Tom,
Once again we see all these supposed people who said he found the site hunting, but not a single quote or context or timeline provided.
I prefer the accounts of those who were there with him at the time, thank you.
And your two accounts mention 1) Crump hasn't played in local tournaments this season reported Nov 1910, and 2) Business has kept him away for awhile, reported in Feb 1911. From those two statements you somehow miraculously garner that he never played golf with his friends in Atlantic City during the winter of 1909/10 as had been his habit since the beginning of the century.
As far as North Shore, did NS pay Raynor, or did CBM? My understanding is that North Shore paid Raynor $400 in 11/1914 for him to act in an advisory capacity. In January, 1915, Raynor was approved to build the new course and Raynor was to submit plans for the Greens Committee's approval, which were later approved, as well as paying Raynor $1,800 for his plan, calling him an "expert". Did CBM advise? Yes, he did, but you try to make it sound like a CBM designed course and there again is no evidence for your claim.
And, if you ever actually saw the course in person, you would have to chuckle that you called it a Robert White course. I've played many of his, and really enjoy his work, but if that ain't Raynor, I'd eat my hat. You would never call it "unlike any Raynor course" if you actually were there in person, Tom. There is an original redan, Biarritz, Eden, and a terrific Road hole, as well as Double Plateau greens, and other of the template features, and they are bold.
Once again, you take a statement and paraphrase it in a way never intended. For instance, please provide us the exact CBM quote where he said Raynor didn't go solo until 1917? You can't because he never said that, just like the bunch of men above you told us said Crump found the site while hunting either (A) Never really said that, (B) Weren't there at the time, (C) were quoting from someone else years later who also wasn't with Crump, or (D) mentioned hunting in general terms, which could have happened ANY time after Crump originally found the site, or E) bungled so many known facts years later that their credibility is undermined, like the Camden News guy in 1927 who said that Crump owned 300 acres on the land that he had used for hunting. Oh, and then there is the childhood hunting story. Which is more the myth??
It's funny...you are the one who keeps bringing up Philadelphia and myths...I just keep providing the facts. Who exactly is paranoid again?