[Wayne_Kozun]

I always thought that the conclusions as presented in the report were overly positive about the findings.  Here is an example:

"With respect ot the drawings, [Doctor] has concluded there is not question that all of the drawings submitted by the Scott-Taylor family are genuine and was authored by Mr. A. W. Tillinghast."

Do people in that line of business really provide that definitive an endorsement?  Don't they typically say something like "the tests are consistent with paper and ink that were in use in 1901 and the handwriting is consistent with the style of Mr. Tillinghast".  Would they really say they are genuine?

[Bryan Icenhower]

I think GCA worked great in this affair.  Almost perfectly, in fact.

A well-respected (among many) long-time member of GCA came out with some sensational news.  Almost immediately, a number of other members set out to verify it.  They found one contradiction after another.  In the end, it was revealed as a fraud.  

I think this reflects very positively on Ran and this DG.  I don't expect him to vet the opinion pieces or posts here.  Instead, he has created a forum that does that.  We have some real smart people on the board.  Peer review at its finest.  

Kudos to David Moriarty and the rest of you for showing the inconsistencies in the story.  

+1

[Jeff_Brauer]

This seems to be a special case that might happen to any website, or maybe even the big news outlets (it has) or even the American public (with elected legislators later having been found to have fabricated resumes, degrees, etc.)  So, it could happen to Ran and Golf Club Atlas, too.  

I don't see the shame in it for Ran.  If this site stays active for another 25 years, it will probably happen again at some point.  I understand its his baby, and important to him, but just how much vetting should a moderator on this type of site do to counter a once in a blue moon attempt at historical forgery?  I doubt there are any standards he has fallen below, even if he feels badly for what happened.

I hope it doesn't discourage further IMO pieces, even if not completely researched, but with honest intentions.  

First, this isn't really a professional history site. As someone mentioned, its closer to crowd sourcing than old school historic research, even for all the time put in by guys like David Moriarty here in researching my professions history.  Once again, kudos to all who do spend the time I wish I could, but can't.  I hope the legit work finds an even better repository and audience than this site.

Second, Ron Whitten and other researchers have mentioned more than once that the greatest fear in publishing (especially in print) is that after it comes out, some new information will come out to alter the findings.  It is sort of the nature of historic research, as far as I can tell.  

Of course, this case is different from that.  We can debate how much "shame" Phil ought to feel for being duped, and whether those documents should have ever passed his initial "historian" smell test, but I leave that to others.  I don't sense that this is the definitive end to Phil's historical career, depending on how he handles it, but then again, I don't really know how these kinds of things play out.

The thing Ran is most right about is that it is a sad, sad conclusion.

[Scott Warren]

I'd hate for this to amount to nothing for you, Ian.

So I'll sling you $20 each for the Road Hole and Redan sketches. Frauds as they are, they're still quite nice drawings.

[Sven Nilsen]

If Notre Dame can get through the Manti Te'o scandal untarnished, this website can certainly survive the David Scott-Taylor fiasco.

If there's a lesson to take away from this, it is that sometimes we need to let the facts stand for themselves without rounding off the edges with our own conclusions.  Smart people know what they don't know.

Sven

[RJ_Daley]

RJ

By not going "into the specifics" and by not naming names are you not also guilty of casting aspersions on most if not all who have participated in this debate ?

Niall

Niall, I choose not to name names for a few reasons.  One is that for most of us, this isn't our first rodeo so to speak, when it comes to these sort of food fights.  I for one have been around this web site for some 15 years and the previous one that many of us migrated from.  We know where the vendetta and sharp knives are.  It is unfortunate, but probably in all our human nature to associate with one tribe or the other.  Some of the tribal warfare via pithy posts and one-upsmanship can be entertaining, and  sometimes pedantic and tedious.  When it crosses the negative lines it doesn't reflect well on our treehouse.  And, I admit I get carried away from time to time as well.  But, in this recent saga, we who have been around know the actors and are aware of the side issues that had nothing to do with these sketches authenticity and the detailed verification and fact checking that went into the last few months of discussion.  Why do we need a further spectacle of more naming names, when if you are aware, bully for you, and if you aren't, you are free to read on and form your own opinions as you go.

Secondly, it seems to me after making the observations I did preceding the choosing not to name names, it insults the intelligence of anyone reading that they can't formulate their own ideas of who those folks are on the positive or negative side of the debate and issue.  

Thirdly, I have had a meaningful conversation about all this privately with the one I most care about in terms of reputation and protecting his web site, Ran.  I know he knows how I feel, and that is mostly what matters to me.  He knows how I feel about the behavior and motives of some of the parties to this, because I felt the long term relationship on his website and respect that I have for Ran's remarkable forum was the only actual person with whom I cared to name names and help figure out the mystery behind all these revelations.  My conversation was not to gossip or culumniate, but yes, to call attention to some of the past activities of some of the actors in this, where the veracity of certain statements were just too incredible and unsubstantiated to be believed.  

[David_Elvins]

Do people in that line of business really provide that definitive an endorsement? 

Of course not.  One of the many red flags that should have caused Phil or Neil or anyone ese with the report to do 10 minutes of research to ascertain its authenticity. 

At the risk of plagarising, here is a quote from a real report.

In keeping with the practice of Forensic Science Laboratories around the world,
conclusions are expressed on a qualitative scale describing the strength of the evidence. The main
points on the scale are:

Positive
Conclusive evidence
Very strong evidence
Strong Evidence
Weak evidence

Inconclusive

Negative
Weak evidence
Strong evidence
Very strong evidence
Conclusive evidence

[Adam Lawrence]

Do people in that line of business really provide that definitive an endorsement? 

Of course not.  One of the many red flags that should have caused Phil or Neil or anyone ese with the report to do 10 minutes of research to ascertain its authenticity. 

At the risk of plagarising, here is a quote from a real report.

In keeping with the practice of Forensic Science Laboratories around the world,
conclusions are expressed on a qualitative scale describing the strength of the evidence. The main
points on the scale are:

Positive
Conclusive evidence
Very strong evidence
Strong Evidence
Weak evidence

Inconclusive

Negative
Weak evidence
Strong evidence
Very strong evidence
Conclusive evidence

Absolutely, David. This is the key lesson for my money. Don't get too excited at the prospect of a great discovery, test it properly, trust the peer review process. Don't take it personally and get defensive.

[Wayne_Kozun]

So I'll sling you $20 each for the Road Hole and Redan sketches. Frauds as they are, they're still quite nice drawings.

I would pay more than that.  The story behind this saga arguably adds some value compared to other sketches/paintings that IST sells online - he wants $3500 for the original of Turnberry at War.

[Neil_Crafter]

As one who has been supportive of Phil and Ian i am obviously disappointed and saddened to learn that the authentication report was not genuine and that Ian had written it. Naturally I am embarrassed by this and extend my apologies to all here for my part in this.

My involvement was originally in looking at a set of 18 hole plans apparently drawn by Mackenzie for Riviera. They certainly appeared genuine to me based upon the numerous Mac plans I have seen over the years, and I said so.

Obviously I am very disappointed, upset and saddened that Ian fabricated the report, which naturally casts a grim shadow over all this material, the Riviera drawings included. What material is genuine and what material is not is now mixed up in a murky soup. Sadly it's all tainted now.

While I find it difficult to believe that these Mac plans plus the two from Augusta that I have seen, are forged, and while that possibility has always been there, it is perhaps far more prominent now. Anyway, there will be more fall-out on this to come no doubt.

For my part, I have argued a case that I believed in, in good faith. For being wrong, well, mea culpa.

[David_Elvins]

For my part, I have argued a case that I believed in, in good faith. For being wrong, well, mea culpa.

Neil,

If you don't mind me asking the same question I asked Phil.  When you received the interim report, what led you to accepting it in good faith and not spending 10 minutes checking that it was legit? 

[Neil_Crafter]

sorry David, not sure how I was to check that it was "legit". I took it at face value.

[Jonathan Mallard]

I made a comment on the other thread that it reminded me of the cold-fusion incident circa 1988.

I was going to make another comment as it evolved that, to me, it began to resemble something from Phillip K. Dick.

'Change the narrative, and you change the reality.' (Paraphrased, as I understand it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick

[Mark Pearce]

Neil,

Weren't you suspicious when some of us pointed out the very odd language used in the conclusions?

[Gary Sato]

Ian told me on the phone this morning that he lifted the language.

Was there a reason why he did this?    I haven't followed this that closely but I didn't see a monetary gain, at least enough to change his lifestyle?

It will be interesting to see how it effects his architectural business.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I've seen similar language in other reports and lifting language from other reports (or working with prefabricated blurbs) is not unusual, if the case is deemed to be similar. But what killed it for me was that the experts themselves wished to remain anonymous. That I have never seen before from any respectable expert. I believe Phil was out of his league in that part of the debate and possibly in others as well, but unfortunately failed to realise that.

Ulrich

[Ulrich Mayring]

As for financial gain: if Mr. Scott-Taylor could somehow convince a highly reputable museum to display his artifacts, then their worth would increase significantly. This is standard practice by collectors, dealers or even auction houses wishing to sell an important piece of art, they simply loan it for three or five years to, say, the National Gallery and then sell it for twice as much as they could have gotten before.

Ulrich

[Wayne_Kozun]

How does everyone feel about the IMOs having been removed?  I think they should remain with a disclaimer on the top.

[David_Elvins]

sorry David, not sure how I was to check that it was "legit". I took it at face value.

Neil,

Correct me if I am wrong but I would have thought that contacting the organisation or author that had its name on the report and asking them if they produced the report would be simple.

[John Kavanaugh]

Please note that you could be asking Ran all these same questions. Tread carefully, you won, have some respect.

[David_Elvins]

Tread carefully, you won

There are no winners and losers, JK.  It's a discussion, not a game. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Tread carefully, you won

There are no winners and losers, JK.  It's a discussion, not a game. 

Sorry but it is much more than that. Read what Tommy wants from Phil, this is now about making people pay. How dare anyone make a mistake, apologies be damned. I said long ago to have patience, that the day Phil knew that this was a ruse he would come on here and admit he was wrong.  He did, he was hurt, he is sorry, he was fooled. We have all been in his shoes, we should be compassionate not vengeful.

[John Mayhugh]

At the end of his posts, David Moriarty includes a quote from Tom MacWood:
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.

David never seems to be out to make others look bad.  He's just not willing to blindly accept everything as it's been presented.  If he thinks a story doesn't make sense or there is another possible explanation, he asks questions.  I've never understood why some are so upset by this.  Anytime I read people's defensive responses to questions, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of the story they are promoting. 

I'm too lazy to research, and haven't followed the entire Scott-Taylor saga.  I decided very early on that the narrative didn't seem to stand up to basic scrutiny, so I'm not surprised at where we ended up.  As Adam Lawrence put it, Phil was either complicit or a fool.  ALL of this could have been avoided if he had listened rather than just defended a poorly vetted story.

If there's a lesson for the discussion group, it's that we need to be more supportive of the people that ask questions.  Just because a "historian" thinks matters have been settled, we ought to not abandon common sense.

Those that expect to see David gloating will be disappointed.

[BHoover]

Sorry but it is much more than that. Read what Tommy wants from Phil, this is now about making people pay. How dare anyone make a mistake, apologies be damned. I said long ago to have patience, that the day Phil knew that this was a ruse he would come on here and admit he was wrong.  He did, he was hurt, he is sorry, he was fooled. We have all been in his shoes, we should be compassionate not vengeful.

There is always room for forgiveness and compassion, but at the same time, should not one who seemingly holds himself out as an expert on golf course architecture (or any topic depending on the situation) be held to a high standard? A true historian is supposed to base his conclusions on verifiable evidence, not make assumptions or assertions about the purported truth that are not supported by evidence.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sorry but it is much more than that. Read what Tommy wants from Phil, this is now about making people pay. How dare anyone make a mistake, apologies be damned. I said long ago to have patience, that the day Phil knew that this was a ruse he would come on here and admit he was wrong.  He did, he was hurt, he is sorry, he was fooled. We have all been in his shoes, we should be compassionate not vengeful.

There is always room for forgiveness and compassion, but at the same time, should not one who seemingly holds himself out as an expert on golf course architecture (or any topic depending on the situation) be held to a high standard? A true historian is supposed to base his conclusions on verifiable evidence, not make assumptions or assertions about the purported truth that are not supported by evidence.

What I wouldn't give to just once err on the side of compassion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()