GeorgeB & Tom MacW;
I agree with what you say in your last posts. Please don't get me wrong or misunderstand the tenor of what I've said about Wilson or Macdonald, Raynor, Whigam (or any other architect) on this thread regarding the design of Merion.
Personally, if it turns out that Macd/Raynor/Whigam did have something to do with Merion's design I'd be thrilled by that and I bet Merion would too. All of them were most significant architects and thinkers and movers in that earlier era of American golf architecture, most assuredly C.B. Macdonald.
But I just don't think it's fair or in the slightest bit accurate to make even assumptions and definitely not conclusions about any of them doing anything specifically at this point with what's been supplied so far about their whereabouts or contributions. I also feel strongly that if architectural attribution was given to any of them at this point, other than what Hugh Wilson has said himself (supported to some degree by a few others who were involved with the creation of Merion) and has been documented would be a poor example of an otherwise valuable and valid research process.
If that evidence of their contributions shows up in the future, and it very well might given some of the leads here, then would be the time to embrace what they did for the design of Merion with basically open arms--but not until that time.
But questions and various scenarios of what might have happened is fascinating and should continue--that will be the only way to get as close to the bottom of what went on there between the spring of 1911 and Sept of 1912 (what came after that we know fairly well already) as anyone possibly could at this point.
BTW, the Merion Committee formed to look into building a new course at Ardmore was clearly formed in the beginning of 1910, not in 1911. After being formed, it was the Chairman of that committee, Hugh Wilson who was nominated to lead the architectural effort and to spend 6-7 months in Europe researching the architecture of that effort all of which took place in the year of 1910.
I should also state a personal opinion of mine at this point which is forming from reading much of the enormous agronomy correspondence of Wilson's. That is that none of us should take lightly the capabilities of Hugh Wilson agronomically or architecturally because we believe him to be first time architect.
The dedication, the comprehensiveness and efficiency that he appears to have possessed and displayed would probably astound every one of you. There's no reason to believe he would not have taken advice from C.B. Macdonald directly, or that he didn't take it but when he set out to build Merion in the spring of 1911 do I think he had to have that advice to have created Merion? Not at all!
It's also commonsense to me to look at Wilson's remark about the entire development of Merion both architecturally and agronomically in a certain way. When he said, in retrospect, that if he'd known one half of what he knew later he never would have done it. This shows me a man who did a great deal on his own volition, and not one who wholly or in part depended on other architects to do the job at Merion.
Clearly with the vast majority of this he was talking about the agronomics of Merion and the agronomics of golf at that time. In this area, again, over a period of 10-14 years Wilson (and those he was corresponding with) became probably the world's most accomplished at golf course agronomics!