That quote of Alan Wilson's seems pretty clear. What reason would he have for saying such a thing, if the work of an already-established architect was used to create the course? Or, because of his own inherent bias, would that inevitably be additional evidence that in fact a professional architect was used?
. . .
Is it that Mr. Wilson didn't consider M&W to be architects, or that he didn't consider that the nature of their contribution was such that they were "used" in the way he meant? Just a possibility. What possible reason would Mr. Wilson have to diminish the accompishments of Macdonald? Was there an animosity there?
Kirk,
You really lose me here about the Alan Wilson letter. It seems clear to me as well, but it is almost as if you have a different letter.
I do not seeing the letter as disparaging Macdonald's work at all. In fact the letter leaves little doubt that M&W were very involved in the initial design of Merion. If I recall correctly, AW essentially says that
except for what M&W contributed, Hugh was the designer. I don't view this is disparaging at all, but rather as confirmation that M&W contributed. Keep in mind that the letter wasn't just about the formation of Merion East, but about the formation and evolution of both courses.
As for Barker, Alan Wilson may not have even known he existed. I have seen no evidence that Alan Wilson was involved in what was going on in 1910 with the course. Plus, by 1926 Barker's name hadn't come up in conjunction with Merion in years. So it doesnt make sense to me that Alan Wilson would have been disavowing Barker's contribution in this letter. Whether he contributed or not, Barker had long ago been cut out of the process.
But there was a professional architect whose name had become closely associated with Merion by 1926. If Alan Wilson was worried that any professional architect would receive credit rightfully due his brother, that professional architect would most likely have been William Flynn.
Indeed, something appeared in a golf magazine in 1926 that might have given any brother pause. A rendering of Merion East was published and displayed prominently on that rendering were the words:
PLAN BY
WILLIAM S. FLYNN
GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT
ARDMORE, PANow surely William Flynn could not have meant that he planned Merion, but must have meant that he drew up that particular plan. But still, the wording suggests otherwise. As Flynn was well known by then a little protectionism by Hugh's brother would not have been in the least bit surprising.
By the way, the same logic applies equally to Tillinghast's comments in 1934. There is no reason to think that Tillinghast thought CBM and HJW were stealing Hugh's thunder. I don't recall a mention of them in association with Merion until back in 1914.
If anyone was being credited with more than he deserved at Merion in 1926 or 1934, it was William S. Flynn. Who else could it have been?