"Thats true, but the other high profile Philadelphia courses, that opened around the same time (PV & Merion), had those involved in the design mentioned in those same major magazines. What made Seaview different? Of all people you would think Tilly would be sensitive to the crediting of an architect, or architects."
There is at least one on this website who asks endless questions such as the one above because apparently he can't even distinguish between the purpose of various articles written about various golf courses at various times and understand that the purposes of those various articles might be quite different. It seems the articles written by Tillinghast himself and by Tillinghast under the pseudonym "Hazard" about Seaview have to do with the opening of the golf course and the significant players/participants attached to that opening----eg extremely newsworthy in and of itself!
Other articles by reporters, including Tillinghast, were clearly done simply to review a golf course and its architecture and the purpose of an article like that would and generally did include who designed the course, and perhaps something about that architect.
A lot has gone on over the years at Merion, for instance, and every time something goes on there and is reported the architect is not necessarily mentioned unless of course the article's point and purpose is about the architecture of the golf courses.
But no matter the point of any article on any course, and how different that may be in particular articles, this constant questioner seems to assume that if the architect of record is not mentioned in every case and in every article that must mean there is some reason to suspect if the architect of record is actually historically accurate and to therefore it should be reasonable or worth discussing to open up the question of perhaps if it was someone else who may've been the architect, including some who were never really mentioned in regard to being the architect of record of that golf course.