Tom MacWood,
It seems obvious that CB Macdonald, one of the most important men in the development of golf in America, was a resource that Wilson approached when given the task of laying out a new course for the Merion Cricket Club. We have writings by Wilson that indicated he stopped by NGLA before his European trip to confer with Macdonald and Whigham. (Tommy N--it was not after his return from the trip abroad as you suggested, although I'm sure they got together afterwards on several ocassions).
As Tom Paul points out, the letter states that Wilson praises Macdonald for starting them out with the "correct principals of laying out the holes" and suggesting what courses to visit. It also is obvious that Macdonald and others visited the construction of Merion and later years as it was constantly being worked on for the next 25 or so years. However, it is not at all clear what direct contributions, if any, are to be attributed to either Macdonald or Whigham. Frankly, I find the lack of objective analysis alarming but all too familiar in much golf course architecture histories.
It is fair to postulate and question so that all possibilites are considered. These sorts of questions drive the research process. But, you have to be careful not to make conclusions too early and not to appear to force connections where they may be but are not stated as suppositions and you do so without nearly enough evidence. This is not how a serious study should be performed.
Tom MacWood, you ask "Does he deserve more credit than he was given?" That is a fair question. It is what you do with that question that is so strikingly curious. You say that "I believe it was Macdonald and Whigham who were on site advising during the construction." That would be very significant and if so, a part of the design history that must be told. But where is the evidence of this, certainly not on the ground as there is nothing at all obvious to jump to this conclusion. We need written proof of this or else it remains speculation without support.
You then say the committee, similar to Macdonald, borrowed certain features they liked from abroad and incorporated them into their design. You mention grass patches in the bunkers that was similar to those at Le Touquet. You suspect there may be an Eden green, a Redan green, a Road and other famous holes/features. These greens simply do not exist unless you want to forcefully pound a square peg into a round hole.
As to the grasses of Le Touquet, I'm not sure at this point that Wilson visited the Continent to study the golf courses. In a letter Wilson wrote, he mentions "Every good course that I saw in England and Scotland, confirmed Mr. MacDonald's teachings." So it is not clear what Wilson learned from the Continent if anything. Maybe Macdonald mentioned the grassing style to Wilson, but that is just a guess.
Tom MacWood, you say that you would be shocked if he did not visit these sites. This is evidence of a bias that needs to be contained. In the pursuit of evidence, nothing should shock you or else you might miss the big picture. Tom Paul mentioned that the grasses appear to come from Atlantic City Country Club. We have read accounts where the grasses are native to Europe and came over within the horses' feed supplies during Britain's military occupation of the region many years before. ACCC is a place we know due to extensive documentation that Crump, Wilson, Tillie, and all the prominent golfers and architects of the region met at all the time. It is not speculation.
You mention a fetish that Crump, Wilson, and Tillinghast had for the humps and hollows of Royal Mid Surrey. Where do you see them in Wilson's small inventory of three courses? Why characterize the look of RMS as a fetish to these three men? That seems a bit self-serving and not based upon any evidence.
I wish you could help us with the articles you mentioned that were written around the time of the opening of Merion that mention CBM and Whigham as on site advisors. These are materials that need to be considered. You are absolutely correct that contemporary newspaper articlesare extremely valuable. We are fortunate that Temple University and other resource collections are present to research and we will do so. Tom and I are very hesitant to make conclusions on hearsay and oral traditions. We have come across so many that are wrong.
One example where we try to keep a high level of objectivity even though it would considerably aid our Flynn project is the possibility of Flynn designing the West Course at Merion. Both Richie Valentine (Joe's son) and Connie Lagerman (Flynn's daughter) said independently that Flynn designed the course. Richie said his father often told him that. Connie said her dad told her this as well. The only drawing of the West Course is by Flynn. Yet we are not convinced to the level required by our standards. Others would have stated it as fact, yet we are determined not to do so and seek as much supporting evidence as we can find. If not, we will lay the evidence in front of the readership and draw our conclusions but leave room for interpretation and future findings. That is the proper way to approach this work. Anything less would continue to perpetuate half truths or worse, misinformation.
Both Tom MacWood and George Bahto mention the Whigham eulogy of CBM and the mention of the Merion Cricket Club as a Macdonald and Raynor course (at least one where they worked). Firstly, if true, how do you know if he was referring to the new course built in Ardmore or work on the original site? Perhaps Macdonald was engaged in some sort of assistance, unless there is direct proof, there is nothing to say. One should wait until the material is collected that prove or disprove such notions.
It is clear that Merion was a collaborative effort, at least by Wilson, Flynn, and Valentine. Whenever Wilson writes of the work done at Merion, he never says "I did this" or "I did that," he always refers to "we."
Should this line of inquiry continue? Of course. Would Merion be interested? Absolutely, they as a group are dedicated to knowledge and an open understanding of their course's history, more so than anywhere else we've been to. They are keenly aware of their place in golf history and are concerned with the truth and not good storytelling.
I am not trying to point fingers. I hope this post illuminates the need for honest discussion and the problems inherent in searching for accurate architectural histories. Truth in classic age golf architecture is something we can rarely attain and most often never reach. We must deal in facts and the amassing of as much information as possible while characterizing any findings that fall short of our high standards of research honestly and openly.