News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #375 on: October 26, 2014, 10:16:48 AM »
Bryan I agree that more factual information would help further clarify whether or not the material is authentic.  But at some point, enough is enough.  Maybe we aren't at that point yet, but we aren't too far off.

Also, it is not entirely accurate for you to say that they have been "mute" on questions about the details of Ian's life, such as the identity of his family members.  They have told us in no uncertain terms the DST on that Census form is NOT Ian's grandfather.
____________________________________________________

Ken Moun,

As Scott and David Elvins said, there is quite a lot at stake here financially with the dozens of sketches and drawings Ian Scott-Taylor claims to have.  As for the diaries, their purpose seems to have been to authenticate the artwork, to give it context, and also to build a backstory where Ian Scott-Taylor's family played a role in the history of gca, among other things.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #376 on: October 26, 2014, 11:19:02 AM »
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.

Duncan,

In all fairness, it appears Ian still has his fb, he may have just 'unfriended' you. Shocking! :)

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #377 on: October 26, 2014, 01:28:51 PM »
Kelly,

I didn't mean to imply we should accept the "official" version of the story, in fact when held at gunpoint I wouldn't. But what some people seem to miss is that no one here is held at gunpoint. So, as in the drawn-out Merion debate, this appears to not be about research or concrete historical issues anymore, but about picking sides. I refuse to play that game.

When I say nothing will come of this, it means that IMHO no significant historical facts will be unearthed and no sketches or diaries being sold or otherwise added to our common heritage. Our knowledge after this debate will only be marginally greater than before it. See the Merion debate.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #378 on: October 26, 2014, 02:11:34 PM »
Ulrich,  I beg to differ.  While many have tried to derail the conversation with various tangential issues, for others of us this has always been about exploring concrete historical issues, and many relevant historical facts have been unearthed and will continue to be unearthed.

Speaking of attempts to derail the conversation, I've noticed that you keep trying to inject Merion and the moon landing into the discussion. With regard to the former, if you'd like to discuss Merion perhaps you should start a thread. Regarding the latter, there is overwhelming factual support establishing that the moon landing was real. Contrast this with Ian's story, where there are virtually no verifiable facts supporting his claims.  Remember that Ian and Phil are the ones trying to rewrite history here, not those of us who are asking for proof.  
« Last Edit: October 26, 2014, 02:18:17 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #379 on: October 26, 2014, 08:03:58 PM »
Still doing some fact checking, and here's two more.

The British Medical Journal published weekly during the war and amongst other things published lists if doctors being promoted or moved around the Royal Navy and the RAMC.  Mostly they just listed the last name with one or two initials.

So, on April 21, 1917 it was reported that a "D. S. Taylor" was promoted from temporary lieutenant to temporary Captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps.

Then, on May 24, 1919 a "D. S. Taylor" was promoted from temporary Captain to acting Major in the Royal Army Medical Corps.

I'll keep looking, there will probably be a further promotion to Lieutenant-Colonel.  It's the next step.

There were no other D.S. Taylor's in this time period.

The dates in the journal were as above with month first. 

 

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #380 on: October 26, 2014, 08:16:06 PM »
David,

which relevant historical facts have so far been unearthed by this debate?

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #381 on: October 27, 2014, 01:23:54 AM »
Bryan,

Thanks for the information.

A David Scott Taylor passed his Triple Qualification in January 1916. David Scott Taylor (R9526) was discharged in the Royal Marines in March of 1916, and had a Temporary Commission for the RAMC on discharge. His WWI medal roll card indicates he started in the RAMC Lieutenant and was promoted to Captain. This information seems consistent with the D.S. Taylor you have found listed in the Medical Journal does it not?

The only potential inconsistency seems to be that "D.S. Taylor" was promoted from Temporary Captain to Acting Major in May 1919, about six months after the treaty of Versailles.
________________________________________________________________________________

Ulrich,  Historical facts relevant to the issue at hand - the authenticity of the Scott-Taylor Materials - have been presented throughout this discussion, starting with the facts I provided Phil months ago regarding Tillinghast's actual whereabouts in May 1901 and continuing right up through the Bryan's post immediately above.  Rather than me listing them all out, perhaps you should peruse the threads.

You and others may not find David Scott-Taylor's war record interesting, and you might find a discussion of Queen Victoria's medical treatment during her dying days to be downright dreary, and you might not care a bit about the dates of Tillinghast's cricket matches, but that information and and most of the rest of the mundane stuff we have discussed has bearing on whether or not this material is authentic.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 01:26:06 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #382 on: October 27, 2014, 01:44:05 PM »
David,

I wasn't asking about a complete list of tidbits, but just one or two relevant historical facts. Obviously, what you deem to be relevant to the history of golf course architecture may be different from what I think. But I am interested in your opinion as to how the history of golf architecture has been advanced by this debate.

I have been reading all the threads and found nothing that furthered my understanding of the field. Obviously, you have uncovered a lot of evidence that casts a shadow on the authenticity of the presented material and that is the point of this thread and generally a good thing. But I wasn't making any claims in that direction, but just pointed out that the divisive and bitter style of this debate makes it look like some important issues are at stake. But within the context of the history of golf architecture the amount of knowledge gained is almost zero.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #383 on: October 27, 2014, 02:43:32 PM »
Ulrich,  If this debate in any way helps determine the authenticity (or the inauthenticity) of the Scott-Taylor Material, then "the history of golf architecture has been advanced" either way.

If this Scott-Taylor Material is real, then it is an extremely important find in the annals of golf course architecture in America and abroad, and it would necessarily alter our understanding of a few of the greatest practitioners.  A few examples:

1.  I don't agree with him, but review Phil's claims in his first two IMO's on this issue about template holes and even about Merion (your favorite topic) to get an idea of what he thinks the Materials mean to the history of gca.

2. I don't agree with all of what Ran wrote either, but here are Ran's views on the importance of this Material, expressed before the many problems were brought to light: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59090.msg1388697.html#msg1388697

3.  While other drawings and paintings relating to specific clubs have not yet been made public, if the Material is real then our understanding of the history of some of our leading clubs (including ANGC, Riviera, and perhaps even Pine Valley(?)) will also be altered.  Who knows, courses might even be changed.

If the discussion here and/or elsewhere produces convincing evidence that the material is fake, then, among other things:

1.  The history of gca would go back to being what it was before this "staggering" discovery. (Although we might have found out something about the gullibility of some of the leading names in the study of golf course architecture and the appalling quality their methodology, and that could potentially have ripple effects upon some of the rest of the accepted theories and literature.  But it is a bit premature to begin burning those bridges.)

2.  We would have a more accurate understanding of the history of gca than if this Material were accepted.  

3.  Hopefully, some unwitting collector or club would avoid making a very expensive and embarrassing mistake.

4.  We would hopefully be rid of the person (or persons) behind the ruse.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 02:48:52 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #384 on: October 27, 2014, 03:43:08 PM »
Bryan, thanks again for bringing the weekly listings in the British Medical Journal to our attention.   I've done my own search and have come up with the same listings as you, with one addition, an entry in the  July 7, 1923 Supplement:

"Temporary Captain D. S. Taylor relinquishes the acting rank of Major."

So as of July 1923 he was back to Temporary Captain.

A couple of observations and questions:
      1.   You mentioned "The British Medical Journal published weekly during the war and amongst other things published lists if doctors being promoted or moved around the Royal Navy and the RAMC."   It looks to me like the Journal published this information going well back into the 1800's.   If Ian's grandfather was a medical officer in the Royal Navy from the late 1800s to WWI, then his promotions and assignments would have been recorded in the Journal.  I have found no such entries.  

Have you found any entries indicating that anyone who could have been Ian's grandfather had served as a medical officer in the Royal Navy in the early 1900's, or at any point in time?  

      2.  Above I wondered about why DST's promotion to "active Major" in the RAMC did not show up on David Scott Taylor's Military Medal Rolls index card.   I looked at a few other Doctors who were appointed to "acting Major" at around the same time, and these temporary promotions did not show up on their Medal Rolls index card either, so I am thinking that "acting" ranks may not have been listed on the cards, and this makes some sense given that they appear to have relinquished these ranks after a period of time.  

Do you agree that it looks like the "D. S. Taylor" that shows up in the British Journal is David Scott Taylor (R9526) from the medal rolls card, the military service information, and the 1911 census?  

Do you agree that it looks like this was the only "D. S. Taylor" who served as a Medical Officer in either the Royal Navy or the Royal Army Medical Core at any point from around 1895 through 1923?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #385 on: October 27, 2014, 04:10:51 PM »
One more entry.  February 23, 1924: "Temporary Captain D. S. Taylor relinquishes his commission and is granted the rank of Major."

No more entries after that.  Not sure what the entry means, but I wonder if this wasn't the date he retired from the military and was granted the rank of Major for pension purposes.  Any ideas?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #386 on: October 28, 2014, 03:34:34 AM »
David,

Thanks for the hit from 1923 and 1924.  I hadn't got that far forward.

The whole "temporary" and "acting" thing seems complicated and not well understood from what I've read.  Both probably had to do with many men being brought into the services for the great war.  Many of the "temporaries" were probably intended for the duration of the war.  DST seems to have been one of some who stayed on after - perhaps not surprising since he was in the service already.  Hard to understand how and why in 1916 he managed to get licensed as a doctor and changed over to the RAMC and out of the light infantry.

It'd be nice to see the 1921 Census - only 7 more years to go.

My impression of the Royal Navy appointments is that they addressed only higher ranks - but that's just an impression.  No, I've seen nothing re the Royal Navy.  Aren't the Marines part of the Royal Navy?  DST R9526 enlisted in the Marines Light Infantry but served on a number of ships over his 18 years.

The "acting" roles were apparently supposed to be short term things so probably weren't recorded on the Medal Card. 

It seems sure that the DST is the same in the 1911 Census and the Marines military records.  It seems likely that it is the same DST in the RAMC promotion records.  However, keep in mind that a good portion of the WW1 records were lost in the bombings of WWII.  So the lack of another DST may just be that the records are lost.  So, I can't definitively agree to your questions.

However, to add grist to the mill, I have some historical records from the General Medical Council, which publishes a list called the Medical Register of licensed doctors in the UK.  There are only records for every 4th year - so, 1919, 1923, 1927 and 1931 during DST's lifetime.  There is one, and only one, David Scott Taylor in the list for 1919, 1927 and 1931, and there are more than a thousand pages of doctors.  He is missing from the 1923 list.  The British Medical Journal published, in 1921, a lengthy list of doctors who hadn't responded to a request to verify or update their address information.  They threatened to remove said doctors from the Register if they didn't respond.  I guess DST was remiss in not doing it by 1923 and hence was removed from the list.  He had been reinstated by 1927.

The Register lists the three licenses found in the other documents and has him licensed in 1916.  That matches.  But, it says he was licensed in England, not Scotland.  Don't know what that means.

There is address information in the Register. 

In 1911 he was in Alverstoke, near Plymouth.

In 1916 on discharge from the RMLI, his address from his service record was Gosport which is also near Portsmouth on the south coast.

In 1919, while still apparently in the RAMC, if it is the same DST, his address was in Fleet, Hants.  Fleet is just west of London.  Did the RAMC have a hospital or something in Fleet?

In 1927 and continuing in 1931 this DST's address was in Colchester, which is on the coast, east of London.  Yet, he got married in Conwy (on the west coast in Wales) in 1932 and died in Chester (also near Wales) in 1933. 

If it's the same guy, he sure got around.

 


Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #387 on: October 28, 2014, 04:03:28 AM »
Bryan some local knowledge.

Gosport is a few hundred yards across the estuary from the Naval Dockyards of Portsmouth and always had strong links with it.

"The Royal Navy still maintains a presence in Gosport at HMS Sultan which is the home of the Defence School of Marine Engineering (DSMarE) and the Royal Naval Air Engineering and Survival School (RNAESS). The Sultan site occupies 179 acres (0.72 km2) of land within a 3.5-mile (5.6 km) perimeter and is the largest of the Royal Navy's training establishments, with around 3,000 Service and civilian personnel when working at full capacity."


Colchester is not really coastal, but is certainly a 'Garrison town'.   Perhaps the following Wiki entry suggests a new line of enquiry. ;)

"Colchester has been an important military garrison since the Roman era. The Colchester Garrison is currently home to the 16th Air Assault Brigade. The Army's only military corrective training centre, known colloquially within the forces and locally as "The Glasshouse" after the original military prison in Aldershot,[44] is in Berechurch Hall Road, on the outskirts of Colchester.[45] The centre holds servicemen and women from all three services who are sentenced to serve periods of detention."
Let's make GCA grate again!

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #388 on: October 28, 2014, 05:47:39 AM »
I'm thinking maybe Ulrich bought one of the sketches...

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #389 on: October 28, 2014, 04:23:04 PM »
A number of points to briefly address.

1.  You mentioned that your impression was that the weekly BMJ Royal Naval listings only listed "higher ranks."  This was not the case. This was not the case.  Look at the old entries.  There are listings for Appointments of Staff Surgeons, new appointees to to the Naval Medical Service, and changes of assignment for basic Surgeons and Staff surgeons.

Ian and Phil claim that Ian's grandfather had been a Naval surgeon (and an officer) from sometime before 1901 until WWI.  If this were true, then Ian's grandfather would show up somewhere in these weekly listings.  Yet he does not not show up in any of them.  

Likewise, as Adam Lawrence explained in another thread, Naval appointments and promotions of commissioned Naval Officers were listed in the London Gazette.  No mention of Ian's grandfather having been a Naval officer there either.

Ian and Phil claim that Ian's grandfather was a commissioned Lieutenant in 1901.   As Adam explained, Navy surgeons and medical officers could not obtain the rank of lieutenant until 1916.

In short, if their story were one would expect to find a record of it in these databases.  But there is no record supporting their story.

2. You asked, "Aren't the Marines part of the Royal Navy?"  Yes, but the medical officers on the Navy ships were Royal Navy, not RMLI. And before 1916, DST R9526 was not a surgeon.

3. Regarding the Medical Register, have you looked for a listing for Ian's grandfather prior to 1916?  According to Ian, he was already a doctor sometime before 1901, so he ought to show up on the Registers from 1903, 1907, 1911, 1915, 1919, etc.   No one remotely matching his description shows up in any of them.  (The DST that they claim is NOT Ian's grandfather does show up, though.)  

4.  You mention that "a good portion of the WW1 records were lost in the bombings of WWII."  A good portion of the service records were lost, but the Medal Rolls Index cards were not lost.  And if Ian's grandfather is who they claim, he would be in the Medal Rolls.

As importantly, Ian's grandfather does not show up in other databases where he should show up, like the British Medical Journal and the London Gazette.  Nor does he show up in the Medical registry. Nor does he show up anywhere else.  There is only a record of one David Scott-Taylor, and Ian and Phil claim it is definitely NOT Ian's grandfather.  

It seems impossible to me that Ian's grandfather could have practiced medicine as a Naval Officer for over a dozen years, then as an officer in the RAMC during WWI, then in private practice, yet there doesn't seem to be a record of it anywhere.  

How do you account for the fact that Ian's grandfather isn't in any of these databases?  

5. DST 1919 address in the Registry is Fleet, Hants.  DST's address on the Medal Rolls Card is Basingbourne Road, Fleet, Hants.

6. Regarding the other addresses, you say the addresses you listed are from "the Register" but I think you might have misspoken.  Isn't the Alverstoke address from the military service information?  And isn't the Gosport address from the Census?  

7. Also, I think we need to take the timing of the addresses on the Registry with a grain of salt, especially since they apparently had trouble getting updated information.  It may be that the Colchester addresses were his last reported addresses.   In other words, he may have moved without updating his listing.  
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #390 on: December 06, 2014, 03:57:44 AM »
In the "Sad Conclusion: thread, in post #2 Phil Young wrote (my bolding):

Quote
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.”

In the off chance that the drawings and diaries come up again at some future point, here or elsewhere, I'd like to add some further information that I've found that further call into question the authenticity of the diaries.

Firstly, Phil (presumably on behalf of Ian) wrote definitively that the "David Scott-Taylor" from the 1911 Census who was a Sergeant in the Royal Marines Light Infantry at Portsmouth was NOT Ian's grandfather. 

A search of ancestry.com shows that Ian and his siblings were the children of Philip William Scott-Taylor and Eileen M. Hughes.  Philip William Scott-Taylor was born in 1933.  Philip William was the son of David Scott-Taylor and Ethel Jones.  I have a certified copy of their marriage certificate.  They were married on the 19th of October 1932 when David Scott-Taylor gave his age as 57.  Ethel Jones was 33 years old.  David was listed as a Widower and Ethel as a Spinster.  They were married in Llandudno Wales in the Welsh Congregational Church. 

David's "Rank or Profession" was listed as "Physician and Surgeon".  I have searched several years between 1900 and 1924 of publications of the Calendar of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, each of which provides a comprehensive list of Surgeons in England.  The lists includes Fellows, Members (more than 1500) and Dental Surgeon Licentiates.  There is only one David Taylor in the lists and he was practicing in Bengal and was licensed around the time David was born (thus not our David Scott-Taylor). 

Furthermore, the marriage certificate lists the name of the fathers of the bride and groom along with their "Rank or Profession".  David Scott-Taylor's father (and Ian's great-grandfather) was a "William Scott-Taylor" who was a "Sheep Farmer".

It's hard to imagine that a sheep farmer was in India at the time David was born.

Now, I have also obtained the marriage certificate for the Royal Marine's David Scott-Taylor.  This David Scott-Taylor married an Ada Clara Porter on the 15th of December 1901 at the Baptist Tabernacle in Alverstoke (near Gosport and Portsmouth).  He listed his age as 26 and Ada Clara was 25.  He was a bachelor and a Corporal in the Royal Marines Light Infantry living in the Royal Barracks Forton.  Ada Clara a spinster and a Nursery Governess from Gosport.

The father of this David Scott-Taylor was listed as "William Taylor (deceased)".  His "Rank or Profession" was listed as "Shepherd".

I think that given the rarity of the name David Scott-Taylor at the time and given that both these men listed their father as "William" who were "Sheep Farmer" and "Shepherd", is a pretty strong indication that these two "David Scott-Taylor"'s were one and the same, despite the denials from Ian.


Further investigation of the military record of David Scott-Taylor discussed in previous posts indicated that he originally listed his next of kin as "W. S. Taylor" of 29 Park Avenue, Dundee.  Searching through the census of 1901, it turns out that there was indeed a "William S. Taylor" and wife and children residing at 29 Park Avenue, Dundee.  Given that this "William S." was only 34 at the time and that David's father was deceased at the time, indicates this was in fact David's older brother and not his father.  So, when the diaries talk about David playing golf with his brother and visiting his family in Dundee, he was most likely referring to his brother.  His brother was a grocer's assistant at the time.  He had three children, one named after his wife, another named after his brother David and anther named after his mother.

Tracing back further in the family tree, it appears that David and William's parents were "William" and "Ann".  "William" seems to be a popular name in the family tree.  In the 1881 census, William, David and a younger sibling were living in Monikie (not far from Dundee and Alyth) with their mother Ann.  David's birthplace is listed as Alyth while William, the brother, was born in Monikie.  Ann is listed as a "Shepherd's Wife" although her husband is not listed in the census.  Perhaps he was already deceased.

In the 1871 census, Ann was using her maiden name "Scott" and lived with her son William and her father "John Scott".  Presumably this is where the "Scott" part of "Scott-Taylor" came from.  Ann's mother seems to be Susan.  I couldn't find a maiden name.  John was born in 1807, in the same time frame as Sir Walter Scott's children, but I cannot trace his lineage back any further, so he may or may not have been an illegitimate progeny of Sir Walter.
 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #391 on: March 15, 2016, 02:50:10 PM »
Bump
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...
« Reply #392 on: October 30, 2016, 10:04:08 PM »
I thought I would bump this as there is a new thread on Victorian era courses and this thread contains interesting tidbits of Queen Victoria.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ... New
« Reply #393 on: October 31, 2016, 03:14:19 AM »
Thank you Wayne.


I rose early this morning to attend to a pile of correspondence before leaving for work. Instead I just spent two hours reading back through this thread and reliving the fun of a couple of years ago.


Happy days!   ;D






« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 03:17:25 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back