Pine Valley and Topos

[Patrick_Mucci]

Some Outstanding items ?

Date of stick routing

Posting of stick routing

Itinerary of Colt's 1911 visit.

Authenticity of 1927 Newspaper article.

Perhaps Paul Turner can comment on the oct/nov 1912 purchase or bifurcation of the land/PV

[Mike Cirba]

Because, Pat...I think they largely agree with me.

You just won't listen to them and attempt to shout them down as you do to me.

See you in November.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Because, Pat...I think they largely agree with me.

You just won't listen to them and attempt to shout them down as you do to me.

Mike,

The statement below, made by you, is a total lie.
A total distortion of the facts, and if they agree with you, it doesn't speak well of them.

You stated:

" In fact, from the 18th green down through the 14th green south the tracks are elevated on a high rail bed about 10-15 feet."

If you'll look at Google Earth, the 17th green is at 41 M, the tracks next to the 17th green are at 30 M, about 40 feet BELOW the green, but, according to you, the tracks are 10-15 feet above the land at that point.

The end of the 17th fairway is at 39 M, the tracks north of that point at 30 M, or about 30 feet BELOW the land at that point.
Yet, you claimed the tracks were 10-15 feet above the land at that point.

The begining of the 17th fairway is at 35 M, the tracks north of that point at 31 M, or over 13 feet BELOW the land at that point, yet, you claimed they were 10-15 feet above the land.

The 18th tee is at 40 M, the tracks north of that point at 30 M, or 33 feet BELOW the tee, not 10-15 feet above the tee.

The left corner of the 18th green is at 33 M, the RR tracks north of the 18th green are at 28 M, about 17 feet BELOW the 18th green, but, you claimed the tracks were 10-15 feet above the land at that point.

In addition, there's a elevated ridge that runs between # 17 and # 16 that blocks any view of the 16th and 15th fairways.

And, to top it all off, there were tall trees and dense undergrowth growing on those higher elevations further obscuring ANY view to the south..

You completed falsified the facts and Bryan, Jim, Jeff and others were like deaf, dumb and blind stooges letting you get away with it.

Bryan is very adept at understanding elevations, yet he never challenged your gross misrepresentation of the elevations of the RR tracks and the land to the south of them between # 18 green and # 14 green.  

And, at the area near # 14 green, we know that area was a swamp, hardly ideal land for golf.  

In addition, on an east bound train, the ridges at # 17, with their trees and underbrush on them would block any view until you were right next to the swamp.  At that point, PV's land ends.  So, they couldn't have seen sandy soil and rolling hills from the train.

So, please don't tell me that they agree with your description of the elevation of the RR tracks and the land south of the RR tracks, because they know better and so do I.

You continue to make, wild, unsubstantiated claims, absent facts, to further your agenda, the perpetuation of the myth..




See you in November.

I hope so.

By the way, you never answered my questions about the "BRIGHT WHITE" RR tracks and the implications of GAC owning 300+ acres and spinning off 184 for PV

Could you address those two issues.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Re the 1927 Camden article about the 300 acre hunting preserve, are you aware of any corroborating source? 

Bryan, I'm a little surprised at you, since you and others have accepted newspaper accounts in the past, without requesting corrorborating sources.
If you recall, I've asked on more than a few occassions, for the pursuit (research and verification) of the story.

It was a simple question.  I guess your answer is "No".  I was just curious if this story was based on a single source.

Please don't lump me in with "others".  I have, in the past, found newspaper accounts with errors.  I have said that I prefer to have stories that are corroborated from independent sources.

It was written 12 years after the fact,

You didn't seem to have any problem with the Brown and Shelly accounts written 50 and 70 years after the fact, why the sudden concern with an account written in 1927 as opposed to the ones written in 1963 and 1982 ?

and it very loosely says that Crump bought it many years ago.

What's wrong with that ?

Nothing wrong with it.  I was hoping that somebody had been more precise with the date of said purchase.

It doesn't even explicitly state that the golf course was built on those 300 acres.

Now you're adopting Cirba like logic and tactics, and showing a clear pre-disposition toward a predetermined outcome.  That's a no-no..

I asked a question and made an observation.  What predetermined outcome do you see in that?

Do you think, if Crump owned those 300+ acres, that he'd go out and buy another 184 acres to build his course.
Or, is it more likely that he'd bifurcate the property

What if the 300 acres, referenced, was at a different location?  Sometimes I try to think outside the box. Do you believe that the 300 acre story is true?

David,

In that same article, the author, Jack Nuneville talks about "scrub oaks".  I guess he was as delusional as Travis.   

Bryan, you're lack of familiarity with the property is hampering your ability to be objective. 
In fact, it sounds like you've picked your side, and rather than analyze any material presented, immediately attack that material to protect your predetermined conclusion/s.
 
Scrub Oaks, tend to be far more dense, with their limb structure, than say, "pin oaks" and other types of Oaks
In the winter, they're harder to see through.
They may not have the height of a mature pin oak, but, they form a significant barrier to lines of sight.

You have to stop with your paranoid conspiracy theories here.     I was only trying to point out that both Travis and Nuneville called them dwarf or scrub trees.  I was not trying to make a point.  If there are any readers of this thread left, they can make their own interpretations.  I don't expect to persuade you on this.  I was just trying to follow up on a clarification to David about the source of the dwarf terminology.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Herewith another rendering of your preferred field of view for the 6th, as well as an additional one for the 18th tee centered on the 18th green.




As you'll notice (even if you want to deny it) the206 foot high hill on the Short Course is within the field of view of both your preferred camera angle on 6, and from the 18th tee.  

Bryan, it's not within view.  The ascending hill/land parallel to # 2 and # 3 block that view.
The tee at # 18 is at 41 M.  The land to the right of the 3rd tee is 48 M, ascending to 57 M at the house behind the tee and 58 M and SSW of that.  From the 18th tee at PV you can NOT see the short course or the hill on the short course due to the intervening hill to the right of # 2 green/# 3 tee.


Your arguments continue to be nonsensical.  The hill on the short course peaks where I marked 206 feet on the Topo overlay.  If you look at the Topo, you could see that the hill slopes down to the North-East, and the South-West, and also to the South-East towards the 2nd green and 3rd tee.  The ridge on the 2nd and the 4th is the lower part of the hill. It ascends from there up to the short course peak. 

I see a half dozen houses to the North-West of the tee.  Which one did you have in mind?  The one with the pool that abuts the Short Course, 290 yards from the tee?  It is part of the way up the hill.  But, there is only one hill.  The one that appears in the 18th tee shot picture and doesn't appear in the 6th fairway picture.

Following is the 18th tee picture.  Look up at the horizon.  Do you notice the slope up the hill on the left side of the picture.  That's the 206 foot high hill on the Short Course.  

No it's not, that's the hill/land rising from # 2 tee up to # 3 tee.

It's one and the same hill.  Look at the picture, under the left side of the blue line.  The white area there is the waste areas on the 4th and 3rd holes.  The hill rises up from there to the peak on the short course.  The

Where is it in the 6th hole picture?  

It is there, look at the upper left, beyond the clearing and you'll see elevations.
Do you see how your horizon, running right to left, dips down and then goes back up again.
What do you suppose that is ?
It's your short course hill.

The horizon on the 6th hole picture is dead flat.  There is a rise in the cleared area where the 2nd, 3rd and 4th are. But the horizon beyond that is dead flat.  No short course hill.

It's not there because that's not the angle the picture is taken from.   Q.E.D.  

Then you're denying your own photographic evidence.


  

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I have always been intrigued by people, like you, who have absolute dogmatic belief that they are right about things.  I always have doubts. 

So why are you perpetuating the argument that you could see "sandy soil" and hills ideal for golf ??

I said that it was plausible that Crump could have seen a hilly topography that intrigued him.  Are you saying that absolutely everywhere on that track (not Atlantic Ave) that Crump's view was absolutely totally blocked beyond 10 or 20 feet?  Even on the section passing the swamp?  If so, then there is no further discussion needed.

Bryan, do the trees in the photo look like dwarf trees, no higher than 20 feet.
Do the trees in front of the 18th tee in the 1917 photo taken from behind the 18th tee look like they're no more than 20 feet high.
In that same photo, Do the trees to the north of the railroad track embankment, and embankment that Cirba declared was 18 feet high, (without any challenge from you) appear to be only 2 feet higher than the tracks ?  Or, do they tower over the tracks, bringing their height to about double 18 feet ?  Are we to believe that the trees south of the railroad tracks were completely different from the trees north of the railroad tracks.

Let's do a little analysis.  Could we agree that:

The trees in the right foreground are somewhere around 100 yards from the tee.

The ridge directly left of them is running up to the 10th hole.

That the elevation of the ground the trees are on is roughly 110 feet. (Please fix your Google earth to work in English measures.  I told you how a few posts ago)

That the ridge to the left maxes out at about 140 feet in the picture view.

Could we then agree that the tallest of those trees is is shorter than than the highest point on the ridge in the picture?  That would suggest the trees are less than 30 feet.

If Mike "declared" the embankment was 18 feet, why would i challenge it?  In this realm of estimation, 18 feet seems to be within the bounds of reason.  Do you have another number in mind?  The trees immediately on the other side of the track appear to me to be slightly taller than the height of the embankment, but not twice as high.  So, maybe 25 to 30 feet.  Very similar to the trees in the foreground by the tee.

Bryan, if you recall, PV is located in the PINE BARRENS, not the Dwarf Oak Barrens.

Well, if Travis is to be believed, it should have been the Dwarf Pine Barrens, but then we know that none of the articles of the time are to be trusted.

At this point, I think David and I have to view you as a "hostile" rather than an objective witness Grin

Are you and David now brothers-in-arms on this? I am not a brother-in-arms with Mike on it.  As I'm sure you will have guessed, I'm deeply distressed to hear that you think I'm hostile.     But, we'll just have to carry on. Sigh.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's my version of the view from the 6th fairway ridge with the 2nd green, 3rd tee and 4th fairway overlaid.

Bryan,  I think you've done a great job at overlaying your interpretation of the objects.

There's only one problem.  The land short of the 2nd green falls off precipitously, as does the land behind/left of the 4th fairway.

Yes, I know that.  The fall off is away from this camera position, so, of course you couldn't see that land from this angle.  All of the land over the ridge that runs through the 2nd green and 4th fairway is lower than the ridge.  It does not rise again until the the other side of the RR tracks.  The clearing in the picture stops at the top of the ridge.  The trees you see above the clearing are on the other side of the tracks.  I'm sure you've seen this kind of optical illusion on golf courses before. Hidden valleys that skew your sense of depth perception.

Your overlay is not at all representative of the actual terrain, but, it does look great.

I think the location of the white road is between the 2nd green and 4th fairway.  But, it's kind of irrelevant. 
It was probably a temporary road for the clearing process. 

What were they clearing ?   Trees.  Dwarf pines and stunted oaks.   

I think that what appears to be the end of the clearing is the top of the ridge coming across through the second green and fouth fairway. 

There was probably additional clearing beyond that, that we can't see.  The trees are beyond that, maybe even on the other side of the RR tracks.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

And Bryan, why didn't you call Mike on this glaring factual error.  Why are you remaining silent, allowing someone to completely misrepresent the terrain ?

You've beaten into my head that I don't know the topography, so how can you expect me to call Mike on it.  Besides, you are doing a fine job of it, although we could all do with less vilification.  Also, besides, he was paraphrasing Jim in a lot of instances.  Jim can call him if he wants.  By the way, you never answered my question about who has more experience at PV - you or Jim?

Once again, I am not claiming that Crump could have seen many or even any specific parts or points on the course from the train.  But, it is plausible that he could have seen topography that was "beautifully rolling and hilly" (over the dwarf pines and stunted oaks) and that this would intrigue him to further study the property.  Shelley did say this was possible. 

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

You asked about corroboration for the story that Crump already owned the 300 acres. Way back in the beginning of the thread, Tom MacWood wrote the following: "Thomas Uzzell said Crump's father, who was a great huntsman, purchased the site as a hunting preserve, and the son inherited the property."  If TomM checks in, maybe he can expand on this. Obviously at this point there isn't enough corroboration on this particular point, but it sounds as if at least two sources were singing a similar song.  I agree with Patrick that it may be worth looking into.  Unfortunately, this may not be particularly easy to do depending upon the nature of Crump's legal interest (if any) in the property.

As for your discussion with Patrick about the photo, I am not convinced that the ridges you marked in the photo from the 18th tee are the "ridges" you think they are.   Likewise, I am not at all convinced that the horizon in the old photo is "dead flat.  In fact I strongly doubt it.  It is very difficult to tell with these photos, but it looks to me like there may be hills and/or ridges on the left side of the photograph, beyond the clearing on which you place the holes.  As I said, I couldn't say for sure.  But I don't think there is any way you can say for sure either.

Assuming (as I think you are) that the description on the photo is accurate, the 4th fairway and 2nd green are visible in the photo, right?   And we know that the high point on the 4th fairway is about 150 ft. elevation? And the 2nd green is only slightly lower?  And the 3rd tee, at about 160 feet, is also reportedly visible on the wider photo at least, and you have it in your mock-up.  So we are looking from an elevation of 160-170 ft. over a 150-160 ft. ridge (at least) around a quarter a mile away.  Yet the horizon line - at some unidentified distance in the background - is well above where you place the 2nd green, 4th fairway, and 3rd tee. Do you really think a ten foot elevation change is going to buy you that much viewable land horizon beyond the ridge?

You wrote: "Well, if Travis is to be believed, it should have been the Dwarf Pine Barrens, but then we know that none of the articles of the time are to be trusted."
What is the point of stuff like this?  I don't think anyone doubts the contemporaneous description of the tree types, do they?  If they do not, then why do you keep stating otherwise. Rather than a cheap shot, what is the point of this statement and similar ones? You claim you aren't trying to make a point, yet you continue to throw the "dwarf" reference out there.  If you aren't trying to make a point, why do you keep throwing it out there?  

I am glad to hear that you are not "brothers in arms" with Mike.   Unfortunately, he thinks differently.   He thinks that you don't call him on his behavior because you agree with him (and apparently his tactics.)  That is the way his mind works.  Does this help explain why we become frustrated when you and others sit silently while he wastes all of our time?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Here is a photo of the modern 18th.  Compare to the 1917 picture.  Apart from the fact that the current one is taken with a zoom lens, the thing that stands out is how dense the surrounding forest is today compared to 1917.  I'm not sure there is much value in saying what is visible today.  They've had a 100 years to cultivate the forests, and it looks like they are doing a damn fine job of it. 

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

You asked about corroboration for the story that Crump already owned the 300 acres. Way back in the beginning of the thread, Tom MacWood wrote the following: "Thomas Uzzell said Crump's father, who was a great huntsman, purchased the site as a hunting preserve, and the son inherited the property."  If TomM checks in, maybe he can expand on this. Obviously at this point there isn't enough corroboration on this particular point, but it sounds as if at least two sources were singing a similar song.  I agree with Patrick that it may be worth looking into.  Unfortunately, this may not be particularly easy to do depending upon the nature of Crump's legal interest (if any) in the property.

If Tom looks in it would be good if he could provide further insight.  Who is Thomas Uzzell, and who might his source have been?  As a side question to you, if Crump or father didn't own the property, what were the implications of Crump hunting game on private property?  Is that something that was commonly done in the early 20th century in NJ.

As for your discussion with Patrick about the photo, I am not convinced that the ridges you marked in the photo from the 18th tee are the "ridges" you think they are.   Likewise, I am not at all convinced that the horizon in the old photo is "dead flat.  In fact I strongly doubt it.  It is very difficult to tell with these photos, but it looks to me like there may be hills and/or ridges on the left side of the photograph, beyond the clearing on which you place the holes.  As I said, I couldn't say for sure.  But I don't think there is any way you can say for sure either.

Can you see another ridge on the topo that you think it might be?  I'm open to suggestions.

Assuming (as I think you are) that the description on the photo is accurate, the 4th fairway and 2nd green are visible in the photo, right?   And we know that the high point on the 4th fairway is about 150 ft. elevation? And the 2nd green is only slightly lower?  And the 3rd tee, at about 160 feet, is also reportedly visible on the wider photo at least, and you have it in your mock-up.  So we are looking from an elevation of 160-170 ft. over a 150-160 ft. ridge (at least) around a quarter a mile away.  Yet the horizon line - at some unidentified distance in the background - is well above where you place the 2nd green, 4th fairway, and 3rd tee. Do you really think a ten foot elevation change is going to buy you that much viewable land horizon beyond the ridge?

Where do you think the camera was located? 

My guess is that the horizon line is a mile away across the tracks and past Lake Lekau.  The intervening land after the ridge on the 4th and 2nd is probably too low to be seen from a photo at the crook in the fairway on the 6th.

You wrote: "Well, if Travis is to be believed, it should have been the Dwarf Pine Barrens, but then we know that none of the articles of the time are to be trusted."
What is the point of stuff like this?  I don't think anyone doubts the contemporaneous description of the tree types, do they?  If they do not, then why do you keep stating otherwise. Rather than a cheap shot, what is the point of this statement and similar ones? You claim you aren't trying to make a point, yet you continue to throw the "dwarf" reference out there.  If you aren't trying to make a point, why do you keep throwing it out there?

Sheesh David, lighten up.  Dwarf Pine Barrens was a small bit of humor.  The news article comment was fr Patrick.  I think we are all rightfully skeptical about news articles.  We have all found things that were reported in error from time to time.  Is there a point to the "dwarf" comments.  Only that Patrick previously had focused on the density and height of the trees that blocked all views of the topography from the trains.  Again, lighten up.  This isn't the national debt we're talking about.  

I am glad to hear that you are not "brothers in arms" with Mike.   Unfortunately, he thinks differently.   He thinks that you don't call him on his behavior because you agree with him (and apparently his tactics.)  That is the way his mind works.  Does this help explain why we become frustrated when you and others sit silently while he wastes all of our time?

I have no control over what Mike thinks. Nor what you think.  I have no interest in further discussion about your feelings about Mike.  If you're frustrated with me, then ignore me.  I'll survive.  

[DMoriarty]

If Tom looks in it would be good if he could provide further insight.  Who is Thomas Uzzell, and who might his source have been?  As a side question to you, if Crump or father didn't own the property, what were the implications of Crump hunting game on private property?  Is that something that was commonly done in the early 20th century in NJ.

Uzzell wrote an article in American Golfer in 1927.  Not sure if the two articles from this time period are derivative, and I haven't checked.  From the article:

Mr. Crump was the son of a British Consul to this country who was a great huntsman and who purchased the present property near the village of Clementon, New Jersey, as a hunting preserve. The son, inheriting the property, became interested in golf and sensing the matchless appropriateness of the land for a golf course devoted himself wholeheartedly to producing the finest layout money, devotion, and human ingenuity could devise. He began the work in 1910 from his home at Merchantsville near Philadelphia.

As for your other questions, Crump's father (or crump) could have owned a "profit" (profit-a-prendre) to hunt the land (the right to enter the land and take wild game from the land.)   Like mineral rights, only for game.  Such property interests existed well before 1910, even in New Jersey.  If the land owner had sold a profit in the land, it ought to have been recorded.  Another reason for someone to go check out the deeds.  

Can you see another ridge on the topo that you think it might be?  I'm open to suggestions.

It is possible, but again I am not really sure.  There look to be different ridges and hills back there, but I cannot tell for certain or place them specifically.

Where do you think the camera was located?  

My guess is that the horizon line is a mile away across the tracks and past Lake Lekau.  The intervening land after the ridge on the 4th and 2nd is probably too low to be seen from a photo at the crook in the fairway on the 6th.

I really don't know where the camera was located, and I am not inclined at the moment to even guess. I think the lens wide, and that makes it difficult to narrow it down.   Keep in mind, judging from the debris in one of the photos, that this photo was taken after clearing but before construction of what would become the 6th hole.  So while it seems safe to presume it was taken from somewhere around the 6th hole, I am not even certain it was taken from the actual sixth hole.  And I am not sure I put too much faith in the precise description provided in the book. Was the author trying to figure it out the same as us?   I don't know.  

The highpoint a mile way across the tracks is only about 130 feet, isn't it?   Do you really think it would appear that prominent in a photo as compared to the items we know were at 150-160 feet elevation?  

As for the dwarfs and scrubs, while you may see it as a joke, Mike unfortunately doesn't.  He has been exaggerating the issue incessantly, and not in jest.  If you won't call him out for his antics, could you please at least try to refrain from providing him with further fodder?  

[Tom MacWood]

Let review the known facts:

9/1910 - Crump sells the Collonade Hotel

10/1910-12/1910 - Crump and Baker go on a golf trip to Europe

1/1911 - It is reported Crump will now be playing more golf, business had occupied his time in 1910 preventing him from playing.

Simon Carr wrote that a dozen friends met to discuss the development of a winter course; Crump is given the responsibility of finding the site. HW Wind claimed that meeting took place in 1912. This is confirmed by JE Ford, who said they began looking for a site in the late summer of 1912.

Carr, Ford and Joseph Baker said Crump first looked near Atlantic City on the coast. According to Baker the site Absecon was rejected because of mosquitos. Baker said the next site he considered was Browns Mills. It is unknown why that site was rejected.

Fall/1912 - Crump writes his friends telling them he believes he has found the site.

10/1912-11/1912 - The site is purchased. They begin clearing thousands of trees that winter.

Where does Tilly's train story fit in on this timeline?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Here is a photo of the modern 18th.  
Compare to the 1917 picture.  

Apart from the fact that the current one is taken with a zoom lens, the thing that stands out is how dense the surrounding forest is today compared to 1917.  

Bryan, you can't be that naive or obtuse.
You KNOW that they cleared the land of the trees for the golf course. Over 22,000 of them.

As to how dense the forest is today compared to 1917, just look north of the RR tracks and you'll see a very dense forest, the same forest that was on the south side of the tracks until they cleared it.

You'll also notice the height of that forest.
Mike declared that the RR bank was 18 feet tall, yet, the trees to the north, behind the tracks, tower over the tracks, putting their height at 40 feet or more.  Does that look like the "dwarf" trees you keep refering to ?  Do those dense trees next to the tracks look like you can see through and/or over them as some have claimed, including you ?  

As to your claim about jesting about "dwarf" trees, I doubt it.
Despite your protests to the contrary, you've chosen your side.
Time and time again you've inserted your "dwarf" tree comments, insinuating that you could see over them, implying that they were miniscule in height.  And, you continued to do so even after David and Mike had posted early photos showing how dense and tall the trees were.

As to the photo from # 6, take a closer look at the upper left and you can see a second hill that descends to the right, while the hill on the right descends to the left.  


I'm not sure there is much value in saying what is visible today.  They've had a 100 years to cultivate the forests, and it looks like they are doing a damn fine job of it.  

Your lack of familiarity with PV, once again, causes you to make misleading statements.

Years after they cleared the land of over 22,000 trees, they embarked on a tree planting program whereby they planted thousands and thousands of trees.  Your lack of knowledge about PV causes you to draw flawed conclusions, leading you to compare photos from 1917 and current date, without understanding what happened prior to and after the 1917 photo was taken,






I'd say that I have at least 30 more years of experience at PV vs Jim Sullivan.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder why anyone asks us to look at the surround forest to determine how heavy the woods at PV were?  In those two 1931 aerials posted by David, you can see that PV itself still had some srubby areas 20 years after the supposed discovery?  Who knows what the areas that were cleared were like?

BTW, I notice that there did seem to be a natural area of lower, scrub trees right at the bend of the sixth fw, which would seemingly make that a perfect vantage point to take a picture from that ridge.  One photo also suggests a former clearing slot from right about the no. 6 green, which has started to grow over.  No such thing near the tee, that I can see.

I do agree with Pat that the white line in the distance is more likely road, than tracks.  Either way, if its in the photo, it couldn't have been taken from six tee to 3 green, as that would put it more than 90 degrees from the aiming point of the camera, and surely out of range of the picture.  Let's face it, Patrick is just wrong about where this photo is taken, but never has been too good about admitting that kind of thing!

Moreover, the whole argument is stooopid.  This photo is the wrong kind of evidence to "prove" that Tillie was the liar that Pat has called him.  It's obvious that Tillie first heard about it from Crump on the train.  I can agree with Patrick that it seems likely that others heard a different story, and elmements of each may be true.  Either way, there are more interesting things about PV that I would like to know.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Thanks for the info on "profits".  Would they have always been recorded on deeds? Or, would they have been private agreements?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I have tried to provide thoughtful analytical input.  Perhaps I'm naive to think that that would be a wise thing to do.

So, where do we stand now:

Travis and Nuneville lied when they said that there were dwarf pines and stunted oaks;

Tillie lied that Crump first recognized the site as good for golf from the train; and

Shelley lied that the picture was taken from the 6th fairway.

You are absolutely right about all three points.  There, does that feel better.   

[DMoriarty]

Such an interest should have been recorded, otherwise it would not have been enforceable against those without notice. But it is hard to say for sure whether or not these things would have been recorded or not, as that would have depended upon the sophistication of the purchaser/owner of the "profit," and whether he had the sense to record his interest to protect himself against future claims to this right.  If they merely had license to use the land for hunting (permission from the land owner) then it would not have been recorded.

It wouldn't hurt to check the deeds, but that is beyond my reach from California.

[DMoriarty]

I found the description of the discovery in the book by Brown to be a bit odd.  The book mentions the RR story, but indicates that "on one trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw "pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which was apparently suitable for a golf course."

What I found odd was the reference to "pasture land."  Brown does not say that Crump found Pine Valley from the train.  He says Crump noticed "pasture land which was apparently suitable for golf."    Whatever the Pine Valley land was, it was not what we would normally be described as "pasture land." 

Anyway, the passage reminded me of something I found odd about one or a few of the early accounts about the course.  From a March 29, 1913 article in the NY Sun: 

Remarkable work has been going on there for the last few months.  When the task of preparing the ground for a golf course was begun, the tract was little more than a forest, though the trees were not of great proportions.  There was considerable wonder at the time that all the effort necessary to clear away this tract was not saved in view of the fact that there was plenty of meadow land not far away, but those who who have seen the land since the trees and underbrush have been cleared declare that the conformation is remarkable, and fully justify the decision of the expert who determined on this property.

[I think this article is derivative of other articles but I haven't checked.]

A few things caught my eye in this paragraph.  But to stay on point, the mention of "pasture land" in the Brown book reminded me of this reference to the "meadow land" nearby Pine Valley.   I am left wondering for what exactly these Philadelphia golfers were looking pre-1910?

[Mike Cirba]

March 29th, 1913, New York Evening Post

Some of the foremost golfers in the
Philadelphia district are interested in a
new course at Sumner, near Clementon.
N. J., which links when finished, will be of
such quality that it is predicted it will be
among the best in the country. It is planned
to be the latest word in golf architecture
The Pine Valley Golf Club, as the
organization is called, has as its president
Howard W. Perrln. Wirt L. Thompson
is the vice-president and George A. Crump,
Dr Simon Carr, and Herman Wendell comprise
the green committee. Pine Valley is
given more than ordinary tone through the
inclusion of such well-known men as these
among the leading lights.

Remarkable work has been going on there
for the last few months. When the task of
preparing the ground for a golf course was
begun, the tract was little more than a
forest, though the trees were not of great
proportions. There was considerable wonder
at the time that all the effort necessary
to clear away this tract was not saved
in view of the fact that there was plenty
of meadow land not far away, but those
who have seen the land since the trees and
underbrush have been cleared declare that
the conformation is remarkable, and fully
justify the decision of the expert who determined
on this property

So far, only the general plan of the
course has been made and a few holes outlined
A drive of 225 yards will be necessary
to open the first green to advantage,
the green lying at an angle formed by pine
trees.  If the player carries 180 yards on
I his drive, he will pass these trees, but he
will find greater difficulty in holding the green
than if the drive had been longer.
The second will be a two-shot hole, the
green being located on a ridge In the side
of which will be placed a huge pit The
third tee will be on this ridge and a long
drive will get home, but an elaborate series
of Alpine mounds will make a long
carry necessary The ridge is used again
at the fourth and must he carried to permit
a view of the green, beautifully located an
Iron distance away The drive at the seventh
must be sufficient to reach a hog-back
fairway to enable the player to get home
with a long second  A slice In making either stroke
will mean disaster and the penalty
is unusually severe  The eighteenth
is another two-shot affair, with a long.
carry across the water hazard to the
green.

It is the plan of the committee to work
slowly but surely Parallel fairways are
to be eliminated as far as possible at
least of sufficient distance apart to prevent
playing from one to another. Extra
teeing grounds will be Installed at several
holes. Moreover, the greens are to be more
closely trapped than usual, particularly
thore reached with irons.


The look of the surrounding land in 1931, as well as the Pasture Land can be found at this link.   Just use the scroll bar on the bottom right of the photo to zoom in and out, and you can also move the photo up and down the tracks by left clicking on the photo and moving the cursor.

I think it's very illuminating as to what the land looked like 21 years after the property was found, but to the south east side of the photo one can easily find the probable pasture/meadow land that is referenced.

http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=5.24267139072721E-05&lat=39.7865037604478&lon=-74.9658661965429&year=1931


This 1920 aerial photo posted on page 2 by Paul Turner is the earliest one we have.   It should help clear up the question of where the features are on that 1913 photo in the Brown and Shelly books.

Please note a few things...the location of the 6th fairway in the upper left...the location of the road on #4, as well as the ridgeline to the right of it (left side in the photo) having been previously cleared of trees and since replanted....the location of the 2nd green and third tee in relation to the 4th fairway.   There is also a large tree on the left coming up the 4th fairway that can be seen in both photos.




On the Shelly photo, the 2nd green is directly above that tree on the left hand edge of the photo.   The 4th fairway is to the right of that tree and left of the road coming up the hill.

The 3rd tee is viewable in the Brown book photo, but cut off in the Shelly book.   Note from the 1920 aerial one sees that the 3rd tee is right at the edge of what is cleared, so if it was actually visible in the Shelly book we'd see the tree line.   We can't.




The view in the distance on the Shelly photo to the white horizontal line on the right is the road that comes into the property today.  Just behind it is the railroad bed and tracks as can be easily seen in the photo below from much the same angle at the top edge of the photo.



Finally, what Tillinghast ACTUALLY wrote in January 1911;

Mr. George A. Crump has returned
from an extended golfing tour in Europe
and he was delighted with the
courses in general. Mr. Crump is not
only a very stubborn player—and a
good one too when in form, but he is
also a close student of the game. Unfortunately
business has prevented his
appearance recently but the future will
find him more often on the links.


Back to lurking...

[Mike Cirba]

Rather than ask folks to try and navigate that link, I'll provide two images...the first from closer to the area in question on the 1913 photo as well as what the general train ride in the area might have revealed in 1931, 20 years after it was discovered.   The first picture is to fit your screen and the second, at full size, will allow a more detailed view but you'll need to use the scroll bar to navigate;

[Mike Cirba]

Here's a wider view of the area, which includes what looks like pasture land to the southeast just below the golf course along the tracks.

I'd love to see some creative person apply a topo to this photo.

[Mike Cirba]

And finally, because my last post has suddenly fallen to a previous page, please excuse the re-post, but I think it is important as it answers a number of questions that have been discussed/debated here.

March 29th, 1913, New York Evening Post

Some of the foremost golfers in the
Philadelphia district are interested in a
new course at Sumner, near Clementon.
N. J., which links when finished, will be of
such quality that it is predicted it will be
among the best in the country. It is planned
to be the latest word in golf architecture
The Pine Valley Golf Club, as the
organization is called, has as its president
Howard W. Perrln. Wirt L. Thompson
is the vice-president and George A. Crump,
Dr Simon Carr, and Herman Wendell comprise
the green committee. Pine Valley is
given more than ordinary tone through the
inclusion of such well-known men as these
among the leading lights.

Remarkable work has been going on there
for the last few months. When the task of
preparing the ground for a golf course was
begun, the tract was little more than a
forest, though the trees were not of great
proportions. There was considerable wonder
at the time that all the effort necessary
to clear away this tract was not saved
in view of the fact that there was plenty
of meadow land not far away, but those
who have seen the land since the trees and
underbrush have been cleared declare that
the conformation is remarkable, and fully
justify the decision of the expert who determined
on this property

So far, only the general plan of the
course has been made and a few holes outlined
A drive of 225 yards will be necessary
to open the first green to advantage,
the green lying at an angle formed by pine
trees.  If the player carries 180 yards on
I his drive, he will pass these trees, but he
will find greater difficulty in holding the green
than if the drive had been longer.
The second will be a two-shot hole, the
green being located on a ridge In the side
of which will be placed a huge pit The
third tee will be on this ridge and a long
drive will get home, but an elaborate series
of Alpine mounds will make a long
carry necessary The ridge is used again
at the fourth and must he carried to permit
a view of the green, beautifully located an
Iron distance away The drive at the seventh
must be sufficient to reach a hog-back
fairway to enable the player to get home
with a long second  A slice In making either stroke
will mean disaster and the penalty
is unusually severe  The eighteenth
is another two-shot affair, with a long.
carry across the water hazard to the
green.

It is the plan of the committee to work
slowly but surely Parallel fairways are
to be eliminated as far as possible at
least of sufficient distance apart to prevent
playing from one to another. Extra
teeing grounds will be Installed at several
holes. Moreover, the greens are to be more
closely trapped than usual, particularly
thore reached with irons.


The look of the surrounding land in 1931, as well as the Pasture Land can be found at this link.   Just use the scroll bar on the bottom right of the photo to zoom in and out, and you can also move the photo up and down the tracks by left clicking on the photo and moving the cursor.

I think it's very illuminating as to what the land looked like 21 years after the property was found, but to the south east side of the photo one can easily find the probable pasture/meadow land that is referenced.

http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=5.24267139072721E-05&lat=39.7865037604478&lon=-74.9658661965429&year=1931


This 1920 aerial photo posted on page 2 by Paul Turner is the earliest one we have.   It should help clear up the question of where the features are on that 1913 photo in the Brown and Shelly books.

Please note a few things...the location of the 6th fairway in the upper left...the location of the road on #4, as well as the ridgeline to the right of it (left side in the photo) having been previously cleared of trees and since replanted....the location of the 2nd green and third tee in relation to the 4th fairway.   There is also a large tree on the left coming up the 4th fairway that can be seen in both photos.




On the Shelly photo, the 2nd green is directly above that tree on the left hand edge of the photo.   The 4th fairway is to the right of that tree and left of the road coming up the hill.   Note that the road at the top of the hill splits both left and right in a Y configuration.   The left side was later abandoned to fairway, but the right continues on down the hill and is today an asphalt road leading down to the clubhouse.

The 3rd tee is viewable in the Brown book photo, but cut off in the Shelly book.   Note from the 1920 aerial one sees that the 3rd tee is right at the edge of what is cleared, so if it was actually visible in the Shelly book we'd see the tree line.   We can't.




The view in the distance on the Shelly photo to the white horizontal line on the right is the road that comes into the property today.  Just behind it is the railroad bed and tracks as can be easily seen in the photo below from much the same angle at the top edge of the photo.



Finally, what Tillinghast ACTUALLY wrote in January 1911;

Mr. George A. Crump has returned
from an extended golfing tour in Europe
and he was delighted with the
courses in general. Mr. Crump is not
only a very stubborn player—and a
good one too when in form, but he is
also a close student of the game. Unfortunately
business has prevented his
appearance recently but the future will
find him more often on the links.


Back to lurking...

[Bryan Izatt]

Nice to see yet another report (from the NY Times) on the forest:

When the task of
preparing the ground for a golf course was
begun, the tract was little more than a
forest, though the trees were not of great
proportions.

Also ran across an undated picture of the 5th hole.  I guess they thinned the trees around the 5th, rather than cleared them.  And cleared the undergrowth.  The trees don't appear to be very tall, the elevation from water to the middle of the green being no more than 30 feet.



  

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

I'm not sure why that is even in question here. 

On the very first Jan 1913 article I posted here Tillinghast said the land was covered by the usual Jersey growth of scrub trees and underbrush but that it was no biggie and took "just a glance" to see the amazing potential for golf.

This myth created and perpetuated here that they were dealing with some Amazonian forest is rather at odds with all the evidence.