initial report I became both angry and sick over the fraud he perpetrated.
He still insists that the drawings and diaries are real. I want all to know that I told him, “Unfortunately what you did prevents anyone from even considering that possibility.”