Interesting stuff on the original 10th (Alps).
The problem with analyzing that hole is there are no drawings of it (I've ever seen) and the photographic evidence of it (at any particular time) is somewhat confusing.
We certainly do know there was a very large constructed mound behind the green (maybe 12+ feet high) because we have multiple photographs of it from behind the green and also photos of it right at the green.
What we don't have is particularly reliable photos from somewhere in front of the green and from somewhere near the old approach shot area. All we have from in front of that green is that Tillie photo from the tee in 1912 making it around 300 yards away).
It is also interesting to recall that the colorized photo was from 1911 (so that at least dates the first evidence of the mound behind the green). I'd sort of forgotten that photo was from a dinner program. Merion's archives include numerous dinner and menu items because primary Merion historian Capers likes that stuff a whole lot too.
I would throw in this idea at the moment. Findlay mentions in his June 1912 article that at that point Wilson felt to make this hole any good it would still take "some making." Does that mean, at that point (June 1912) there was no "alps" mound somewhere in front of the green? It probably does. I'd also included that Findlay's article was also some months before the course formally opened for play----but Tillie's photo was a few months after the course opened for play (plenty of time to be able to add a prominent mound in front (between June 1912 and the Fall of 1912).
The next problem is to figure out if the prominent mound we can see in the 1912 photo (Tillinghast's) is the same mound behind the green or another mound that Wilson and Merion had constructed somewhere in front of the green between June 1912 and the date that Tillinghast photo was taken (the Fall of 1912).
It probably was and that would be why the green was blind and considered so when the hole opened for play. I say that because if one stands on the land at this time (or even before any construction or after the hole was changed there is really nothing landform-wise between the tee shot LZ and where that old green once was that would make visibility to that old green area blind.
It's just so hard to see where that mound is that we can see on that Tillinghast photo. Is it on the tee side of Ardmore Ave, on the other side of Ardmore Ave somewhere in front of the green making the hole one that had a prominent mound both in front somewhere and behind? Or is it the mound behind the green that we've always known existed?
The problem is there is no clear photographic evidence of a really prominent fronting mound I've ever seen. If the mound we see in the Tillinghast photo is somewhere in front of the green (either on the tee side OR green side of Ardmore Ave, it must have been right in line with the mound behind the green (or we could probaby see that mound behind the gree too in that Tillie photo).
Honestly, the top of the mound behind the green looks quite a bit flatter to me (in the earlier colorized photo from behind the green than the sort of convex top of the mound we can see in the Tillinghast photo of the hole from the tee.
I would have to think if that original hole in play really was a blind approach to that original green there must have been a prominent mound somewhere between the approach area and the green too because I do know from real familiarity with that land that if there wasn't another prominent mound in there somewhere that approach shot to that original green just wouldn't been that blind at all (it's pretty flat from the 10th fairway LZ all the way across the street to the present first fairway where the original 10th green used to be).
This doesn't have much of anything to do with who routed and designed Merion East in 1911 though, except I suppose one could assume if Macdonald had actually routed AND DESIGNED the features on that original hole or routed and DESIGNED the features of any other hole at Merion East in 1911, then one certainly would wonder why Wilson was still struggling at the time of that Findlay article to come up with what had to be "made" to make the hole any good! If Macdonald had routed and DESIGNED the course and certainly that hole why then hadn't he just shown Wilson and his Committee what to do ON APRIL 6, 1911, the one and only AND LAST day he was at Merion for the purpose of "helping and advising them" with a paper plan in hand, as to the "making" of the hole?
After all, according to Moriarty, all Wilson and his committee were in the creation of Merion were a group of guys who were just responsible for "building" the course according to a set plan from someone else (Macdonald/Whigam or perhaps H.H. Barker?).
On that note, and once again, if Moriarty's definition of what "laying out" meant is even semi-correct----eg "laying out" only meant "building" to a drawn paper plan from someone else and not routing and designing a course on a paper plan THEMSELVES----then how could they have said they "laid out numerous different courses and plans" in the winter of 1911 A NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFORE ANYTHING was BUILD AT ARDMORE and A NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFORE the club even APPROVED of ANYTHING to get built??
That wouldn't make any sense at all, would it? Of course not. Therefore, Wilson and his committee were doing exactly what we've said they were doing, and they said they were doing----eg creating numerous different routings and design plans on paper (their topo survey maps we know they had as early as the beginning of Feb 1, 1911) in the winter of 1911, a number of months before anything was approved and certainly a number of months BEFORE ANYTHING WAS BUILT!!