Patrick. I dont know that there was a hill. Dont really care. Nor do I care if this was really Alps Hole, under your definition. I do know this:
-- A number of prominent writers and designers credit CBM with advising on the design of the course.
-- A number of prominent writers and designers considered this hole an "Alps" hole, modeled after No. 17 at Prestwick.
-- The green complex is very similar in some key respects (the semi-circular bank and the fronting bunker) to those designed by CBM around the same time, and to the way CBM described the Alps green complex in his article which was intended to be a model for Alps' holes for other architects.
Beyond that, I dont care if it really was an Alps hole under your definition.
On the other side, we have you and others speculating as to why these writers may have been wrong, or trying to mislead their readers . . .
Perhaps, due to his reputation, and the clamoring for good golf courses in the Philadelphia area, the writers were trying to tie the design of Merion to CBM's coat tails in order to give it more appeal.
So you are telling us writers motives from 90 years ago, and telling us they really didnt mean what they all wrote?
Now this is an example of revisionist history. In my book, we ought to give the presumption to those who were there and who wrote about it at the time, and give their descriptions weight until they they are proven wrong. You havent come close to proving them wrong.
I have played Merion East, but later than 1914.
But really, I dont care.
My involvement in all this was to suggest that perhaps Merion East was a substantial departure than the Haverford Merion, and that Merion east embraced concepts from the Links courses and also from those influenced by the Links courses.
Nothing has been written here to make me doubt that this speculation on my part is innaccurate in the least bit.