"TE
Strange you should single out Aronimink as an example since it was based more upon speculation than many of his other projects, and was not a restoration."
Tom:
You continue to mince words and split hairs about Aronimink and it's recent "Ross restoration" and I'm sure you'll continue to do so. The fact is the fairway bunker project of Aronimink was a most unuusual one as most all the fairway bunkers had been removed and graded over in a number of cyles of modern bunker redesigns in the Modern Age.
As I'm sure you know by now the question for Prichard and the club was who actually did the fairway bunkers of Aronimink either originally or shortly after the course opened. Prichard and the club had some of the best Ross fairway bunker field drawings in hand and a situation where no one was sure that McGovern had not taken liberties and changed the fairway bunker schemes on his own--(as he apparently had done at Jeffersonville (where Ross was apparently never on site)) as well as a few other regional courses where he was Ross's foreman.
The fairway bunker scheme that was perhaps McGovern's were sets of twos and threes where Ross's field drawings called for singles. Among other things there was a question of maintaining approximately 80 bunkers instead of over 200 but apparently that's a situation someone like you who's never even been to Aronimink and has nothing to do with it couldn't care less about---and since it doesn't cost you a thing one can understand why you'd not even want to consider such a thing.
But the fact is both the club and Prichard wanted a "Ross restoration" of their fairway bunkers and the decision was made to use the Ross drawings because at least they were sure they really were Ross's!
It is possible that the club created something on the course that was never originally built but again at least they were Ross's own.
You may think one can be sure that Ross approved those mulit-set bunkers but the fact is you can be no more sure about that than Aronimink or Prichard could---and probably a lot less sure than they could.
The fact is you may be the only one who believes those muliti-set fairway bunkers that may have been intially built should have been restored.
And then, of course, one wonders why you think that. Would that have made the Aronimink fairway bunker restoration or the course better? And if you think so how would you know if you've never even been there? My supposition is that you think that because of your dedication to this idea of the regional philosophy of the Arts and Crafts movement. It doesn't seem to be a stretch to asssume you think that even if those bunkers were McGovern's idea that that is a neat and interesting "regional" architectural application---again, along the lines of the regional philosophy of the Arts and Crafts Movement (a philosophy you seem to think was so influential or prevalent in the "Golden Age" of golf architecture that you actually suggested (in your A&C article) the "Golden Age" should be renamed or relabeled the "Arts and Crafts" era of golf design
).
But the fact remains that Aronimink wanted Ross fairway bunkers not the possibility of McGovern fairway bunkers, and, again, they did have Ross fairway bunker drawings for Aronimink in hand (literally in Prichard's hand while out there). It was not as if they went out and found that fairway bunker look on some other golf course.
I realize you think that was a mistake but you appear to be the only one who thinks that and I doubt the club or anyone else really cares what you think since you have nothing to do with the club nor have you ever even seen it in person. Even if you'd been part of the decision making process I doubt they would have taken you seriously since you knew no more than they did then----nor do you know more than they do now (although apparently you may think you do---for some odd reason).