Press Accounts of early Merion

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

Now we're getting somewhere.

Besides, I think that hack Macdonald came up with that two-dimensional, staid, boring, outmoded, geometric Occam's Razor theory anyway!

[Mike_Cirba]

Actually...

Before I go to bed, I'd just like to say this, and I can't imagine anyone in Philadelphia or elsewhere who wouldn't have just cause to feel the same way.

If we find that Charley Macdonald had more to do with the origins of Merion, what a wonderful thing that would be!

He was clearly the father of American Golf, much more so than John Reid at St. Andrews, and even if he was a cantankerous son of a bitch, he was also a visionary, a leader, and a great architect, even to those of us who might prefer a more natural looking style.

I'm a HUGE fan of NGLA, of Mid Ocean, of Fisher's Island (ok, that's Raynor ), and Yale (ok, that's probably mostly Raynor too ), and even though we split hairs here about the good, the better, and the best, there is no question that the man was a GIANT.

If he was involved in a greater capacity at Merion than previously believed in the earliest stages of the new course, that is cause for rejoicing.

In no way would this information diminish the course in any way, or Hugh Wilson's work in any way, or William Flynn's....in fact, it would actually have the opposite effect, because of the incredible evolution that the course underwent in the first 20 or so years of its history.   

It could fairly be said that what happened during that time at Merion became the standard for every single inland course built in the United States during the next 50 years.

So if David, or anyone else, has information that proves a greater role for Macdonald, or Whigham, or Barker, or Travis, than anyone has previously learned, or discovered, isn't that a net add?

I think the truth is that the truth is probably larger than any of us every realized.

My gut feeling is that exactly like the Cobb's Creek thread that's been recently unearthed, the truth is that the addition of Ab Smith, and George Crump, and George Klauder, and J. Franklin Meehan, and Walter Travis to the story of Cobb's Creek has in NO way diminished the wonderful work and contributions of Hugh Wilson to that course in the least.

In fact, what we found out is that Hugh Wilson's involvement in Cobb's Creek was much greater than any of us really believed initially, but that there was also plenty of additional credit to go around.

If that's the case with Merion, as I suspect that it is, then let's get on with the story, because if GCA has any real-world worth, and much like the examples of Cobb's Creek, and Pine Valley prove, we're all a hell of a lot better off collaborating than competing.

Peace,
Mike

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

You are correct.  I should not lash back at these guys no matter what there behavior, even if I my response was made in jest.
_______________________
Wayne

I apologize for responding in kind to your comment.  I'll try not to let it happen again. 

________________________
Mike Cirba, 

Please stop spreading false rumors about my intentions and the originality of my research.   Thanks.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'll be happy to move on cooperatively.  You know what I know so I'll be happy to not mention it again, provided we all stay on the up and up.

I trust you'll have something exciting for us to read before too long.   If there are items that you need that you can't find from California that might be available here, (such as news articles on particular days,etc.)  as you alluded to earlier, please let us know and we'll see what we can get for you.

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil Young,

What was the date of the American Cricketer article where Tillinghast reviews the  new course at Merion?   Also, does the article mention when he played it?

Thanks!

[TEPaul]

MikeC and others:

Your post #133 is interesting but it sure makes me realize this kind of thread or investigation or discussion or whatever it is should pretty much step back at this point and review not only where it wants to go from here but where it's been.

If we're all interested in the architectural evolution of Merion East from 1916 on, I really don't think that's something that needs to be looked into here. Wayne and I and Merion can pretty much guarantee you what the exact details of that are and who was responsible. The reason I say that is we and Merion have the plans and drawings for that phase and later phases and no one can miss that's what went on the ground. Those are the "Facts" and they are unimpeachable if anyone compares those plans and drawings with the actual course. And we can pretty much guarantee you via a number of cross-referenced sources that Macdonald didn't have anything to do with the courses at that time and probably had about zero desire to have anything to do with the courses at that time and later. From those "agronomy" letters we can virtually prove that.

So, it seems that the phase we need to concentrate on is the original construction of Merion East in 1911, particularly between the spring of 1911 and around September of 1911, as well as a number of interesting events that may've preceded that time. Despite what Tillinghast said in some article in late 1912 or early 1913 that the course was "under construction" for about a year, the east course was in a basic "growing in" phase between around Sept-Oct 1911 and Sept. 1912. On that we have massive amounts of detailed specifics from Hugh Wilson. Most all of this is what we've referred to as the "agronomy" letters. This does not mean they could not have been designing or even constructing a few things in that timeframe but for reasons that should be completely obvious to everyone on here that would be something that would be quite minimal at that time and we can prove that via those "agronomy" letters which essentially track events on the course almost weekly.

But the thing that really continues to fascinate me if any of these people on here want to call themselves intelligent researchers is that perhaps no one other than a couple is even aware of or has ever seen or seriously considered two historical items from Merion---the reports of Hugh and Alan Wilson, and in my opinion, particularly Alan Wilson's.

Whenever even a few parts of them have been offered on here they've been either overlooked or dimissed for reasons that are seemingly either agenda-driven or just flat disingenuous.

If particularly Alan Wilson's report is seriously considered as to what it says and who it mentions in the context of this investigation on these threads and someone on this website like a Moriarty or a MacWood or anyone else is trying to imply that there are some "facts" out there somewhere which will significantly alter those stories and reports of what the Wilsons, particularly Alan Wilson said and certainly about Macdonald and Whigam and their part in the actual routing and design and construction of Merion East but also what he said in that vein about H. Wilson and the Construction Committee, that would essentially make a liar out of Wilson and obviously a number of other people around Merion at that time. And even worse, and more outrageous, it would make liars out of them IN THEIR OWN TIME!

We don't feel something like that is possible and we certainly don't think it's a reasonable or logical thing to assume or conclude.

But apparently Moriarty does!

He's calling on us to produce "facts" and not "speculation?"

But what has he done? What "facts" has he produced? He's produced a ship manifest from 1912 that seems quite sure to be a H. Wilson trip abroad. One item that lends credence to that is the age old "romantic" story surrounding Merion for decades that Wilson almost went down on the Titanic.

But what "Fact" has Moriarty produced that leads anyone to assume that the reports on the creation of Merion East from both Wilsons are in any way wrong or inaccurate as to who they said did Merion East as well as Macdonald's part in it?

He has not produced a single "fact" that would lead anyone to assume that and if he's trying to imply that if Wilson even made a single trip abroad in 1912 instead of another one in 1910 (as was seemignly reported) that that somehow means Macdonald/Whigam's part in the creation of Merion East was significantly more important than the Wilsons reported it was then I would suggest that it is the likes of Moriarty who is "speculating" in a truly unsupportable and unnecessary and even disingenuous way.

If anyone who has participated in these Merion threads wants to call themselves a good researcher or analyst and they have not seen those reports, particularly Alan Wilson's, or have either neglected them or worse yet dimissed them and what they say for some reason, then I would say they are decidedly NOT good researchers and good analysts and that their endeavors on this basic subject is unnecessary and will be fruitless!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

The interesting thing to me about the 1912 Ship Manifest that David produced supposedly showing Hugh I. Wilson coming from Cherbourg in 1912 is that a married man with two young children would be listed as "Single", and that a Merion man would come home to New York City when Philadelphia was a busy passenger ship port at the time, and why the "I" in the name seems very unclear, and very open to interpretation, much like the mispelling of the middle initial in George Crump's middle name that led to not being able to find his 1910 voyage.

I've now gone through enough of these logs to have a good famiilarity with how they work.

I'll produce something here very shortly to show some of the problems with using them to verify truth and FACTS. 

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Once again---eg one more time, I think all of you guys are putting way too much importance on these trips abroad and the search for them. Why is that? And if so, how does it have real relevance? Is it because Moriarty and some others have essentially convinced this site that we should all just assume that has some real relevance to who created Merion East and Macdonald/Whigam's reported part in it? I think Moriarty should at least state that or restate it here and now if that's what he thinks. Anything much less than that at this point really is sort of just playing games here.

The real point here is did Wilson and his committee actually create the East course to the extent that has been reported in those documents (the two Wilson reports) and/or do they somehow minimize to some significant extent what Macdonald/Whigam's part in the creation really was?

In my opinion, that is the central question here and THAT---eg that Macdonald/Whigam's contribution had somehow been significantly minimized----seems to be what Moriarty (and even MacWood) were trying to imply last year with this ship manifest search and newspaper reports or even the reinterpretation of some statements from back then and such.

Is that what Moriarty is still trying to imply or produce new information to prove? And if not, what is the point of these threads? If we all accept the basic accuracy of the facts contained in the Wilson reports, particularly Alan's, then it would seem we are all pretty much on the same page as to who created Merion East and how.

It really is about time on here for Moriarty to quit skirting or avoiding this specific issue and to deal with it directly right now! What facts is he looking for and does he have any idea at all what he may think they might mean? If he doesn't it seems to me he's sort of reseaching in something of a vacuum.

When I research I'm generally looking to prove or disprove something fairly specific.

I don't mind running down all kinds of roads of analysis but at least do it with some relevant goal in mind! 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I think the point I'm trying to make is that we keep getting asked to produce "Facts", and not supposition, when it seems to me that we're the only ones producing Facts! 

For instance, somehow, through some strange GCA alchemy, it's now believed as "Fact" that the 1912 manifest that David produced last year showing that a 32 year old Hugh Wilson leaving from Cherbourg, France in May of that year is indeed Hugh Irvine Wilson of Merion fame.

I think that's positivism at best, absolutely wrong at worst, and in any case, certainly something much less than "Fact".

I say that because I've spent the past couple of days looking at manifests from both Ancestry.com and the other one Rich Goodale sent to me and these things are egregiously prone to errors and vagaries of various handwriting styles, have tons of incompletions, cross-outs, permit abbreviations in many cases, and I'm hoping that whatever David is coming forth with still isn't using this sole manifest as some type of factual proof that Wilson never was in Europe prior to 1912, or even that the 1912 trip was indeed Hugh Wilson of Merion.

Here is the manifest in question;



Because of the limitations of size here, I'd ask anyone interested to right click on the image, and save it to their computer, and then blow it up using some Imaging Software like Microsoft Office Picture Manager, or Paint, or whatever you're used to using.

The first thing that becomes really questionable is the supposed letter "I".

Check it out closely and see if you could tell us that without question, that this is the letter I.   Does it look like something is crossed out below that?

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't testify that it's an "I" under oath in court! 

But, let's go on the supposition that it is indeed an I, and that there is 32 year old Hugh I. Wilson who is a US Citizen listed on the manifest.

Hugh Irvine Wilson was born on November 18, 1879 at Trenton, NJ, the son of William Potter Wilson and Ellen Dickson Wilson.  On October 16, 1905 at Philadelphia,PA Wilson married Mary Warren.  It was one of the social events of the year with Mrs. Grover Cleveland attending the wedding.  The Wilson’s had two daughters, Louise,  born October 25, 1906 and Nancy, born September 6, 1910.  Sadly,  Nancy died not six years later on July 18, 1916.

So, in May of 1912, Hugh Wilson would have been married for going on seven years, and would have had a 5 1/2 year old daughter named Louise, and a 1 1/2 year old daughter named Nancy.

Listing "Married or Single" on a manifest presumably gave the Shipping company something to go on in the event of a disaster, and an inkling whether there were direct survivors back home.   

I cannot imagine a man like Hugh Wilson listing himself as Single at that juncture in his life, or allowing the shipping company to list him as such.

Do we all still think this stands as a FACT, that this is Hugh I. Wilson from Philadelphia (don't be fooled because the ship is named "Philadelphia"...it sailed into New York City, from France) who designed Merion?

I'll produce another curious manifest shortly.

[Mike_Cirba]

When you blow up the line where the middle initial is listed, you see that something is indeed written underneath.   My best guess is a "T", but then there is something else written sort of diagonally up along the line that is pretty indistinguishable.

However, it's like the purser just decided to cross the whole darn thing out.

How would he have done it?

Oh...perhaps like this;

http://www.reallygoodstuff.com/pdfs/147779.pdf

[Mike_Cirba]

But, let's take the wild leap of faith and say that the strange scribble over another character is indeed an I, and that somehow the married Hugh Wilson with two young children shows up on his only trip overseas as a wild and single crazy American swinger....

let's pretend for a moment that this is indeed FACT, not supposition, as David claims.

Then what to make of this manifest at the end of summer, 1911, coming from Glasgow, Scotland to New York City?   

Before someone says that's a "J" and not an "I", I'd ask you to look down below lower on the manifest and see the way the writer makes his capital J's, with the bottom part extending way down below the line, such as "Jean Tosh".

Interestingly, this Hugh Wilson would fit exactly with the accounts and timelines of "Far and Sure" in American Golfer.




From my perspective, this manifest is easily the more representative of FACT than the one from France, simply because although it is vague and open to interpretive spelling like the other, it does not include any information which is simply 100% FACTually incorrect, such as the FACT that Hugh Wilson is listed as "Single".

It also fits the timelines of American Golfer and the fact that Travis, or Tillinghast, or whomever "Far and Sure" was, said Wilson went overseas in the summer...not in the spring.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I'm sure there are enough people in this world who are really interested in the reliability of ship manifests; I just don't happen to be one of them, at least not on this Merion subject unless someone can tell me what relevance it has to whether or not those Wilson reports on the creation of Merion are correct and accurate.

David Moriarty has been asked this continuously and he continues to avoid it. Believe me, I just don't think it's hard to imagine why.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I wonder what David thinks is the reason that the Hugh Wilson leaving from Cherbourg, France in May of 1912 is "Single" when the Hugh Wilson who designed Merion was married for seven years with two young children?

In some ways, if Wilson was a frequent overseas traveller I could see him almost letting them get by with that mistake.

On the other hand, as David is contending, if 1912 was the first time he travelled a transatlantic ocean liner, just 3 weeks after the TITANIC went down, and he was travelling without his wife and five and one year old daughters, I'm thinking he'd make pretty damn sure he had his affairs in order before he got on that freaking boat!!!  

If memory serves, thoughout all of the previous threads, THIS manifest, which requires the height of willing suspension of disbelief, is the ONLY supposed  NEW FACT that David has presented to date.

No wonder we're all flustered and frustrated by his antics!   

[RJ_Daley]

Before someone says that's a "J" and not an "I", I'd ask you to look down below lower on the manifest and see the way the writer makes his capital J's, with the bottom part extending way down below the line, such as "Jean Tosh".

FWIW, I as an observer to this shipwreck also don't think that the manifest is much "proof" of anything.  I tend to agree with Mike about the vaguaries of the May 1912 Cherbourge inconsistencies.  I do think Mike uses the wrong example of what other letter the "I" could be as a "J" citing Jean Tosh.  That letter used with that Hugh Wilson in the Sept 1912 manifest is clearly a "D" as evidenced by the name above Wilson, line 3 "Dorothy" someoneorother...

If David has something spectacular, I hope it is something much more compelling than these ship manifests, like I was trying to suggest over and over (other serious governmental or authentic/formal records).

I can still think of scenarios where there are elements to support that both a more heavy CB/Whigham (or whomever) and Wilson were serendipitously cooperative and this golf course design/construction project with Wilson getting the lion's share of the credit and was of no great concern or controversy to any of them, at the time...

[Kyle Harris]

Dumb question, but does Alien Passengers mean they weren't citizens of the United States already?

[DMoriarty]

David,

I'll be happy to move on cooperatively.  You know what I know so I'll be happy to not mention it again, provided we all stay on the up and up.RJD

Mike,  I don't know what you think you know.   You think you know my intentions and that I am shilling for some secret information provider, but you are wrong on both counts, so you dont really know much at all.

As far as cooperatively, your tone in the other threads is far from cooperative. 

The fact that there is a "confidentiality agreement" of sorts is probably the most absurd thing I've ever read on GolfClubAtlas.

Patrick, no offense to you...I know you're just trying to do the right thing and honor a secret promise on a subject you have interest in, but you're a stand-up guy and I find this "let's keep it from everyone til we're ready to spring it and make certain people look speculative and foolish" to be almost the height of infantilism.   

I do hope fair-minded people on GCA can see this for what it is, without having to have been privy to the trail of behind the scenes private email, plotting, and intrigue.   

What David is failing to realize however is that the world of GCA.com is amazingly small and interconnected.

So your efforts at peace and cooperation lasted about 6 or 7 hours, and you are back into the attacks on my character.   And yet I am the one with a vendetta.  Interesting.

Your source is either wrong or you taken something way out of context.  Stop stop trying to impugn my reputation based on either your faulty conclusion or a mistaken source, or both. 
______________________

Dick:
There are no vagaries.  You are looking at the wrong manifest.   "Hugh D. Wilson" is listed in the 1911 manifest, and Mike apparently thinks that this Hugh D. Wilson may be his man.      The 1911 manifest lists "Hugh I. Wilson."

Mike Cirba,   
 
I thought that during the first two weeks of September 1911 Hugh I. Wilson was in Merion seeding the East course.

As for the Hugh I. Wilson traveling in 1912, it sure looks like an "I." to me.   Your theory that Hugh I. Wilson, traveling alone, would have made darn sure that he was listed as married, is just the kind of unsupported and unsupportable conjecture that fails to advance the discussion one bit. 

New York was apparently the port of choice for many Philadelphans.  Merion's Griscom family usually traveled into New York, sometimes from Cherbourg.   Not surprisingly, the Hugh I Wilson traveling in 1912 was traveling on one of their ships.   

_________________
Kyle, generally that is what Alien means, but I believe these manifests were required to list all passengers, even US Citizens. 

[TEPaul]

"I thought that during the first two weeks of September 1911 Hugh I. Wilson was in Merion seeding the East course."

David:

I'm quite sure we can determine that with 100% certainty. Do you have any idea how? 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

The "vagaries" that Dick are talking about include the fact that something is writtin under the supposed "I", then written over.   Is that an I or a deletion edit mark?   It's very, very difficult to tell.

Other than his age listed as 32, do we know ANYTHING at all about this person who you believe is now PROVEN as FACT to be Hugh Wilson of Merion?

Where is he from?

Is he married?   This says NO, but Wilson was married with 2 very young children.

Does he say what he does for a living?

Does it offer ANYTHING, ANYTHING at ALL in the way of FACT?

The Griscom's owned plenty of ships...that was their business!   The fact that this passenger was on one of them is about the same odds of me flying US Air out of Philadephia over Delta.

Yes, this scribbled entry, with something crossed out and written over, with HALF OF THE FACTUAL INFORMATION presented being DEAD WRONG is being presented to us as EVIDENCE.

David, you'd be laughed out of court if this is the foundation of your case! 

I'm really surprised that Patrick didn't take you through the drill if this is what you're presenting.

So, I just did it for him.   

This evidence is clearly inadmissable, and indicative of absolutely nothing at all about the defendant, Hugh Wilson.

You'd better have a more relevant Exhibit B, counselor. 


David,

I'll take you at your word that your intentions here are as pure as the driven snow, so I'll do my best to keep it on the up and up, as well.   If I was misinformed, I sincerely apologize.

I do still reserve the right to vigorously debate this issue, but I'll try to keep it to a cooperative, collegial spirit.  And, if you need other material that isn't available to you in CA, I would do my best to find it for you. 

Mike

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Tom Paul thinks I'm nuts too, but the more evidence I read, the more I'm thinking that perhaps Wilson's trip too place during the summer of 1911.

I say that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the "Far and Sure" accounts in American Golfer, but also because of what I learned about course building at the time during my research on Cobb's Creek. 

Construction on CC started in April 1912, and the Committee had hoped to be able to open all 18 holes by September of that year!     We also know that Merion West was conceptualized, constructed, and opened in under a year!

Evidently, grow-in took longer than expected at Merion East...probably some of the same type of agronomic problems these guys were all trying to solve through those letters, and that seem to have occurred at Pine Valley, NGLA, Merion, and Cobb's Creek.

But the actual course "building"...that was a relatively quick process, because in the case of Cobb's Creek, not much in the way of unnatural features, mass earthmoving, or bunkering was done up front.   That was left for a later phase.   Such seems to have been the case at Merion East, as well.   I'm of the belief that what was done in this initial phase was just sketching out and clearing the raw routing, tilling the soil perhaps, and constructing very basic features like greens and tees.

We know from "Far and Sure" that when the new Merion course opened in the fall of 1912, there was little in the way of bunkering, and "most of the holes were but rough drafts of the problems being determined by Hugh Wilson and Committee" (paraphrased...don't have the exact quote in front of me).

So, we now know from the Tillinghast article that a "plan" for the course was in place by spring of 1911, "building" supposedly took place pretty quickly, and I'm beginning to think once that  was done, perhaps in the May/June timeframe is when Wilson went overseas.   

Back at the ranch, you had Francis who was a surveyor, and more importantly, you had Fred Pickering onsite to keep the work going.   In fact, much like Joe Burbeck, Pickering's work in "constructing" the course led to at least one newspaper crediting him with "laying out" Merion when the course opened.   It may have been this absence with Hugh Wilson out of town that led to that perception.

Pickering by this time had been responsible for the construction of a number of highly regarded courses in Massachusetts, including Wollaston, Woodlands (working with Alex Findlay), and a few others, and after Merion, went to Seaview to work with Hugh Wilson on that project as well, and later did the construciton of Pittsburgh Field Club.   He was experienced and capable.

The 1911 trip overseas is pure speculation on my part David, but it does seem to match what I understand about how construction happened back then.

I'm hoping that a trip to the USGA in the near future will determine when he was in Philadephia or not after February, 1911.   Unfortunately, those Piper/Oakley letters don't go back before then so we'd have no way proving that he was overseas if it were 1909 or 1910.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,
A
I disagree with your interpretation the manifests and the conclusions you draw for those interpretations, for reasons stated.   Absent further discovery, no need for either of us to belabor the point further. 

David,

I'll take you at your word that your intentions here are as pure as the driven snow, so I'll do my best to keep it on the up and up, as well.   If I was misinformed, I sincerely apologize.

I do still reserve the right to vigorously debate this issue, but I'll try to keep it to a cooperative, collegial spirit.  And, if you need other material that isn't available to you in CA, I would do my best to find it for you.

Vigorously debate the issue?  I welcome that.  Let's do it now.   But what you have done so far is slur, defamation, and unsupported innuendo. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Please see above...I added to my post.   

I'd simply point out that you can't get around the fact that the manifest is wrong.   There is no room for interpretation.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, the manifest lists him as single and he was traveling alone.   Otherwise the match is extremely accurate.  But if you would rather throw it out and go with Hugh D. Wilson, traveling in September 1911 and before, go for it!

Here is an honest question:   If the Hugh I. Wilson manifest you are railing against had as its travel date 1910, instead of 1912, would you still want to dismiss it outright?   

[JESII]

David,

You are being selective in your requirement for accuracy.

Maybe everybody is.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Honestly, if the year was 1910, and I were going to present that as him, I would have about a 50% comfort level based on the fact that he was listed as Single", as well as the fact that the letter that might be an "I" is written over the top of something else.

That would be just based on the document alone.

Other considerations, which I'll try to outline shortly, would reduce that probability in my mind.

[Joe Bausch]

I'm not saying at this point whether I think that 1912 manifest is our boy or not.  I'll just not familiar enough with ship manifests yet to reach any conclusion at this time.  However, it is very fascinating.

I'm not sure how easily or willing people were to blow up that section and look at the handwriting, etc.  I've done that below: