[DMoriarty]

David,

I wish you would answer a very simple question.  Having been out there multiple times myself I'm sure a veteran of NGLA like Patrick can explain to you how even sitting up on horses in waist - high brambles Macdonald and Whigham would have to be MORONS of the most MORONIC to not see the long, broad ridge of the Alps hole towering over their heads on their first visit looking at the landforms of the property.  

It would be like visiting a site in Ardmore and not seeing the Quarry.

Even the simplest of questions need a question.  This is just more self-serving conjecture on your part and it stands in direct contradiction to all your other self-serving proclamations about how they couldn't have possibly done anything go until the site was cleared.  

If you are asking me to tell you what cbm and hjw discussed on their first ride, my answer is I don't know because they didn't say.  And I'm not about to put your words in their mouths.

As for this latest conjecture, why not look at all of of cbm's description instead of pretending it is just the alps? Would the cape and Eden have been obvious to a layman on horseback too?  And if they were so obvious, then why not the giant safari ridge and natural bunker, which actually is part of the fomation which is the highest point on ngla's parcel? Or how about higher features on sebonac? For that matter why wasn't the giant punch bowl indentation just as obvious? Or the dune for the leven? Or many of the other prominent physical features defining the holes here?   Or how about the rest of his description? Would it have been obvious from horseback on a single ride that the course would a mile of frontage along Bullshead Bay, or a quarter of a mile on the Peconic, or that the course would be two miles long?

For your conjecture to mean what you seem to think it means, everything cbm described in December would have had to have been obvious, while everything he didn't mention would have needed to be hopelessly impenetrable. That makes no sense.

Unfortunately, what you are attempting here is typical. You are trying to base your new position on some stretched and twisted conjecture based on a tenuous reading of an out.of context snippet that has little to do wth anything.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, are you really going to clog the thread but going back and re-posting all these documents yet again? You're not saying anything new here. Reread the Stillman letter. It goes a long way to resolving the issue of whether or not CBM was including a large real estate component.  Let's move on.

[DMoriarty]

Or if you won't move on (and you won't), then let's step back and consider how we got here in the first place:  

For years you have been insisting that, in December 1906, CBM told his founders (and the rest of the world) that the specific NGLA parcel would have a large real estate component consisting of building lots for all of the founders.  This was the very foundation for your self-described "bombshell" thread from years ago (name subsequently changed), and literally hundreds of pages of posts on this issue across many different threads.

You were wrong. CBM did not tell the founders that the NGLA parcel would have a large real estate component consisting of building lots for all of the founders.

Yet, rather than reconsider your position, you just ignore this fact and keep spinning the same old preconception!  You seem unwilling or incapable of letting the facts shape your position.  Your position remains no matter the facts!

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Do you see the irony of ending one post with "Let's move on." and starting the very next post with "Let's step back".   :


Ooops, I guess you did; I see you've now edited the first sentence of the last post.

[DMoriarty]

Yep. I did and do see the irony. But we all know Mike isn't moving on.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

On page 17 in reply # 409 I asked you to name your "reliable" source, and you refused to do so.

Now, 9 pages and 238 posts later you have the nerve to ask me the moronic questions above ?

I also asked you again, on page 20, post# 491, and you refused to answer.

Can you not understand why I did not want to name the source?

Yes and No.
And, there's always IM's and email.

Others found the same source subsequently and posted it.  I thought contacting the source would be appropriate before posting it.  I still think that was the right thing to do for me.  Others, apparently didn't feel that way and posted it.  That's up to them.

Sven has spelled out for you who the source is in the last few posts.  I honestly do hope that you know who the source is and who you are calling out for a "moronic premise".  Maybe you should man up and contact them yourself and tell them directly that they are morons.  

I'm extremely fond of your source, but, you bought into the source's premise due to the source's credibility rather than on the merits of the premise.

You, your source and everyone was looking at this issue from the perspective of the buyer, not the seller.

Your source is a terrific fellow, but, his premise is beyond moronic.

Here's what the premise requires you to believe.

It requires you to believe that a for profit real estate company (party A) would sell a 205 acre block of land to a buyer, (party B), and within the midst of that 205 acre parcel, the seller would retain 2.5 acre donut hole of land that was inaccessable to Party A.
2.5 acres that was surrounded by the Buyer, (Party B's) land.
2.5 acres that couldn't be accessed by any other prospective buyer (party C)
2.5 acres that immediately became useless to the seller (party A) and any prospective buyer (party C)
Thus, this for profit real estate firm just gave away 2.5 acres and/or rendered useless, 2.5 acres that only Party B could access.
That 2.5 acres immediately became useless to everyone except Party B.
Party B could sit on that land and never buy it and party A would have to write down their loss.
Does that sound like something a "for profit" real estate company would do ?

Do you really think that a real estate company would retain a donut hole of 2.5 acres without any access to the seller (party A) or any prospective Buyer (party C)

However, maybe there's another wrinkle to this premise.

Doubtful, but, perhaps, CBM bought the 205 acres and obtained an option for the 2.5 acres since he didn't yet have the money to build his clubhouse.

But, then, that would mean that CBM always intended that site to be the site for his clubhouse

I like that premise.


As for your serial pillorying of me in the last page, it's troubling to me to see your continued efforts to suppress introduction and discussion of relevant information.  I thought this site was about discussion of golf course architecture.  I didn't think this site was about proving your debating prowess, but maybe I got that wrong too.  

Bryan, if you giveth, you have to taketh.
You've done your share of "pillorying and I've taken it like a man without complaining.
You like busting my chops and I like busting your chops.
There's no malice intended, I was just pointing out your contradictory positions when you claimed neutrality.

You were sucked in by your source's credentials, not the merits of the premise.

However, you've had a tendency to present yourself as an expert on golf courses that you've never seen

I'm not sure how the dissection of my evolving position on the draft contributes in any way to assessing the merits of the premise (or whatever we want to call it).  It's just a personal attack.

Not at all.
You recently claimed that you were sitting on the fence on this issue.
Yet, your words, written earlier, contradicted that statement.
You weren't on the fence, you were firmly in your source's camp.

You can't, conveniently, have it both ways depending upon how the debate is evolving.

And, for the last time, I think the premise came from a credible source with access to more information than I have, and although I can see the merits of thinking it was the pro shop site, personally I can wait to see the deeds before I conclude that that's what the site was. I'm happy to see I'm so important to you that you need to spend so much time and green ink trying to knock me down.  It's not very productive though, in the context of this site.

Byran, when you're guilty of not thinking the issue through, and champion your source's  premise, you deserve to be challenged.

You claimed that it was a fact that the 2.5 acres was were the current clubhouse sits.

WHY ?

For one simple reason, you're looking for anything that would disprove my premise that the current clubhouse site was always the intended site for the clubhouse.

That's your motive for clinging to your source's premise without thinking it through.

Like Mike, you draw a conclusion and then try to find info to back it up and the 2.5 acres was the perfect info if it wasn't the wrong 2.5 acres.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I wish you would answer a very simple question.  Having been out there multiple times myself I'm sure a veteran of NGLA like Patrick can explain to you how even sitting up on horses in waist - high brambles Macdonald and Whigham would have to be MORONS of the most MORONIC types to not see the long, broad ridge of the Alps hole towering over their heads on their first visit looking at the landforms of the property.  

Mike,

I disagree.

Again, you're confining CBM's search to within the borders of NGLA when the entire 450 acres was at his disposal.

If anything, the high area behind the 10th green at Sebonack would be the land form towering above their heads.

It would be like visiting a site in Ardmore and not seeing the Quarry.

Have you played or walked Sebonack ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

One other thing important to note here is that already by June of 1906 CBM had pretty much given up on the idea of a course based on all template holes, but instead only a small handful of templates would be attempted.

Mike,

That's NOT TRUE.

One can count on 10 to 14 template holes at NGLA

Where are you getting your information that "only a small handful of templates would be attempted"

That's why Patrick's contention that he knew all the holes he would be locating prior to routing them doesn't make sense.

Of course it does.
And, you agreed with my post # 659 in your post # 660.

He had 14 of the 18 holes pre-determined, and filling in the gaps was child's play. 

In fact, CBM tells us that most of the holes at NGLA are hybrids of various things he liked as suggested by the natural ground of the site, and not imposed on top of the site based on some pre-determined attempt at direct copies of entire holes from abroad.

Not true.
CBM states that he first placed the holes that were "almost unanimously considered the finest of their character in Great Britain"

Then he states that "All of the other holes at National are more or less composite, but some are absolutely original.

Again Mike, ONLY SOME are original, which is the exact opposite of your claim.

Reread Chapter IX of "Scotland's Gift"

This was a man on a mission, a mission to introduce the great golf holes in the UK and combinations of the great golf holes in the UK, at NGLA.

He didn't select that 205 out of 450 acres randomly, he studied the land, found where his ideal holes would be best located, then staked the property lines that would contain his ideal holes.

To suggest that he randomly staked 205 acres of land with the HOPE of somehow finding the golf holes that fit his mold and his plan is....... well, beyond moronic.

[Sven Nilsen]

Indeed, two months later after returning from abroad Macdonald was still convinced of the need to buy 200 acres to carry out his planned Agreement with the Founders.

Five months later he secured 200 acres.   Coincidence?   I really don't think so.




One other thing important to note here is that already by June of 1906 CBM had pretty much given up on the idea of a course based on all template holes, but instead only a small handful of templates would be attempted.

That's why Patrick's contention that he knew all the holes he would be locating prior to routing them doesn't make sense.   In fact, CBM tells us that most of the holes at NGLA are hybrids of various things he liked as suggested by the natural ground of the site, and not imposed on top of the site based on some pre-determined attempt at direct copies of entire holes from abroad.

Mike:

"One other thing important to note here is that already by June of 1906 CBM had pretty much given up on the idea of a course based on all template holes, but instead only a small handful of templates would be attempted."

No, the article does not say this.  What it says is that only a handful of his templates will be exact copies, but that he still has plans to use the templates that exemplify the principles he is seeking to capture, of which he has more than 18 different holes in mind.  If you don't understand this distinction, you don't understand CBM's templates.

What he is saying is that he is going to see which templates work for the ground they use, hence why the Biarritz, specifically mentioned in this article, was never used.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Also, we covered the 200 acre thought already.  By the time he made an offer on the 120 acre parcel, the RE idea had been abandoned.

You think this is because the 120 acres were going to be in close proximity to the already mapped and plotted parcels, thus providing his founders with the ability to buy land near the course.

But that was not the original deal.  The original deal was that each founder would get land from the club, not the ability to purchase a much more expensive piece of property nearby.  That deal had gone by the wayside.

And when he upsized the land required for the course (a course that fits pretty tightly on the 205 acres purchased), he was not contemplating using some of that land to honor the terms of the 1904 agreement.  He was looking to use the 205 acres to build a golf course.

Sven

[JESII]

Also, we covered the 200 acre thought already.  By the time he made an offer on the 120 acre parcel, the RE idea had been abandoned.

You think this is because the 120 acres were going to be in close proximity to the already mapped and plotted parcels, thus providing his founders with the ability to buy land near the course.

But that was not the original deal.  The original deal was that each founder would get land from the club, not the ability to purchase a much more expensive piece of property nearby.  That deal had gone by the wayside.

And when he upsized the land required for the course (a course that fits pretty tightly on the 205 acres purchased), he was not contemplating using some of that land to honor the terms of the 1904 agreement.  He was looking to use the 205 acres to build a golf course.

Sven

Sven,

Is this documented somewhere? Or is it your opinion (along with David) that the concept had been eliminated?

Missed the last couple days but skimmed through and didn't see anything documenting this.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim:

I was referring to the fact it has previously been discussed.

Sven

[JESII]

Got it...

[DMoriarty]

Jim, See the Stillman letter above.

It is documented that in CBM's Dec. 1906 letter to the founders he did NOT mention anything about a large housing component at ngla.  And is documented in the same letter that CBM disavowed the "investment" component of the 1904 letter.

Keep in mind that the reason we have been doing this for so many years is that Mike and others have repeatly insisted that in Dec 1906, CBM announced to his members that NGLA would contain a large subdivision with building lots for the founders.  It is documented that this didn't happen.  Mike was wrong.  

So now that we know that the major assumption driving all of this was erroneous, are we really going to keep the theory going?

[Steve Lang]

  Keying on the naming of the CH Sabin estate flanking NGLA and his Bayberry Land cottage,  the works of William Merritt Chase who lived in Southampton and painted turn of the 20th century views there might help folks understand that the land may not have been extremely chocked with bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica) bushes and other sand loving woody species.  I would think if the girls could get around on foot, CB & JW on horseback had quite a run of the land!

Figures 7, 8, & 9 From : http://www.antiquesandfineart.com/articles/article.cfm?request=952


Fig 7. William Merritt Chase (1849–1916),
Idle Hours, ca. 1894.
Oil on canvas, 25 x 35 inches.
Signed "Wm. M. Chase" at lower left.
Courtesy Amon Carter Museum, Fort Worth, Texas (1982.1).

The painting depicts Chase's wife and two of his daughters, Alice Dieudonnée and Koto Robertine, on the beach of Shinnecock Bay. The other woman holding a parasol is possibly Chase's sister-in-law, Virginia Gerson. Idle Hours has a long exhibition history. It was once owned by the art patron Samuel T. Shaw, who lent it to the Interstate and West Indian Exposition in Charleston, South Carolina (1901), where it was awarded a gold medal.


Fig. 8: William Merritt Chase (1849–1916), Gathering Autumn Flowers, ca. 1894.
Oil on canvas, 21 x 38 inches.
Signed “Wm. M. Chase” at lower right. Courtesy collection of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Mellon.
Seated lower right in the painting is Chase’s daughter, Dorothy Bremond, holding a bouquet of flowers, with her sister Alice Dieudonnée behind and farther to the left, kneeling to pick flowers, while their sister Koto Robertine stands in the far background.


Fig. 9 William Merritt Chase (1849–1916),
The Big Bayberry Bush, ca. 1895.
Oil on canvas, 25-1/2 x 33-1/8 inches.
Signed "Wm. M. Chase" at lower left. Courtesy the Parrish Art Museum, Southampton, Long Island, New York, Littlejohn Collection.

This scene of Chase's three eldest daughters playing among the bayberry bushes also depicts the Chase summer home, designed by Stanford White, in the background. When it was shown in the Kansas City Art Club Exhibition of 1901, it was singled out as "noteworthy for its admirable atmospheric effect, and for the deft description of summer sunshine."

[Bryan Izatt]

Yep. I did and do see the irony. But we all know Mike isn't moving on.

Philosophical thought of the day.  My wife keeps telling me we only have control over what we ourselves do.  We can't control what other people do.  So, stop worrying about Mike being stuck on this point.  You can move on if you want to.

[DMoriarty]

So could you, yet here we are.

[Bryan Izatt]

Amen.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I brought the information forward 12 pages ago.  David and Sven were on it right away.  You were a latecomer to the party with nothing new to add.  Now 12 pages later you are still doing your rottweiler on a bone routine.  You've pulverized the bone.  Let the bone dust go.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

In the spirit of moving on from the clubhouse/proshop episode,

Jim, See the Stillman letter above.

It is documented that in CBM's Dec. 1906 letter to the founders he did NOT mention anything about a large housing component at ngla.  And is documented in the same letter that CBM disavowed the "investment" component of the 1904 letter.

.............................

As usual I read it a bit different from you. 

The way I read the "investment"  paragraph is that CBM was tying to reassure Stillman that his $1000 investment in the Ideal golf course was safe because at the very least they had the land which was a tangible asset.  I read it as saying, don't worry, if this thing goes down the tube we can sell the land and get some return on our investment.  But, we're really in this for the golf course, not as a land investment.

I don't see where you see a disavowal.

Wasn't the original idea of a 1.5 acre lot just a possible enticement for the Founders.  I don't recall it being described as an "investment".

The Stillman letter also says that the original agreement was attached.  It doesn't say that the original agreement was modified to remove the 1.5 acre plot for each Founder does it?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  I trust that at least you agree that the CBM's letter did NOT mention anything about a large housing component at NGLA.  This in and of itself is very significant, since this had long been the primary claim of the NGLA-as-real-estate-scheme crowd.

In the spirit of moving on from the clubhouse/proshop episode,

You'll see soon that we'll soon be moving right back to it, at least tangentially . . .

The way I read the "investment"  paragraph is that CBM was tying to reassure Stillman that his $1000 investment in the Ideal golf course was safe because at the very least they had the land which was a tangible asset. I read it as saying, don't worry, if this thing goes down the tube we can sell the land and get some return on our investment. But, we're really in this for the golf course, not as a land investment.

Exactly. This was not going to be a land investment.  It was not going to be a scheme where the each founder will get a building lot in fee simple which will be valued at more than his original contribution. This is the disavowal.

I don't see where you see a disavowal.

Wasn't the original idea of a 1.5 acre lot just a possible enticement for the Founders.  I don't recall it being described as an "investment".

The Stillman letter also says that the original agreement was attached.  It doesn't say that the original agreement was modified to remove the 1.5 acre plot for each Founder does it?

While CBM stated that the original idea would be carried out, he also "emphasize[d] that any investment component was "outside the spirit of which the idea originated."

[DMoriarty]

Bryan and All,

Remember the restriction that the developer tried to put on the 2.5 acre parcel, requiring CBM to build a clubhouse?  My take was (and is) that the developer really just didn't want Macdonald to do anything with the land unrelated to a golf course.  And this seems to have been the case.  

According to an article in the Walker Cup program by Chris Millard (also the author of Bryan's "source") the developer intended to limit Macdonald's use of the entire 205 acre parcel to a golf course and only a golf course. From Millard's article, quoting developer's annual report to the shareholders:

"'If the property fails to be used as a golf course within the next fifty years, it shall revert to us upon payment of the purchase price with interest. If they build later a clubhouse to not cost less than $20,000, this is to be excerpted from the reversion together with 5 acres around it.'"

It looks as if the developer had retained (or planned on retaining) a possibility of reverter (or perhaps a right of entry,) so that if CBM had tried to use the land for anything other than a golf course, the golf course would have reverted back to the development company, after said payment and interest.

In other words, according to the developer in the quote above, there could be no residential real estate development or any other development except for a golf course.  

Can't wait to see how Mike tries to spin this one.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Interesting reading isn't it.

For discussion purposes, could you not read that condition as trying to protect the seller from Macdonald's grand plans for an ideal golf course failing and CBM selling the land to a competitive developer for houses or factories or an amusement park or some other deleterious (to the selling Realty Co) use.  I can see how you can infer that it would prevent the building of cottages (small variety).  I'm not sure why you and Mike are so doggedly trying to pin down when the 1.5 acre inducement was no longer operative.  But, please continue the battle if it pleases you two.

To digress to other interesting tidbits in that section, in the preceding paragraph, the November 1906 option and June 11, 1907 finalization of the deal for slightly more than 205 acres is presented.  The same 205 acres widely reported at the time and even subsequently by CBM himself.  Why does the Stillman letter of December 1906, written by CBM, say he has purchased 200 acres.  Apart from the fact that it was only an option and not a purchase, could he have optioned 200 acres and then bought 205 acres.  What changed between December and June?  Where were those extra 5 acres?

The Realty Co tells it's shareholders the good news that they made a profit on land that had no foreseeable use (and therefore presumably value).  For those arguing against the land being worthless, it seems even the Realty Co thought it pretty much worthless in the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile it's a good deal for CBM because he can "cherry pick" his 205 acres from the 450 acres.  Unfortunately there's no added clarity as to when CBM finished his cherry picking.  Since it's reported that there was a $10,000 deposit in November and payment of the balance in June 1907, I suppose it's possible the cherry picking could have gone past June.  The Realty Co had no foreseeable use for the land, so there was presumably no pressure to nail CBM down.

More interesting from an acreage point of view, is that a couple of paragraphs later there is the news that immediately after closing the deal CBM bought another 2.5 acres to "protect ourselves" on the western edge.  Presumably this is different from the 2.464 acres that CBM bought in 2010 for the clubhouse/pro shop (depending on your opinion).

I'm sure this all makes logical sense, but it will take some digesting (and maybe some deeds).

[MCirba]

Wow, I'm glad I went hiking yesterday.   

[MCirba]

David,

Interesting reading isn't it.

For discussion purposes, could you not read that condition as trying to protect the seller from Macdonald's grand plans for an ideal golf course failing and CBM selling the land to a competitive developer for houses or factories or an amusement park or some other deleterious (to the selling Realty Co) use.  I can see how you can infer that it would prevent the building of cottages (small variety).  I'm not sure why you and Mike are so doggedly trying to pin down when the 1.5 acre inducement was no longer operative.  But, please continue the battle if it pleases you two.

To digress to other interesting tidbits in that section, in the preceding paragraph, the November 1906 option and June 11, 1907 finalization of the deal for slightly more than 205 acres is presented.  The same 205 acres widely reported at the time and even subsequently by CBM himself.  Why does the Stillman letter of December 1906, written by CBM, say he has purchased 200 acres.  Apart from the fact that it was only an option and not a purchase, could he have optioned 200 acres and then bought 205 acres.  What changed between December and June?  Where were those extra 5 acres?

The Realty Co tells it's shareholders the good news that they made a profit on land that had no foreseeable use (and therefore presumably value).  For those arguing against the land being worthless, it seems even the Realty Co thought it pretty much worthless in the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile it's a good deal for CBM because he can "cherry pick" his 205 acres from the 450 acres.  Unfortunately there's no added clarity as to when CBM finished his cherry picking.  Since it's reported that there was a $10,000 deposit in November and payment of the balance in June 1907, I suppose it's possible the cherry picking could have gone past June.  The Realty Co had no foreseeable use for the land, so there was presumably no pressure to nail CBM down.

More interesting from an acreage point of view, is that a couple of paragraphs later there is the news that immediately after closing the deal CBM bought another 2.5 acres to "protect ourselves" on the western edge.  Presumably this is different from the 2.464 acres that CBM bought in 2010 for the clubhouse/pro shop (depending on your opinion).

I'm sure this all makes logical sense, but it will take some digesting (and maybe some deeds).

Bryan,

Precisely.   Thanks for keeping it real and saving me the time of responding.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()