Ralph,
You stated, "I'm not saying that this works in every case, but even the North Shore attribution owes much to the efforts of outside investigation, another club that didn't have the correct info in their hands."
While that is true, the "correct information" was not in their hands, it was still the official board minutes that gave it. It was not a newspaper or magazine article but rather the private documents that had been given to a public institution for safekeeping and a source for study.
It would be wonderful for researchers if every golf club did that, but even in this case it wasn't the golf club that did it, but rather the mother organization that was formed by them to create the North Shore Golf Club.
Why is that important to this discussion? Because the branch of historical study of golf course architecture is not even in its infancy, but is still but a day-old newborn for the most part. Most researchers have limited themselves to searching either old newspaper or magazine databases to seek information because access to the personal records and information at specific golf clubs is almost never granted. It is private and they want it kept that way. If North Shore had those records at the club itself and the Board of Governors felt comfortable enough with the perceived history as had been presented for a number of years, than no one would have been granted access to them and it is highly doubtful that anyone at the club would have searched through them for proof of something they thought they already knew.
Why that is important is that it shows that newspaper and magazine articles can’t necessarily provide the detailed information to answer the types of historical questions that we today are interested in.
It also shows how a proper search can uncover the truth of what happened, yet rarely will it provide the REASONS WHY it did. In this case, WHY was RAYNOR chosen when they could just have easily hired a Tillinghast or Ross or Emmet or any one of a number of others. That information isn’t contained in those notes and almost never is at other clubs.
Finally, it shows how important it is to have a relationship with members of a club of whose history one wants to study. ACCESS IS EVERYTHING! The nature, especially where it has become highly adversarial and unprofessional, of a number of specific club historical discussions has created an atmosphere at many historically important clubs that are now preventing such access to being granted. These clubs simply do not want to be part of a nasty public debate, nor should they be.
So then, in answer to Tom’s original question, one can only decide how to look at the history that one has been given access to. This may be through published format such as book or article or in a private setting such as access to private club records. It is therefore imperative that we get a grip on ourselves here at gca.com and ALL begin to show a professional maturity in these discussion or soon no one will be allowed access to any club’s personal and private records regardless of how well-intentioned the researcher or historian is.