What's missing in this photograph? Why?

[TEPaul]

"Crump died in 1913, right?"

Crump died on Jan 24, 1918

"Four holes were built out by Wilson after that, right?"

Not necessarily, even though Hugh Wilson did serve as PV's green chairman for a time after Crump died

"And in 1921 the course was fully open, right?"

In the spring of 1922.

"You guys have narrowed down the changes were made between 1913 and 1920, right?"

Somewhat; at least a bit more than previously.

"Wouldn't it seem that Wilson would have done the work as he built out the remaining holes?"

Again, not necessarily. At least neither he nor his brother or anyone around PV at the time seemed to mention such a thing. Both of them most assuredly did contribute to the agronomic development of the place and to a number of its necessary fixes both before and after Crump died. In 1919, William Flynn actually went on the payroll and apparently spent a few days a week there for about six months. Flynn also may've overseen the Alison architectural suggestions along with PV foreman/pro/clubmaker Jim Govan and perhaps even an occasional assist from architect and PV member George Thomas. Amazingly, we also find that Flynn's soon to be partner, Howard Toomey was not only a member he was apparently on the board of PV around this time. But Toomey was not exactly an architect, he was an engineer and apparently quite adept at some agronomic application developments.

It also seems that very little was done at PV architecturally after Crump's sudden death and perhaps for up to three years until Alison became involved in the beginning of 1921 and that might even be extended to close to four years when you consider the USA's involvement in WW1 in 1917-18.

And there is more. I guarantee you some of the stuff that our contributor/dedicated On-the-ground researcher Rick Sides is coming up with on original deeds and such is potentially amazing, at least it is to me.

[TEPaul]

"Of some interest may be the fact that the flash of sand has old stacks of sod behind it and behind and that I was told when working there that the whole green is framed up with treated timbers."

Steve:

Now that sure could be a remarkable revelation. That is certainly something I've never heard before. If that were true a core of the strata would most probably reveal it. On that note, Colt's hole by hole booklet notes could be a key but he sure never mentioned anything like that. All he seemed to say is such as "tear away" and basically go down X feet.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Obviously, my artistry is anything but. 

What do you think that thing in red is eyeing a...nay...eyeing THE perfect spot for his bunker?  ;

[paul cowley]

Perhaps a comparison of the photo that started this thread as well as a shot I think from a very similar spot and angle:



This from October, 2009:

...seems to me that the left side of the green was either grassed to stabilize, or the grass grew down it....the trees shown got to big and were cut down... and the large right side bunker was divided into two, leaving the DA. from the looks of it they might have shifted it to the left while using the excavation material to build the neck/seperation between the two....I doubt they would have brought in dirt instead of a simple cut and fill to the right.

the current form is just a good example of the effects of sand splash and grass moving in to fill faces and find a way to grow in the sun.

but its really tough to judge unless the before and after pictures are taken from the same spot.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I realize you may've been speaking of other factors but those are some pretty clever observations on your part and perhaps fairly historically interesting in some of the impracticalities of some of the architecture of some of the old holes that particularly were totally surrounded by sand bunkering----eg the best example probably being the Macdonald/Raynor "Short" template hole. It seems to me many of them were originally totally surrounded by sand bunkering and over time the impracticality of golfers approaching and particularly exiting those greens through the sand and in some cases wooden stairs necessitated at some point the addition of grass walkways and such. It appears from the original photo (arguably constructed and seeded in the late summer/early fall of 1913) of the 10th sans the DA that Crump et al thought of that with the right front grass walkway and of course there is not much in the way of bunkering in the rear for easy egress to the 11th tee.

Of course we can see from that original photo that the front right grass walkway was the only way to get back out of those bunkers (due to their vertical sand faces) and up on the green other than in the back. Today it's perhaps not completely recommended but it certainly is possible for golfers to come up on the green on some of the other grassed down faces, which as the say, have gotten quite "easy" (not so vertical and certainly not sand but grass).

[Mike Cirba]

Sometimes, we're so busy looking at the trees we miss the forest.

What seems to be just perhaps a shadow from a photographer in the foreground of this black and white photo...




...turns out to be the real architect, when modern colorization technology is selectively applied! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Hopefully, some will turn up, but, I'm also interested in photos that depict the migration of the bunker."

Patrick:

Something tells me when you start talking about the "migration" of the DA you might be implying that the bunker has been moving or moved on its own throughout time or that someone is suggesting such a thing.

The ONLY one infering that is YOU.
Perhaps you missed or can't remember a reply to Bill Rocco on how things happen at Pine Valley.

And looking at the various photos over an extended period of time of that hole and bunker that very well might be the case, but not or probably not if you're somehow suggesting that bunker is moving all by itself which I find truly hilarious.

What I find hilarious is how you could draw that inference, especially in light of my replies to Bill Rocco and others on the subject of how things get done at Pine Valley.

I suspect that your closet doors were left open when you were a toddler, causing you to see boogeymen everywhere

Have you ever considered it very well may've been rebuilt or even repositioned over time, maybe even a number of times, for various reasons such as it was getting torn up by time and tide such as sheet flow?


Considered it.  You idiot , I'm the one who suggested that in the first place.
Haven't you been reading this thread ?  ?

Knowing the way you think you probably think it magically moved on its own somehow.
There's a good reason for everything if you look carefully enough even though you don't seem to be very good at figuring out why or how.


That's really funny.
You're the one who claimed that the bunker just magically evolved.
Here's your quote from your reply, reply # 26

I have always heard from the club the DA did sort of begin to evolve in some way and eventually they just sort of formalized it.

[/u]

But, what's really interesting is that you're championing conflicting positions, which isn't unusual for you.
On one hand you claim that Crump's red circle was the DA he intended and on the other hand you tell us that the bunker just evolved.
You can't have it both ways, please, in the name of consistency, make up your mind, which position do you claim ...... today.
 [/size]
 
Have you figured out yet why what you think was the front of that green on the "blue/red line" topo (and on Colt's drawing which you've never seen) very likely wasn't?  

Tom MacWood's reply # 113 clearly shows the red circle as a FLANKING feature in that green, not a fronting feature.
I'll trust my eyes in analyzing the schematics in reply # 113 versus your's or anyone else's interpretation
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I said on Post #190:

“Knowing the way you think you probably think it magically moved on its own somehow.
There's a good reason for everything if you look carefully enough even though you don't seem to be very good at figuring out why or how.”


You said on Post #206:

“That's really funny.
You're the one who claimed that the bunker just magically evolved.
Here's your quote from your reply, reply # 26”

From Post #26:
"I have always heard from the club the DA did sort of begin to evolve in some way and eventually they just sort of formalized it."




This is from Post #26. Is this what you’re referring to in your Post #206?

From Tim Nugent:

"About the bunker on 10, dad said Eb told him that it came about because of wear and tear.  Evidently, balls would roll off the green and come to rest in that spot. Due to repeated pitch shot and foot taffic on/off the green, the turf wore out and was hard to re-establish.  Eventually they gave in and allowed it to become a bunker."


My response to Tim in Post #26:

“Tim:
I have always heard from the club the DA did sort of begin to evolve in some way and eventually they just sort of formalized it. No one ever actually mentioned who said that. If Eb Steineger told your Dad what you mentioned above then that is the closest thing to a direct oral history of the feature I've heard.”


Patrick:

Is that what you’re referring to in your Post #206 above?

If so, perhaps you may want to give some thought to the fact that Eb Steineger who was the greenskeeper at Pine Valley for close to 50 years knew more about the history and evolution of that course and the features on it than you do or ever will.  

[Doug Wright]

...I do think this particular thread is one of the best for a really good historical, investigation/analysis of some amazing details of a significant old golf hole and feature I've ever seen on this website.

I very much concur with this. The analysis and study of unique architectural features like this and their evolution is fascinating (at least to this GCA geek). I suspect we could spend a lot of time going through PV hole by hole with this exercise and find a lot to discuss. Some have already been covered in this way to some extent, like 12.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You said,[/zize]

If so, perhaps you may want to give some thought to the fact that Eb Steineger who was the greenskeeper at Pine Valley for close to 50 years knew more about the history and evolution of that course and the features on it than you do or ever will.


Steineger didn't become the superintendent at Pine Valley until 1928, years after the DA first appeared, hence he wouldn't have first hand knowledge of its origins.

Steineger's knowledge of Pine Valley probably exceeded all but a few, but, that doesn't grant him infallibility, nor does it lend credence to alleged hearsay two and three parties removed.

Rather than grasp at straws and/or grant credibility to wishful thinking, let's discover concrete evidence and not create or perpetuate myths.

[archie_struthers]

 


Hey guys gotta work today but we are playing golf tomorrow, Can't resist after two and an half months off....anyone who wants to visit Greate Bay manana give me a shout ...we will have a couple good games going...a scratch game and a net game no doubt

[Joe Bausch]

How do we get in touch with you quickly Archie?

[TEPaul]

"Steineger didn't become the superintendent at Pine Valley until 1928, years after the DA first appeared, hence he wouldn't have first hand knowledge of its origins.

Steineger's knowledge of Pine Valley probably exceeded all but a few, but, that doesn't grant him infallibility, nor does it lend credence to alleged hearsay two and three parties removed.

Rather than grasp at straws and/or grant credibility to wishful thinking, let's discover concrete evidence and not create or perpetuate myths."


Pat:

That's one way of presenting this and looking at it----eg apparently your way.

I think a more historically realistic way would be to add and mention that even though Steineger first came to PV in March 1927 with superintendent Norman Mattiace, he took a year off and traveled the country, and when he came back he took over from Mattiace when he was fired by JAB in 1928. However, the original foreman/greenkeeper under George Crump who lived on the property from March 1914 and was with Crump constantly remained at PV about for 30 years and into WW2 as the club's pro/clubmaker. Therefore, with that kind of constant direct and daily contact I see very little reason why Steineger and Govan who was there when the DA first developed and was finalized would not have talked about it in specific evolutionary detail. Again, Govan was there and he was Crump's construction foreman and was probably responsible for everything to do with the course and with the DA from its origination and on until around 1927. Again, Govan remained at PV until WW2 at which point his son George who had lived at PV since 1914 took over as PV's pro. So, even though you call it hearsay and two or three parties removed I won't call it that because it really wasn't.

I have no problem really with your form of constant "Devil's Advocacy" about the details of the histories of some of these clubs but it most certainly does not make for a complete, an informed, and an accurate history with any of them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think a more historically realistic way would be to add and mention that even though Steineger first came to PV in March 1927 with superintendent Norman Mattiace, he took a year off and traveled the country, and when he came back he took over from Mattiace when he was fired by JAB in 1928. However, the original foreman/greenkeeper under George Crump who lived on the property from March 1914 and was with Crump constantly remained at PV about for 30 years and into WW2 as the club's pro/clubmaker. Therefore, with that kind of constant direct and daily contact I see very little reason why Steineger and Govan who was there when the DA first developed and was finalized would not have talked about it in specific evolutionary detail. Again, Govan was there and he was Crump's construction foreman and was probably responsible for everything to do with the course and with the DA from its origination and on until around 1927. Again, Govan remained at PV until WW2 at which point his son George who had lived at PV since 1914 took over as PV's pro. So, even though you call it hearsay and two or three parties removed I won't call it that because it really wasn't.

You don't know what was said so how can you claim it wasn't hearsay.

Secondly, you're out of touch with reality with respect to superintendent's succession.
Do you really believe that when one superintendent takes over for another that they discuss the evolutionary history of every architectural feature on the golf course ?  Think about what you're saying before you reply.

A new superinetendent is concerned about the golf course he inherits on the day he takes over, not the course as it existed 10 years ago.
While there might be residual concerns with a problem area, a superintendent couldn't care less if a bunker was reconfigured or repositioned 5 or 10 years ago, he's concerned about what confronts him, agronomically, not architectural history.

I have no problem really with your form of constant "Devil's Advocacy" about the details of the histories of some of these clubs but it most certainly does not make for a complete, an informed, and an accurate history with any of them.

That's funny.
You were the one who fought with Tom MacWood over the circumstances surrounding Crump's death.
MacWood was informed and accurate, you chose to be uninformed and inaccurate, perpetuating the myth.

Moriaraty proved that Wilson did not visit the UK as Merion's history indicated.
He was informed and accurate.  You chose to be uninformed and inaccurate, again perpetuating the myth.

Moriarty and MacWood also indicated that the original 10th at Merion was indeed an "Alps" hole, something I disagreed with them on, until they presented photographic and documented evidence confirming their position.

I've been open minded on the issues/theories presented, you've been the one trying to maintain and perpetuate the status quo on myths.

And now, you're relying on undocumented, alleged hearsay, several parties and 32 + years removed, which conflicts with the photographic evidence and modis operandi at Pine Valley regarding the DA.

But, what's really funny, is that earlier, you claimed that Crump's red circle represented the DA.
If that's the case, then the DA couldn't have evolved out of thin air, which was your second theory, your new Steineger theory, a theory in direct conflict with your first theory, and a theory which is in direct conflict with Steineger's alleged representation, which you now cling to.

Instead of grasping at straws, relying on wishful thinking and hearsay, I've relied on the photographic evidence presented to date.

I was also the one that pointed out that the DA had migrated and changed in form, debunking the myths over foot traffic, compaction and drainage, something you finally agreed to, but acted as though you had discovered the difference, a difference that you implied I was unaware of.

I think you'll find my position is rather consistent, not vascilating from one extreme to the other.
I think you'll find my position is bolstered by photographic evidence, not speculation and/or alleged hearsay 32+ years removed.

As to the D.A.
It seems that the DA was not in the original "as built", it appears subsequently and it's location is removed from the face of the bank.
It migrates into the green and currently resides adjacent to the green, into the bank.  Over the years, in addition to its location, its configuration has changed.

The challenge is FIRST to identify when those changes occured, then discover why and under who's direction and supervision, and NOT to perpetuate a myth, Steineger's or anyone else's

[Mac Plumart]

If you are trying to find out about the bunker in question on Pine Valley's 10th hole, why is this quote from Patrick's last post not 100% correct?

"The challenge is FIRST to identify when those changes occured, then discover why and under who's direction and supervision"


As a matter of intense interest to me is, how do you accomplish step one first?
 
Y'all have collected pictures and seemed to have narrowed down the time frame.  How do you narrow it down to the precise time?  Does Pine Valley have archives that will yield pictures, notes, minutes that could provide evidence?  If so, who can go get them?  Are there any other options that can shed light on this?

[TEPaul]

"Secondly, you're out of touch with reality with respect to superintendent's succession.
Do you really believe that when one superintendent takes over for another that they discuss the evolutionary history of every architectural feature on the golf course ?  Think about what you're saying before you reply."


Patrick:

I most certainly would think so in the particular case of Pine Valley when you have a man, in this case Jim Govan who had served from March 1914 until Crump's death as his constant companion, companion shot-tester, construction foreman, GREENSKEEPER, pro and club-maker and continued as the club's pro/club-maker AND construction foreman and GREENSKEEPER until 1927 when Norman Mattiace became the greenskeeper and brought Eb Steineger with him from their former club. Following 1927 Jim Govan remained the club's pro/clubmaker until WW2.

Therefore, if you for some odd reason think that Eb Steineger and Jim Govan remained on the same property working there every day together for the next seventeen years and never discussed the history and evolution of all or most of the features of Pine Valley that Jim Govan had been responsible for constructing AND maintaining both during Crump's lifetime and afterwards, and certainly including the origins and evolution of the DA, then I think it is vey much you who is really out of touch with reality and should think very seriously before you make most of the incredibly stupid replies on here that you so often do make such as the one above that those two men probably never even discussed these kinds of things with one another because as something as mundane as a technical superintendent succession, and particularly when a former superintendent remains with the club for almost two decades after the one in question---Eb Steineger took over in that capacity!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Secondly, you're out of touch with reality with respect to superintendent's succession.
Do you really believe that when one superintendent takes over for another that they discuss the evolutionary history of every architectural feature on the golf course ?  Think about what you're saying before you reply."


Patrick:

I most certainly would think so in the particular case of Pine Valley when you have a man, in this case Jim Govan who had served from March 1914 until Crump's death as his constant companion, companion shot-tester, construction foreman, GREENSKEEPER, pro and club-maker and continued as the club's pro/club-maker AND construction foreman and GREENSKEEPER until 1927 when Norman Mattiace became the greenskeeper and brought Eb Steineger with him from their former club. Following 1927 Jim Govan remained the club's pro/clubmaker until WW2.

Therefore, if you for some odd reason think that Eb Steineger and Jim Govan remained on the same property working there every day together for the next seventeen years and never discussed the history and evolution of all or most of the features of Pine Valley that Jim Govan had been responsible for constructing AND maintaining both during Crump's lifetime and afterwards, and certainly including the origins and evolution of the DA, then I think it is vey much you who is really out of touch with reality and should think very seriously before you make most of the incredibly stupid replies on here that you so often do make such as the one above that those two men probably never even discussed these kinds of things with one another because as something as mundane as a technical superintendent succession!  

Then tell us EXACTLY what they said !

AND, DOCUMENT IT.

If you can't, and we know you can't, then everything alleged is just speculation, wishful thinking and myth perpetuation on your part

I'd prefer to work with documented facts.

[TEPaul]

"As a matter of intense interest to me is, how do you accomplish step one first?
 
Y'all have collected pictures and seemed to have narrowed down the time frame.  How do you narrow it down to the precise time?  Does Pine Valley have archives that will yield pictures, notes, minutes that could provide evidence?  If so, who can go get them?  Are there any other options that can shed light on this?"


Mac:

Of course there are other options and other evidence and some of it has been supplied on this very thread. Anyone is free to interpret that additional evidence and those options any way they want to but the ultimate question here, at least for me, is not to determine exactly the date the DA may've come to be formed even if as a depression that was formalized into a bunker, but to figure out who it was who likely conceptualized and called for it. There is some additional evidence now it was Crump and I think that additional evidence is very important even if it cannot at this time be confirmed by an actual photograph of the DATE of the very beginnings of the DA. The reason for that is there seems to be a gap in time of up to perhaps 8-10 years between the time when that area it is in was photogaphed.  

There may be some on here such as Pat Mucci who for some reason is willing to conclude that if a photograph cannot be found of the date of the actual and very beginnings of the DA then that has to mean that it proves it could not have been there BEFORE or conceived of BEFORE the first photograph that actually shows it. I don't happen to be a golf course architecture researcher or analyst who subscribes to some research theory or analytical modus operandi quite that stupid and short-sighted.

[Tom MacWood]

There is some additional evidence now it was Crump and I think that additional evidence is very important even if it cannot at this time be confirmed by an actual photograph of the very beginnings of the DA. The reason for that is there seems to be a gap in time of up to perhaps 8-10 years between the time when that area it is in was photogaphed. 

What additional evidence?

[TEPaul]

"What additional evidence?"


It's on this thread as of some days ago. Sorry you missed it but you seem to be very good at missing or misinterpreting a lot of additional evidence in the research and analysis of old and significant golf course architecture, so it certainly doesn't surprise that you would have to ask a question like that at this point.

[Tom MacWood]

Are you referring to the map I posted with the red and blue lines?

[TEPaul]

Actually, I just noticed something this morning to do with this investigation. I don't know very much about photography but I noticed this morning that the photograph I took of the "blue/red line" topo survey map actually does show a good deal to perhaps most of the surveyor's contour lines on that map even if some of them in some areas seem pretty faint. I guess it was because I used an older wide angled 35 milimeter camera and I was really close to the actual map when I took the photo. It's on the screen-saver of one of my two computers.

It looks to me as if the pre-construction grade along the entire distance the 10th hole sits on was basically a continuation of the same grade ridgeline that runs from the left of the 9th green all the way over to the area of the 11th tee and even the 17th green and particularly in that area about 40 yards and in towards the 10th green.

This would seem to mean that during construction of the 10th hole they essentially cut out around the green on the right and particularly the left and even more so in front of the green that creates the definite and significant swale one walks down as he approaches the green and then back up from as he walks up on the green (past the fronting left bunker and the area of the DA.

They may've done that as some kind of drainage release for water coming from the right of that hole which was slightly higher. I guess that makes some sense even though it did create some damage in that wide swale which they eventually terraced and vegetated to some extent.

This would also seem to explain the rather massive amount of fill surrounding this area in the two photos that seem to be from the late 1913 to late 1914 or perhaps even early 1915 timespan.

[Tom MacWood]

That map is inclusive at best. What some are claiming is a circular bunker at #10 does not look like a solitary bunker when blown up. It is also a matter of speculation who is responsible for the red lines on the map.

[TEPaul]

"Are you referring to the map I posted with the red and blue lines?"

Yes, but I am specifically referring to my own photograph of it and not the photograph you posted. And I'm referring to the material within the Alison report on the 10th hole.

[TEPaul]

"It is also a matter of speculation who is responsible for the red lines on the map."


That may be your interpretation of the red lines on that map but it is not my interpretation, and more importantly, it is not the interpretation of the club and its historians.