Answering some posts I missed . . ..
If David Moriarity can interpret Alan Wilson's letter as crediting more of the design of Merion to CBM then to Hugh Wilson then I believe you guys should just stop responding to him until he brings more facts to the table.
Fascinating approach and obviously from the TEPaul school of debate; pronounce the final answer based on a quick read and incomplete knowledge of the surrounding facts, then insist that the conversation is over.
His proving that Wilson went overseas later would be an example of some fine work. But, that still doesn't eliminate the Alan Wilson letter as definitive on the design credit for Merion.
But if the letter is indeed definitive, then I am wrong on this issue as well.
__________________________________
Wilson improved Merion's 10th and by the opening Findlay thought it worthy of comparison to Prestwick's Alps.
If that were true, then I would give your interpretation (Findlay hated the 10th and convinced Wilson to make it more like the original, so that it would be of the same standard as the other CBM holes on the course) some credibility. Is there is any evidence that Wilson came back from Prestwick and immediately set out to work on the 10th?
Ulrich,
As to your last paragraph, a number of courses reported that Wilson continued to work on the course up to the opening (and after.) Far and Sure reported that he added featuers such as bunkers, mounds, and grass, between his trip and the opening.
But the best source is Findlay, In June he didn't think Merion's Alps was comparable to Prestwick's. In September he did. Something changed.
As to the rest, whatever his real purpose, I think Findlay wrote that CBM "laid out" Merion, as he uses the term.
______________________________________________
In the hand drawn sketch of #10 posted a couple time earlier in this thread it looks like a pretty significant turn to the right, any explanations as to why, or how? It doesn't seem to jive with any of the pictures or the orientation of the road (being perpendicular to the line of play).
I've tried to figure this out as well by using the buildings in some of the photos as reference, and while I am not certain I think that the line of play may have been angled to the right of the current line of play, so that the centerline would have just left of or bisecting the left bunker. Note that in one of the photos post changes there is a bunker left of the hole and it looks to be out in the middle of nowhere. It seems well left, but I wonder if it was in play??
Remember that this was supposed to be a 380+ yard hole (it wasn't) and putting it at a slight angle so the approach would be over the left corner of the green would have bought them a few yards.
_______________________________
This is taken from the Merion website:
In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion.
Hasn't this been more or less disproven now that Findlay reports Wilson himself said to never have visited the Old Country before that 1912 trip? Or is this statement an indication that the club minutes contain a passage where this decision to send Wilson abroad is detailed?
Ulrich
If it means what it seems to mean, then it has been disproven.
_____________________________________________________
This Alan Wilson report unfortunately loses some credibility due to its fabrication of a timeline that happens to promote a "hero story" about the author's brother.
This is really unfortunate, because otherwise the report is pretty clear about the roles of Wilson, committee and CBM / Whigam. As it is, it must be taken with a grain of salt.
Ulrich
While the letter is interesting and I don't really doubt much in it, there are some other issues as well. I've never read anything indicating that Alan Wilson was involved in the initial design or construction, so there is at least an issue of the basis for his knowledge. The timing issue you point out raises further questions. Plus, regarding the creation of Merion East, some of the information was no doubt second-hand-- A. Wilson said it was. And the rest of the rest of the factual information could be. In As far as factual information, I don't think there is anything new in the letter. Most or all the factual information could be found by quickly perusing Merion's records.
TEPaul's claim that we do not know for certain whether Wilson had previously gone over to study is factually incorrect.
Wilson himself notes that he went abroad to study "after" the NGLA trip.
Findlay confirms that in June 1912 Wilson wished he and gone over earlier.
Timelining Wilson's whereabouts makes a 1910 trip virtually impossible.
Ulrich, this is the answer to your question as to why these things are so contentious and drawn out. No matter how many times a point is proven, it is never conceded.
_______________________________________
My .2 cents
Macdonald was famous and highly regarded for two things, and justly so -- his promotion in America of the great British golf holes (and the underlying principles of same), and his design and creation of NGLA, the ideal golf course based on those holes and principles. It makes sense, then, that a Committee comprised of respectful men would spend part of their time looking at and discussing Macdonald’s sketches of the great British holes and/or of his American homage to those holes, and the next day walking NGLA to see what Macdonald's hand had wrought.
David M – in several posts recently you’ve been linking together hole concepts and hole placements, as if to suggest that if Macdonald had a hand in one he must’ve had a hand in the other; but that seems to me a tenuous link (of course, I guess that’s what all the disagreements are actually about, so never mind…)
Peter,
Your first paragraph ignores both the text and the context of the meeting.
I guess that one could split hole concepts and placements, but I don't think that is what happened or how CBM worked. CBM had seen the site and Merion had a contour map. You don't think he'd have offered his opinion on where to put a Redan? You don' t think they'd want to know where to put it? Why do you suppose they discarded their preliminary plans when they went to NGLA?
That being said, I am glad you accept that the holes at Merion were CBM's concepts, but many do not.
________________________________________________
What makes this question so controversial anyway that otherwise quite intelligent folks are trashing each other over it?
Is it just about the extent of CBM and HJW's involvement in the routing and design of Merion East? I don't think anyone denies they were involved in some capacity. I don't think anyone disputes that CBM mentored Hugh Wilson and basically got him started in golf architecture.
The only contentious issue seems to be the extent of their involvement. Is it enough to get a "co-design credit" or is it just some "Sunday afternoon advising" as done by many of the leading figures at that time?
Frankly, if that is all there is to this discussion, then why is the whole thing totally blown out of any proportion? Even if one of the two sides were found out to be entirely wrong, what would that really change? It would certainly not change our general understanding of how the Merion course came to be.
I am new to this discussion, but I can't help imagining some hidden agendas behind the fight over a few historical details that aren't overly important in the grand scheme of things.
Ulrich
There is absolutely no good reason it should be contentious at all. But it has been this way around here for years. There is a strong pull to stick with the Merion legend and every step away from the legend, no matter how small, has been fought and resisted to the extreme. For example even what you put forth as being beyond dispute was hotly disputed, and not that long ago.
You mention design credit, but for me at least, my goal is just to figure out what happened.
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Ulrich:
I hate to say it at this point because I really don't think it's very important due to all the rest of the material we've found fairly recently about what the Wilson Committee did in the beginning of 1911 but there isn't exactly any thing dispositive (as these lawyers on here like to say) that proves Hugh Wilson was not abroad at some point towards the end of 1910 and despite what it says in that vein in Findlay's article.
I think the essayist in question believes that because neither he nor anyone else has found some ship passenger manifest for Wilson earlier than 1912 that that proves he was never abroad earlier. For a guy like that there were definitely ways of getting over there that may not show up NOW on some ship passenger manifest that is findable.
We definitely aren't claiming that but who is really to say it isn't possible, particularly when you have a man in the wings like Clement Griscom who was the chairman of the famous "Shipping Trust" and there were a couple of MCC members and friends who had transatlantic private yachts the size of small commercial ocean liners? 
This is just flat out false for reasons that have been discussed many times before.