MikeC said;
"The primary fact that's been uncovered, of course, by both you and Wayne, is that the course was built with the multi-set of bunkers, a fact that was clearly unknown at the time the club and Ron Prichard decided what to do.
Perhaps the cost involved, and the other factors you cite would have been the overriding factors afterall, and I do think Prichard did a fine job. Both he and the club were prudent and cautious and it's tough to argue with the results, even if the course was never built that way in the first place."
MikeC:
As you may've guessed Ron Prichard and some central characters at Aronimink read GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and have followed these Aronimink bunker project threads for the last couple of years. Much of what I've said on here comes from them (we have talked about how these threads have evolved regularly). Actually Ron Prichard is a big advocate of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com---always has been and continues to be.
I've only spoken with Ron Prichard on the phone briefly (since Wayne went to the Hagley and looked at those early Aronimnk aerials) to tell him that I found out the Hagley had aerials of Aronimink for 1929 and previous and that Wayne looked at them so Ron is now aware how the course's bunkers were originally built, and so is the club.
I don't want to get ahead of Ron on this because he told me a few days ago he would send me an email summarizing his feelings about all this but he did mention on a message or email that knowing what he knows now about how the course's bunkers were originally built he would still recommend that the bunkers be done to Ross's drawings.
Obvously it's hard for some on here to appreciate how he and the club feel about those Ross hole by hole drawings, including the bunkers. He thinks those drawings are some of the best he's ever seen from Donald Ross himself. While some on here may not understand or appreciate that it does matter to them.
And despite what some, or at least one
on here says to the contrary it just is not conclusive why those bunkers were changed from Ross's drawings and it may never be conclusive.
I remember the feeling well amongst those involved in that project. First and foremost they wanted to do bunkers in this recent project that they were sure were Ross's. At the time, obviously, I thought that was an admirable restoration sentiment and goal. So it does seem ironic that such a big deal has been made out of this on this website.
You and John Goesselin (former asst super at Aronimink) have said you think it would've been neat if they had restored those multi-sets although you both said you thoroughly understand and support why they did what they did. I'm not sure I know of anyone else who thinks that would've been a neat thing to do.
I've never heard one person say they thought Aronimink made a mistake in their decision or on their recent bunkers except Tom MacWood.
On the strength of that fact alone there's really no reason at all to suppose knowing what they know now they would've done anything differently.