Shivas:
I think what exactly went on at PV back then in those 5-6 years of it's creation under Crump and Colt and Crump's other frequently welcomed collaborators really is fascinating to reanalyze full-boat at this point.
There's quite unbelievably a considerable amount of misinformation on that great course apparently that's been perpetuated over the years. It was probably inevitable, though, given that the apparent collaboration Crump inspired, encouraged and directed was perhaps the single largest active collaboration of any course in architecture's history and maybe by a mile. And afterall, how cool is that? And just look how that turned out in both how it was looked at back then and now. Basically it went to the top of the world back then and has stayed there!
Paul Turner is a wonderful architectural researcher, as Tom MacWood is. I know them both and they're great guys. I admire the things they find although sometimes we may disagree to some degree on how they go about analyzing it. I think they're actually thinking of writing a book together and if it turns out to be on the Heathland architecture and it architects I'm going to have a cocked eye I'll tell you
on what all they may presently be advocating on Colt as the designer of Pine Valley!
But face it, I think Paul has a bias towards Colt and the Heathland architecture and its architects (both of which I believe to be some of the very best, if not the best in the world and perhaps the best in the history of golf architecture, in many interesting contexts, particularly evolutionarily).
And Paul thinks I'm an advocate with a bias towards Crump and Pine Valley with the creation of that course.
But so what really? That's probably the way it should be in a discussion, debate or point/counter point. I think both of us realize there's still a lot out there to be reanalyzed, as strange as that may seem at this point with a course as famous as PV has always been. But the interesting thing is so much of Pine Valley's material isn't lost in the flow of time--it's really all still there--just that the creation in its "modus operandi" was so unique that putting it all together never would have been easy in the first place. But to ever attempt to do that I know we both expect to be as objective as we possibly can.
As to an article on all this? I don't know. I'd like to see it done but I'm not wholly sure if Pine Valley would. They do have a certain sense of privacy about certain things which I can understand and I completely respect. But ironically, that sense or aura of privacy that some feel is not what many or most think it is. PV is a private golf club but if anyone really loves and understands golf architecture and the enduring spirit of that place they will quickly come to find that PVGC is all for you and can be most accomodating to you.
But I will be very honest--if something turns up to prove that Colt had far more to do with the routing phase (or "designing up" phase) of Pine Valley than I sense he did given Crump's presence and position there that'd be just fine with me. I respect Harry Colt as much as anyone as an architect and PV does too.
But if it turned out that the extraordinary amount of time and effort (and money) that Crump put into that course (which many don't seem to understand or fully appreciate) comes to prove that he really was the true designer of it that I think he was (the "editor" he was without question) it would make me even happier, and by a lot.
And here's why. PVGC really does glorify Crump whether they have a detailed right to in every fact of the creation of the place or not. And I really like that they do that because I believe it has always and continues to make them respect the course and concentrate more on preserving it in Crump's image and vision than they other-wise might if they did not have that respect for Crump.
The flip side of that type of respect might be ANGC and what they've done for other reasons with the vision and architectural spirit of their orginal architects. Or even a guy at my club who when he heard we planned to restore our Ross course said; "Donald Ross, who the hell cares about him, that was 85 years ago, this is today!?" Can you imagine!? He said it to me a bunch of times actually. He also belongs to PV and eventually I told him to go down there and say to them; "Who the hell was George Crump, that was 90 years ago, this is today!?" He stopped saying that about Ross after I told him that!
I know some disagree with all the trees at PV and that it may have gotten a bit clogged over the decades but they are actively counteracting that now and it's great. I know some think maybe the bunkers may gotten a bit more clean than they used to be or should be but they're still a tough feature to deal with. And I sort of hesitate to say this but some bemoan the fact that PV consults TF because they don't see him as the ideal preservationist or restoration architect that a club like that should have. But I'll tell you this and take is as fact that TF, at least down there, where he's both a member and board member could be one of the most unwilling consultants you ever saw. He's such a nice man of course he'll consult with them if they ask, and they do, but some down there get the distinct feeling he'd prefer it more if they didn't ask at all. As anyone can see from the way he went about settling into the "short course" project it's a huge amount or pressure to be doing things there that aren't preservationist.
And so, if PV being what it is glorifies their creator a bit too much, so what? If they really do push the "preservationist" button more and more in the name of their creator that's just fine by me--more than fine actually.
Because as everyone interested in architecture knows when a club and course like Pine Valley takes a stand and does something people tend to sit up and take notice far more than most any other club in the world.
And frankly, the entire subject of the so-called "amateur" architect is one that should be revisited, particularly those extraordinary four out of the six from the original "Philadelphia School of Architecture"--Wilson, Crump, Fownes and Thomas; none of them ever took a dime for anything they ever did in architecture which of course includes Merion, PVGC, Oakmont and Riviera--(not too shabby). Those four and others of the "amateur" set tended to be innovators, adventurous and had the capacity to let it all hang out without some client telling them what to do and not to do!
So bring it on and in the process if I tend to have a slight bias towards Crump and his continued glorification, so what?