[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I looked at the images of both the Colt Scheme, which does not depict topo, and the red blue map.

My first thought is, if the contours are the same 10 foot intervals as the NJ surveys, then they used those.  They wouldn't hire a surveyor to come up with 10 foot contours, it would be 5 or 2 feet.  I cannot tell if their are any labels on the Red-Blue map, so someone who remembers it better would have to tell us how far below 15 tee the pond is to help us.  From the final location (the single pencil line to the far left) there are six contour lines between tee and pond.  So, if the pond is 12' below the tee, they are 2 foot contours and surveyed, if 30 feet below, 5' contours and surveyed, and if 60 feet below, 10 foot contours and probably the NJ survey map.  I know its at least 30, and wouldn't be surprised if its 60.

Another thing struck me - that map only has the detailed contours in that area of 12-16.  There are no contours over on 1-3, suggesting flat land and 10 contour intervals.  No contours on 5, which goes over a pretty deep valley.  It would actually appear that they did additional survey work just in that area, or at least, only added the contours from the NJ map to that area for more careful study.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

It's a free country - for now - and you have the right to your opinion.  Of course, I disagree, but on the interest in history of architecture, if your benchmark is spending my free time as you do in digging up historical articles, I can even see your point of view.  As to me being an idiot, I surmise that opinion stems from me disagreeing with you and that I have from time to time insulted you as well. 

Just as some famous politician said that disagreement didn't mean we didn't all love our country, so goes it in these historic discussions - disagreement doesn't mean I don't love the history of architecture, nor does it mean I am an idiot, at least to anyone who gives it more than a few seconds of reasoned thought.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Interestingly enough it seems that the land purchased did not include the area near the 14th green, 15th tee, 15th fairway and 16th green.

Patrick,

Re this part of your post 313, a few comments:

Subsequent to the original purchase, Crump purchased additional land for lakes, roads, club buildings and lots/bungalows.

All of these parcels had to have been surveyed prior to purchase, unless you believe Mike Cirba's theory that Crump bought the land on the blind, then had it surveyed.   Who buys an undefined parcel of land, then has it surveyed to figure out what they bought ?
Given you seem to have evidence that the holes 12-15 were on land purchased later, and the fact that those holes are the only ones where they added more topo lines, I would guess this would bear more study.

There are a few kinds of surveys, of which I know you are aware from your real estate work - boundary surveys for plat and purchase, and topo surveys which are not required for purchase, but may be required for design.  

Again, the partial topo in areas purchased later suggests something, maybe that Crump did walk the land to decide golf holes, but when they decided they needed that extra land, someone like Colt suggested they should add the contours to study the possibilities?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I looked at the images of both the Colt Scheme, which does not depict topo, and the red blue map.

My first thought is, if the contours are the same 10 foot intervals as the NJ surveys, then they used those.  They wouldn't hire a surveyor to come up with 10 foot contours, it would be 5 or 2 feet.  I cannot tell if their are any labels on the Red-Blue map, so someone who remembers it better would have to tell us how far below 15 tee the pond is to help us. 


Jeff, the pond is barely below the tee, perhaps 3 feet at most.

From the final location (the single pencil line to the far left) there are six contour lines between tee and pond.  So, if the pond is 12' below the tee, they are 2 foot contours and surveyed, if 30 feet below, 5' contours and surveyed, and if 60 feet below, 10 foot contours and probably the NJ survey map.  I know its at least 30, and wouldn't be surprised if its 60.

Jeff, 15 tee is perhaps 3 feet above the pond, no more.
# 16 green is perhaps a foot or two above the pond.
The next time I'm there I'll see what the height of the dam behind # 16 green is, relative to the 16th green.

Perhaps you meant # 14 tee which I would guestimate is about 60 feet above the pond.

Another thing struck me - that map only has the detailed contours in that area of 12-16.  There are no contours over on 1-3, suggesting flat land and 10 contour intervals.  No contours on 5, which goes over a pretty deep valley.  It would actually appear that they did additional survey work just in that area, or at least, only added the contours from the NJ map to that area for more careful study.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I'm sorry, I mistyped. I meant 14 tee, the par 3. 

If it is 60, which I suspect, then I suspect they took the topo for that area of the NJ maps. Its possible they could have hired a surveyor for a limited area, but again, there are some contours on the map in other areas, but not much. 

All that suggests a bigger reliance on walking the site than topo maps to me, except in that area.

What makes you think that area of 12-16 was bought later?  Looking at aerial photos, to me the "natural original purchase encompassed the original 18, and it looks like the other 350 acres were bought mostly to seclude the course from encroaching development, but I really don't know the history, so others would have to fill in.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Thanks.

The 1958 map shows the boundaries of the land PV owned.

"A" Key to my premise would be a Post Oct/Nov 1912/PRE-July 1917 and a Post July 1917 map showing the boundaries of the land PV owned, since that would tell us whether or not holes 12-15 were on the original parcel or the parcel acquired in July of 1917.

Wouldn't it be interesting, if, like Sand Hills, PV became PV through subsequent purchases of land required to create the holes needed to finalize the golf course.  I'm surprised that this issue was never addressed by PV's acclaimed experts or any of the four books about Pine Valley, (Brown, Shelly, Finnegan and Ransome [?])



Crump et.al probably wanted a topo with smaller than 10 foot contour intervals, but the early survey combined with knowledge of the property may have been a good place to start.  

__________________________________________________

Dan Herrman,

Looking at the train schedule above, it seems there were express trains to Atlantic City.  There is no way that train was stopping in Clementon, unless you think it had time for a stop in Clementon then get going again during the 8 minutes and 9.1 miles between Magnolia and Wllmstwn Jct.  Other local trains must have stopped, but would it make much sense for these guys to have been riding anything but the express if they were traveling from PHL to Atlantic City?   Sure it is possible they hopped a local and were settled in for a long ride, but we've got to stop confusing mere possibility with solid factual support.  

And it really doesn't matter how fast the train may have been traveling, does it? Had Crump already hunted over the land as reported, then he surely didn't discover the same land from a train, even if the train had been traveling at 5 mph while Crump was standing on top for a better view.
__________________________________________________


Mike Cirba,  If you agree with my a lot of my post then why have you been going on and on about how Crump discoverd the land from a passing train? If Crump had previously been hunting over the same land, then he didn't discover it from a passing train.  One rarely "discover" one's own yard by riding by and pointing at it.

As for your link, what "additional information" do you think it provides?  I'd say it is useless to our purposes because it is not only undated, but also it was obviously created after Pine Valley was built.  Look again at the list I posted above.  There is no Sumner Station on that list. Here is a 1913 map on which I've marked the approx. location of the course in green.  Clementon Station is there, but again, no Sumner Station. Whether or not Sumner Station ever existed prior to Pine Valley, it doesn't seem to have been an active station during the specific period we are discussing.  Perhaps it was a freight station associated with the quarrying activities, but was no longer in use.

David, if we could get the 1913 topo map, like the 1958 topo map above, which indicates PV's boundaries, we could address the issue of the exact location of the 184 acres, then, obtain post July 1917 topos, and discover whether all of the course was contained in the original 184 acres or in both the original 184 acres and the subsequent July, 1917, 325 acres.

Would you say that this might be a completely new revelation ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

The timing for one.

In 1917 the course was incomplete with holes 12-15 missing, so, it's a possibility that the same thing occured at PV as occured at Sand Hills.

The other thing that makes me think that, is the remark in one of the history books that the subsequent purchase was made to acquire lakes.  There are no other lakes on the PV property other than those close to the northern border, so what other lakes could they be talking about ?

Remember, the area of the 14th green, 15th tee, inception of the 15th fairway and 16th green were described as swamp land by some.
Why would you buy swamp land for your golf course, especially when it's near the perimeter of the property.
Why pay $ 50 an acre for swamp land when money was at a premium and the club just being developed.

By the way, that swamp may have been visible from the train tracks.
Do you think that is what Crump saw and had in mind as his inspiration for his golf course ?

[Tom MacWood]

We have a similar situation here as we had at Merion. The most revealing account, Wilson's own account, is ignored in favor of a third person account that more closely mirrors the legend. Here we have Crump's letter from 1912 telling us when he discovered the site in the fall of 1912. This letter is ignored in favor of series of articles written by Tilly that claimed he found the site two years prior while on a train...with Tilly. That story makes no sense for all the reasons I've given, but that is the story they are fighting for over Crump's own letter.

As I've said before I have no idea when precisely Crump was hunting on the site, but everyone other than Tilly claims he found the site while hunting, and although those stories run the gamut from hunting there as a youth to hunting at a later date, there is a consistent hunting theme.

There is no doubt in my mind that Crump discovered or rediscovered the site hunting in the late summer or early fall of 1912, around the time of the letter, and after considering Absecon and Browns Mills. The 1910 train account is bogus...just read the letter, but as I have said many times before, in the greater scheme of things how he discovered the site is not all that important, especially in comparison to the other Phlly myths.

Please feel free to move on to the next myth.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Rather than looking for maps of the boundary, why don't you go to the County office and get the deeds for the property.  They would have metes and bounds that would tell you were the properties were, would they not?

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

It's a free country - for now - and you have the right to your opinion.  Of course, I disagree, but on the interest in history of architecture, if your benchmark is spending my free time as you do in digging up historical articles, I can even see your point of view.  As to me being an idiot, I surmise that opinion stems from me disagreeing with you and that I have from time to time insulted you as well.  

Just as some famous politician said that disagreement didn't mean we didn't all love our country, so goes it in these historic discussions - disagreement doesn't mean I don't love the history of architecture, nor does it mean I am an idiot, at least to anyone who gives it more than a few seconds of reasoned thought.

My benchmark for an interest in history and an interest in finding the truth is consistency in getting the facts straight and objectivity. You have a long track record of not getting your facts straight, which you defend by saying you don't have the time (but you do have the time to interject yourself into all these discussions), and you seem to prefer to take sides on historical issues as opposed to looking at the facts objectively. And maybe that has something to do with not having the time too. Also as a golf architect you have a long track record of disdain toward historical important golf courses....redesign university over preservation.  

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Crump purchased 184 acres of a much larger tract from Lumberton/Ireland in Oct/Nov 1912.
The question I have, is what comprised the tract he purchased.
Crump purchased additional land subsequently.
The subsequent purchase appears to be land with lakes/ponds, and the only lakes/ponds I know of on the property are at the northern end, influencing holes # 14, 15, 16, and 18.  One of the subsequent purchases was in July 1917 for 325 acres.

I'm pretty sure the land the current golf course resides on was part of that initial purchase. I do know the March 1913 topo contains the land the current course resides on.

It's also reported that the initial routing was incomplete, only containing 14 holes, with holes 12, 13, 14 and 15 missing.

The initial report, pre-Colt had six of seven holes, some of the descriptions match the Colt design, some do not. Over the years the course was built piecemeal. Those four holes were built last, but I wouldn't refer to them as missing. They are on the Colt map, although slightly different in design.

I forget the date of Crump's stick routing, but, perhaps one of the Merionettes who lurks and sends 38 emails a day on this subject can refresh our memories.  

Who drew the map, and when it was drawn, is purely speculation.

Reports also indicate that Colt was paid $ 10,000 for his consulting work.

One of the questions I have is:  Did Crump send Colt a survey/topo prior to his arrival on site ?
Prior to HSC's agreement to visit ?

The topo map is from March 1913, and Colt arrived in May. The first formal Colt plan was presented in July.

If Crump cleared the land intended for the golf course in late 1912, early 1913, a general plan must have existed as early as fall/winter 1912.  If a plan existed as early as fall/winter 1912, was it based on a survey/topo made prior to fall/winter of 1912 ?
And if so, what was the nature of that plan ?  Survey ?  Topo ?  Both ?

What's also interesting is that the large map that hangs in a room at PV, dated 1927, gives HS Colt and Crump equal credit for the course as it existed in 1927.  Baker gives Colt credit for the design.  George Thomas gives equal credit for the design.  In October of 1914, Colt wrote that he layed Pine Valley out the previous year.

Irrespective of the weighting of credit, it seems highly unlikely, that an architect, even a very talented architect, could visit a site, previously unseen, and within short order, design a masterpiece absent topos.

There had to be topos prior to May 1913.  Topos that Crump and Colt relied on.

Where are they ?

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba,  If you agree with my a lot of my post then why have you been going on and on about how Crump discoverd the land from a passing train? If Crump had previously been hunting over the same land, then he didn't discover it from a passing train.  One rarely "discover" one's own yard by riding by and pointing at it.

As for your link, what "additional information" do you think it provides?  I'd say it is useless to our purposes because it is not only undated, but also it was obviously created after Pine Valley was built.  Look again at the list I posted above.  There is no Sumner Station on that list. Here is a 1913 map on which I've marked the approx. location of the course in green.  Clementon Station is there, but again, no Sumner Station. Whether or not Sumner Station ever existed prior to Pine Valley, it doesn't seem to have been an active station during the specific period we are discussing.  Perhaps it was a freight station associated with the quarrying activities, but was no longer in use.

David,

I know you mentioned you haven't been following the discussion so I think there are some facts you might have missed and that's understandable.

The Sumner Station existed in the timeframe in question as can be seen from the following quotes;

"I think I have landed on something pretty fine.   It is 14 miles below Camden, at a stop called Sumner, on the Reading R.R. to Atlantic City - a sandy soil, with rolling ground, among the Pines." - George Crump 1912

"The region outside of Camden was searched in all directions, until, finally, Mr. George A. Crump discovered a perfectly wonderful bit of golf land at Sumner Station, on the Atlantic City Division of the Reading Railroad, thirteen miles outside of Camden." - Father Carr, January 1915


So I think we can put that one to rest, at least.

Further, I've yet to see any of the quotes that contemporaneously  tell us that Crump "extensively hunted" the specific land in question.   Neither of two of his very best friends...Tillinghast and/or Carr indicated that to my knowledge.

As far as commending your post, I particularly like the way you seemed to approach the topic with an open mind.   You said you felt that both the train spotting and the hunting stories had some grain of truth, which is what all of us here with the exception of Tom MacWood and Patrick feel is accurate.

In my case, I feel that Crump had decided to build a great course somewhere some time after his wife died but first needed to get his own house in order.   I think this likely happened around 1909.

I think he spotted the land from the train as Tillinghast remembered, but does anyone even know if it was available for sale at that time?   I think he searched several sites for a few years.

I think during that time he sold the Colonnade Hotel to finance his dream, but Tom MacWood tells us that ended up to be a bit of a fiasco requiring his attention most of 1910.

As soon as that matter was settled, Crump with Joseph Baker went abroad for three months to play and presumably study the great courses abroad.   While there, he sent to his brother in law asking for a recent map of Camden County.

For whatever reasons, we know from Tillinghast the Crump largely kept this topic to himself for some time.   Perhaps the land wasn't available...perhaps the price was exorbitant...perhaps Crump had other affairs to take care of prior.

We do know at some point that Crump began to motor back to the land in question and studying it.   It would be reasonable to assume he also had a gun and hunted while there.   We also know he took select friends like Tillinghast and Perrin out there to get their take.

In any case, the project finally gained traction in the latter part of 1912 when he was able to buy the land.

Just a few more thoughts....

Although it's been consistently presented as "in his backyard", the land of Pine Valley was 12.5 miles away from Crump's home in Merchantville, NJ, without a major highway to get from one to the other.   Today, via auto, Mapquest estimates the trip to take almost half-hour (27min).  

While he may have hunted there, it certainly wasn't around the block.

But more importantly, one has to wonder...

Living in Merchantville, NJ, and travelling to Atlantic City, NJ by train, which station would George Crump have gotten on the train at?  ;

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is the USGS topo map from 1898, both the larger area and zoomed into the area of the course.  Seems unlikely that they were working from this map.  Interestingly the ponds on the course appear to be man made.  The topo only shows streams.

If they were working from a March 1913 topo, as Tom says, does anyone have that and can they post it.  Was it commissioned by Crump?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Crump worked at the Colonnade hotel most of his adult life. He, and then he and his wife lived in the hotel. He played his golf at Philadelphia CC. He spent most if his time Philadelphia; the majority of his golfing friends lived and worked in Philadelphia; one would assume they all got on the train in Philadelphia.

He did not build the home in Merchantville until 1908. It was to be the dream home for he and his wife. Tragically his wife died in 1907 before the house was completed. God only how much time he spent there.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

If Crump completed his Merchantville home in 1908 it is very possible he was using it extensively by the time Tillinghast tells us he took his train ride in the winter of 1909/10.   

You told us he was trying to sell his hotel for a lengthy period of time...do you know when he put it on the market?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

If Crump completed his Merchantville home in 1908 it is very possible he was using it extensively by the time Tillinghast tells us he took his train ride in the winter of 1909/10.  

You told us he was trying to sell his hotel for a lengthy period of time...do you know when he put it on the market?

I'm not interested in running off on a wild goose chase with you, and concocting some convoluted story. He was running the hotel until he sold it in September 1910. He lived in the hotel through 1908, and likely kept his apartment while running the hotel. He played his golf at Philadelphia CC. He played his tennis in Philadelphia. The majority of his golfing friends lived and worked in Philadelphia.

Like I said if you want to believe the train story, and if you want to believe he got on the train in Merchantville, more power to you, but enough is enough.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I understand your reluctance to chase this down from facts rather than your "logic" and suppositions, but didn't Crump's mother live in Merchantville?    Did she move into Crump's home, or did she have her own there?

You also seem to realize the time line extended back to the death of his wife, when you wrote in your essay;

By 1910 the Crump family was actively trying to sell the Colonnade. It is reasonable to conclude the selling of the hotel and the desire to create a dream golf course were not unrelated. Crump had lost his wife only four years before and his father had died at a young age without ever enjoying the fruits of his labor. These events had to have affected Crump’s thinking and ultimately his plans. The idea of designing something of merit may have also appealed to him, after all his uncle and older cousin had been successful architects as well as hotelmen.

[Jeff_Brauer]

After recieving the usual series of emails on this, and seeing some of the info above, I second whoever's suggestion that someone put this in timeline form.

We now know the topo is dated March 1913, and the land was bought late 1912, with apparently some clearing of some kind.  We know when Colt was there, and because the red lines show his routing underneath, we know the final routing took place after that. Etc. Etc. 

It would it be helpful to those interested to list the dates that we know for a fact, wouldn't it?

It seems there are some of those facts that many of us don't know.  For instance, I couldn't determine the contour interval of the map from my jpeg of the red/blue line, while others apparently can, so my speculation as to the contour interval proved wrong.

[Mike Cirba]

By the way, we were first told that the site was in his back yard and now he lived nowhere near Merchantville but spent all his time in Philly...which is it?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac, the post I copy below belies your contention that you look for truth.  It shows that you draw preconclusions and then twist stuff around to make your point.  For my money, BTW, when you foisted your Barker designed Merion theory on this website, you lost all right to tell anyone about a search for the truth.  I can only imagine you out there helping OJ in his search for the "real killer."

My benchmark for an interest in history and an interest in finding the truth is consistency in getting the facts straight and objectivity. You have a long track record of not getting your facts straight, which you defend by saying you don't have the time (but you do have the time to interject yourself into all these discussions), and you seem to prefer to take sides on historical issues as opposed to looking at the facts objectively. And maybe that has something to do with not having the time too. Also as a golf architect you have a long track record of disdain toward historical important golf courses....redesign university over preservation.

BTW, I agree I have made mistakes on this site, and as mentioned above, realize I don't spend the time researhing golf history that you do.  I have always commended you for that, and BTW, endorse your basic quest to learn more of the details of who does what.  That said, from time to time, I think your mission statement leads you from time to time to over reach in order to credit lesser lights.  Perhaps its just bound to happen, and even when you make some mistakes, I like the direction you have gone, even if I disagree with your contentions on Barker at Merion.  To me, maintaing that belief just goes to far.

I also think you can get somewhat illogical, and use assumptions, sometimes with slight twists, to make your point.  As to your post above, I question the logic of me having presented 25% (and frankly, never on design, but always on financing, phasing, or explaining your proposed renovations to members or golfers) of exactly 5 of the nearly 200 ASGCA "Remodel U" seminars and what the means about my feelings about restorations.  

You also hint that RU="Anti Restoration" which is a flat out lie on your part. Nothing in RU content says anything of the kind.  But, it does show the world just the level of suppposed knowledge feel you need to have before presenting something as fact on this site.  So, while I am guilty of making mistakes, and often for the same reason, I don't believe you do any better, and sometimes worse.

Lastly, you tell the world that I have a long architectural record of disdain for classic courses.  Could you substantiate that?

I agree that Dornick Hills was not restored to its original condition, but I was hired to match the already changed work of my former employer Dick Nugent on the back nine.  In any case, the original NGLA inspired design had been remodeled out of existence in the 1950's or perhaps before.  I did present the option of restoring to the original design, but they actually didn't have the info that Chris Clouser later dug up, and didn't want to redo the front nine again, for money reasons.  There was some debate, and some Maxwell descendants were in the room, but the club directors made that decision.

If you care to lump me in for a few old courses that KN had redone to modern standards (circa 1977-84) but which had already been touched many times by that point, go ahead.  I was in no position to affect those decisions.

I really have not been commissioned to restore any historically signifigant Golden Age courses.

So, there is my record of disdain that you are willing to incorrectly put out there.

Lies, twists, misinformation and tenuous logic connections (repeatedly) from you.  You can see why I have that low opinion of your logical analysis ability.  And, if I take sides, its not against history, its simply against those cases where I believe passionately that a few here are trying to twist for reasons I don't understand.  But, I do try to keep the disagreements based on specific issues, rather than simply call you an idiot.  Not that I am always successful!

But enough about that, its a waste of everyone's time. I am sure I haven't changed anyone's mind about your logical abilities or lack thereof, but I did want to respond to some of your unfounded claims about me.  

That said, I do believe all of us have "put stuff out there" regarding clubs, architects, other site members (and I include myself in that, to be sure) that really go well beyond the bounds of good taste, or even what should be posted on the internet about defenseless parties.  (who from PV can post here if not a site member to defend this or that?)  Is it really right to get into these lengthy discussions, calling long dead figures mistaken, or wrong, or liars?  At the very least, we should all clearly label our posts as to how much we really know, again, myself included.

[DMoriarty]

Regarding contours, reportedly there was also a 1905 topographic map (again by New Jersey Geological Survey) with 10 ft. intervals and a scale of 2000 ft. per inch.

David,

Thanks.

The 1958 map shows the boundaries of the land PV owned.

"A" Key to my premise would be a Post Oct/Nov 1912/PRE-July 1917 and a Post July 1917 map showing the boundaries of the land PV owned, since that would tell us whether or not holes 12-15 were on the original parcel or the parcel acquired in July of 1917.

If I come across any earlier maps with the boundaries I will let you know, but as Bryan said the county recorder's office would be the best source for this information.    Maybe I am remembering incorrectly, but I thought holes 12-15 had long been planned but just not completed until after July 1917, and that the intention was to carry out Crump's plan with regard to these holes.  Is that not correct?
_____________________________________________

Mike Cirba, I grew up in a rural area where people often referred to RR stops and stations which were long defunct; no train had stopped in decades.   There are "stops" and "stations" where the track had been torn out. So your references to the mentions of the Sumner station don't move me.  If "Sumner Station" was an active station during the time period in question, then it ought to be easy enough to prove up by locating a schedule referencing it, or something.  The schedule above does not include it, nor does the 1913 map.  Thus far you haven't proven much at all.   You really ought to think these things through and try to come up with dispositive proof on your own rather than repeatedly jumping to the conclusion you prefer.

As for the rest of your post, no use wasting your time telling me what you "think" and "feel." I could not care less and really don't seriously consider your thoughts and feelings, except perhaps as a contrary indicator.  In other words, whatever you "think" or "feel," we can be pretty sure that is not what happened.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Not really much related to PV, but you are correct about railroad place names lasting forever.  If you view track charts, you will see things like "Erie Lackawanna Junction" even though the EL dissolved into Conrail in 1976.  There are older examples than that.  I know of one map referring to the Dayton and Michigan RR, which went out in 1907, and was actually absorbed by the CH and D by 1869 and existed only as a corporate entity for tax reasons.

Similarly, you often find references to "the old main line" and "new main line" even though the "new line" was built over 100 years ago.

Again, not related, but I aways chuckle at some of the names that stick around forever.

BTW, in those private emails, I am told that the survey maps used for the Red/Bue plan say that they were surveyed for George Crump, which should effectively allow us to conclude the Crump paid a surveyor to do a topo map rather than rely on those state maps.

[DMoriarty]

BTW, in those private emails, I am told that the survey maps used for the Red/Bue plan say that they were surveyed for George Crump, which should effectively allow us to conclude the Crump paid a surveyor to do a topo map rather than rely on those state maps.

Those options are not mutually exclusive.  He could have been using the 10 ft. contours prior to having a map drawn to more accurately depict the contours.

As for those emails, I have no interest in them.  I've asked repeatedly to be left off them (as have others) but your pal TEPaul is too much of a creep to even honor that simple request.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I agree they are not mutually exclusive.  On the other hand, those last four holes at least we know were designed with the aid of a surveyed map rather than more generic 10 foot topos.

If someone found more maps somewhere, maybe we could piece it all together.  As always, fascinating to contemplate.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I agree they are not mutually exclusive.  On the other hand, those last four holes at least we know were designed with the aid of a surveyed map rather than more generic 10 foot topos.

We do? We know that the plans were drawn on a topo map at some point and that this topo looks a bit more detailed than the state produced topo (probably 5 ft intervals instead of 10 ft interval) but does this tell us what planning occurred before they had a more exacting contour map?  If so how so? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()