Mac, I don't give a damn whether Merion closed their old course in 1912 or 1913, or both. My point is a more general one about the nature of our discussions and what should and should not pass for fact. Surely you realize this, don't you?
For the record, I don't think Lesley was a liar. To me he is perhaps the most interesting and compelling character on the Merion side of the drama, and certainly the one I can relate to most. So far, everything I have read from him and about him has checked out.
So I take him at his word when he reported that:
1. The old course was closed on September 14, 1914.
2. On that same date, the membership celebrated the final curtain falling on the old course.
3. Declaration Day (July 4) of 1914, was the date on which the members could play both courses.
Lesley did discuss the overcrowding of the course in the article, but made no mention of the course reopening in 1913, and as you can see that is rather inconsistent with what he said about the course closing, the final curtain, and two courses being available beginning Declaration Day of 1914.
Now if for whatever reason this isn't the full story or is otherwise inaccurate or misleanding, then all TEPaul needs to do is provide the information proving differently.
To clarify my position, Mac, I am not saying for sure when the other course was closed. I wasn't there, so I have no basis for saying one way or another. All I can do is analyze the available evidence and base my conclusions on that evidence. But TEPaul's claim as to what between what evidence says and means CANNOT substitute for actual, verifiable evidence. The same goes for what I might declare some source material might say or mean.
Let me give you a few examples.
1. If I told you I had a photograph of the hog's back, swale, and green that served as the inspiration for CBM's concept, and then I proceeded to tell you what the hole looked like, would you take my word for it or would you want to to see the photograph. If I were you, I'd want to see the photograph. Likewise, if I were you I'd want to see whatever it it is that TEPaul is basing this current claim on.
[By the way Mac, this may not be a hypothetical. I do have a photograph that may well show the original inspiration for the Biarritz, at least the area from the "hog's back" on, but I am still looking into it.]
2. [Second Example Removed and text below slightly modified.]
But the problem isn't that document's are misinterpreted. As I said, this is to be expected and is part of the process. The problem is when POSTERS REFUSE TO BACK UP THEIR CONCLUSIONS WITH THE SOURCES. The related problem is that MOST HERE D0 NOT CHALLENGE UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS OR DEMAND THAT THE CLAIMS BE BACKED UP WITH FACT. It may seem the polite thing to do, but it is a recipe for shoddy history, mistakes, and the continuation of unsupported and unsupportable legend.
There are dozens of real world examples) of what can and will happen when we rely on those with relationships with these clubs to simply tell us what the records mean instead of examining the documents and figuring it out for ourselves. Haven't you noticed the number of official club histories that have their own information wrong? This could all be avoided by an open discourse and vetting process.
In fact, that is the real beauty of an open discourse and vetting process. It works. Relying on another's word for it, no matter how well meaning, doesn't work.