[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

I guess the NY Times misspelled Isabelle as Gabell.

eight or nine separate sources saying GAC knew of the site through hunting

Why do you keep perpetuating this myth?  You know that there are not eight or nine sources.  Reread the first post of this thread.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Much as you may think you're opinion was a mystery, it never was. We knew you agreed with Tom.

No need to get snippy, Jim.  If you knew my opinion and aren't interested in it, then why did you ask for it in post 77? ("David?")  And why are you asking again for it now?

The question is, why don't two contradictory stories which such as Travers and Carr need to be reconciled with you guys yet the train story is obviously a myth when it could fit in with a number of the "nine sources"?

If you know my opinion then you already know that I have answered this question repeatedly.  As I read them, the Travers and Carr versions are not contradictory.  You keep saying they are, and are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with you for reasons stated repeatedly.    

As for the AWT train stories, AWT presents it as if Crump had no idea that hilly wood-covered sand hills existed a dozen miles from his home.  It was a revelatory story about the very existence of such land which was so different than the usual flat monotonous land in Southern NJ.  Crump became aware that such land existed only by a glance out the window of a fast moving train, and his first thought was that the land would be perfect for golf.   This is NOT consistent with Crump having been familiar with the land from hunting, and deciding on the land after careful study of the PV tract and other possible sites.

In other words, I take AWT at his word, and don't believe that what AWT really meant was that Crump was already very familiar with the land from having hunted it extensively, but nonetheless only came to the realization of its potential after a chance glance out a window of a fast moving train.   I don't believe that is what AWT really meant because this version doesn't jibe with what AWT wrote.    You want to read it this way, but I cannot.

[JESII]

David,

It was never in doubt as to your agreement with Tom Macwood on the train story being a myth...your interpretation of Travers' account versus Carr's has my rapt attention.

I took out the ancillary parts of the Carr account and have quoted the meat in the section below. It intrigues me when held up against the post you just made. Does this section below read to you as though Crump is simply returning to land he'd known his whole life? If he had this land in his back pocket (for lack of better words at the moment) why would they have searched all over Camden County?

1915 Simon Carr

 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.
"I think we have happened on something pretty
fine," he reported to his friends in Philadelphia. His
friends hastened down to have a look at the discovery.

Carr, who was certainly contemporaneous with Crump and directly involved with Pine Valley, does not say anything about how Crump originally “discovered” the site other than he was searching in all directions.  Certainly, nothing definitive here about discovery through “hunting”.

[DMoriarty]

I don't get what you don't get.  They searched every direction for land suitable for a golf course before deciding upon PV.  He eventually settled on a place that, according to other sources, he had been familiar with since childhood.  Surely he had been long familiar with other locations as well (such as the course near Atlantic City) but there is more to these decisions  (and the investigation leading up to them) than mere familiarity with the land.  The PV land posed some real challenges and it was NOT what most people thought of as land suitable for a golf course, so surely the choice was a revelation to some, but I don't buy that Crump first became familiar with it because a chance glance out the window of a fast moving train.

I guess you must be placing a tremendous amount of weight on the word "discovered."   But this is Carr's word, not Crump's, and I don't place the same emphasis on the word as you apparently do.  I read Carr as crediting Crump for coming up with the location. I don't read Carr as giving an exact chronology of exactly when the Crump first saw the land.

[JESII]

I guess that's all that needs to be said.

When Tillinghast says Crump spotted it from a train the author is taking a flight of fancy yet when Simon Carr says they looked in all directions for somewhere to put the course and Crump DISCOVERS a viable spot it means he simply returnd to a well know hunting ground.

I've never thought about giving up until now but I'm beginning to think you're a special kind of crazy...

[JESII]

David,

Tom Paul and Tom Macwood both say Simon Carr and Joseph Baker were as close to George Crump as anyone could be and neither of them say or imply that Crump knew this parcel previously, let alone knew t well from huntng on it for years. If they do, I haven't seen it and would love a clarification...can you provide it? If not, can you show me the sentences attributedto these two men that suggest Crump knew the land previously?

The Travers' account certainly does, as do Wilson and one or two other...I understand that. I would like to get on he same page regarding where you see in the various sources that Crump knew this spot previously.

[DMoriarty]

You want to hang your hat on Carr's word choice.  Looking at his article in the context of what else was written about the place, I don't.   So call me crazy.

[JESII]

David,

Help me out here...there's not a word in Carr's article that has anything to do with hunting yet you see it as supporting the theory that Crump had known this specific land for years because other articles suggested he did? How is that reasonable? Carr makes it crystal clear Crump had finding a place to put his golf course on his mind when he "DISCOVERED" the spot at Sumner Station.

Can we at least take Carr off the list of those supporting the hunting story? Tom? It seems reasonable to me. If we can, I'll ask Bryan to knock the third Hazard reference off our team...

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
Why do you care so much about how the site was discovered, and in particular the 1910 train story?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

I don't think I wrote that the Carr story "support[ed] the theory that Crump had known this specific land for years."  I think I said they were consistent.  They don't necessarily conflict. Crump may not have mentioned the hunting story, but his version of events can coexist with the hunting story and does not preclude the story, unless we get overly pedantic with one word choice.

Instead of pulling the one word out of context, I think we need to look at the rest of what he wrote, and also what other people wrote.  I don't think Carr was addressing the issue of when Crump first became aware of certain properties.  Carr provides a general survey of the areas they considered and credits Crump with coming up with Pine Valley.   Carr said "the region outside of Camden was searched in all directions."  So then, by your reading  this must mean that Crump - born in Merchantville and reportedly a lifetime sportsman and outdoorsman - had no familiarity with any of the properties they might have considered?  He laid eyes on the these properties for the very first time?  He had no familiarity with any land around Camden?  Is that a reasonable reading?  I don't think so.   Maybe it comes from my upbringing in a rural area where the land played an integral role in the way of life, but this notion that Crump was oblivious to his surrounds to the degree suggested by your interpretation strikes me as untenable.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

It is time to give it up.  No logical discussion will move either of them (or Pat for that matter) off of what they know.

David is an expert at perversion - the alteration of something from its original meaning to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.  His latest twist on what "consistent" means is a wowser in that regard.

Tom is an expert at dogmatic avoidance.  He has his 5 point dogma about the train story.  He has his 8 (or 9 including himself) sources dogma for the "hunting" story, where two are proven erroneous and others including Carr don't mention hunting at all, but he still claims 8 sources.  You ask him if we can remove Carr from the 8, and he asks you why you care so much.  Avoidance in the first degree.

And, both have suggested from time to time that they don't really care; it's all just minor myths.  But, then they post incessantly.  I don't understand why they care so much.

My suggestion - just give it up.  It is a waste of time now.  The deeds provided some irrefutable factual information about the assembly of the property.  The posting of the eight supposed "hunting" stories and the various "train" stories will provide anybody who cares to undertake their own analysis of it with a handy place to see the various "discovery" stories from over the years.   

 

[Tom MacWood]

Alan Wilson wrote he discovered it on a shooting trip; Jerome Travers said GAC told him he first discovered the site hunting; Tom Uzell said Crump's father bought the site as a hunting preserve and that was how GAC became familiar with it; Ellsworth Giles said Crump with dog and gun roamed and explored the property; HW Wind said GAC concluded it was the perfect site while hunting; Shelly said he became familiar with site while hunting small game; Ford said he knew the site through his hunting experiences; Bunker said he discovered the site on horseback. Do you see a pattern?

I don't think it matters how he and horse got to the site.

There are numerous problems with Tilly's 1910 train story:

1. Crump was not playing golf in 1910.
2. Tilly was playing little or no golf in 1910 because of his involvement at Shawnee.
3. Crump considered two other sites prior to settling on the current site in 1912.
4. Crump's 1912 letter stating he just found the site.
5. The majority claim the site was found hunting.  

Bryan
Here is the list I had in November; no mention of Carr. I should have added Nunneville who said Crump years ago had bought the site as a hunting preserve, and 'tramped it time and again with his dogs.' That would be number nine. We also know Finegan claims they have evidence GAC knew of the site through hunting...in opposition to the train lore. While the above stories differ slightly they all have one thing in common...he knew of the site through hunting.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am always struck by the pure coincidence of searching literally thousands of acres and ending up with 184 right next to the tracks.  What are chances of that, if he hadn't seen it from the train somehow, even if not first?

Yes, it could be coincidence that he rented horses from the Sumners, and needed train access for his future guests and members, and that Lumberton had decided to mine somewhere else and was willing to sell. 

We can just be glad he found a site of that size, rather than one of 120 acres as widely suggested by CBM, or we wouldn't have the course we have today.  It might be interesting to know what other suitable sites might have been available in 1912, and how easy it was to focus in on this site.  A lot of things factor into site selection, including perhaps those spring fed streams.

As others have said, I don't really care about the train vs hunting, and believe both have some truth to them.  Would love to know more about the entire site selection process, but we probably never will.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Why do you care so much that you have to pervert some of your 8 or 9 or 10 sources to support the hunting story?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Bryan's snide and insulting tone is not only unnecessary, it is also an unfortunate indication that he has become overlyemotional to the detriment of his ability to discuss this stuff reasonably.   That said, he is probably correct about one thing.  We probably aren't going to agree.   But that was clear from long ago, so I have no idea why he has been been pushing this agenda for the past few months. 

Over these various threads I have been trying to honestly answer your questions.  I don't care which story (if either) is ultimately true and am merely trying to call it as I see it.  Given that I have at least tried to address your concerns,  perhaps you will answer a few of mine.   

You focus on a single word in Carr - discovered - and while I don't agree with your reading in the context of the rest of the quote(s), I understand your position.  It makes sense even if I don't agree with it - if Carr was attempting to establish a chronology of the timing of when Crump first became aware of PV, then the conflict you see would be real.   I just disagree that this is what Carr was attempting to do.

Where things get more murky, though, is when we turn to AWT.   AWT left little doubt in what he meant.  In AWT's world, Crump, the sportsman and outdoorsman, was oblivious that there were tree covered sand hills only 12 miles from his house until he "chanced a glance" from a train, and his "first thought" for the land was golf.  This story not only conflicts with a number of accounts, it defies common sense.  How can you reconcile this AWT story with what we know of Crump and with a number of the other stories?   

[JESII]

David,

If we could all just make up what words, sentences and paragraphs mean to fit some picture we have the world would be a more difficult place...

But if that's the game, please show me where Tillinghast says Crump was never aware of this land prior to seeing it from the train? I know he uses the words "found" and "discovered" so I assume they can receive the same interpretation as when Simon Carr uses the word.



Pat,

I would still really love to hear what Crump ponted out to Tillinghast from the train.

[DMoriarty]

double post.  Sorry.  [FWIW Jim,  I tried to make sure my tone was acceptable in the spirit of Ran's New Year's thread, but somehow double posted my changes.  Nothing nasty in the original I don't think, just trying to be cautious.  The post is below.]

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Please just address the AWT statement instead of trying to shift it back to me, or back to Carr.  I am not asking you about Carr or your opinion of my interpretation, I am asking you about your understanding of the AWT statement.  

Do you really believe that what AWT was really saying is that Crump had been familiar with the land for years but decided it would work for a golf course because he caught a glimpse of it from a train??   I don't think you believe this for a minute, but if you do I'd like to hear it from you.   Go back and read the AWT statements and then tell me that it can be reconciled with this notion that AWT was already familiar with the land from hunting or whatever.  

According to AWT he chanced a glance out the window and "saw a tract of land which rivetted (sic) his attention instantly." Do you really believe that AWT's attention would have been riveted by land with which he had been long familiar?

According to AWT, the land caught Crump's attention upon the chance glance because the land was just so different than the rest of the land in Southern New Jersey (". . . for, unlike the usual flat Jersey landscape, this was beautifully rolling and hilly . . . As a matter of fact his attention had been attracted by a freakish bit of country in South Jersey, freakish because it was so totally different from the monotonous flat lands of those parts . . . it was different from the usual Jersey territory which stretched in monotonous flatness in every direction.)   Do you really believe that Crump could have been familiar with the land through hunting yet he never happened to notice that it was beautifully rolling and hilly, and very different from the rest of Southern New Jersey?  [He'd have to have been hunting with his head up his ass, which I doubt was the case.]

According to AWT, Crump immediately thought of the land's potential for golf.  Upon seeing this land, Crump's "first thought was the connection of this tract with golf."  Yet you want to argue that AWT really meant that Crump had long been familiar with the land?   If he had long been familiar with the land, then how could his "first thought" be the land's connection with golf?   That is nonsensical.  

In sum, I don't think you can honestly tell me that you read AWT in a manner consistent with the other accounts. To do so would be to ignore about everything he repeatedly wrote about the incident. AWT was describing the moment of Crump's initial discovery of the nature of the land, a "freakish" landscape which caught his eye from a passing train.  A landscape with which one has long been familiar is not a "freakish landscape" and one does not first think of golf when one knows the land well from hunting or exploring.  That makes no sense.  

[Mark Chaplin]

Amazing .

[JESII]

David, if you think it's worthwhile to get into another sentence splicing death march you'll have to find someone else. You take the two guys that, along with John Arthur Brown, likely knew Crump the best and decipher their stories which do not mention or imply hunting in any way and consider them corraborations to the hunting myths. It's that simple! The quality of a source does matter.

What do you think of John Arthur Brown writing that Tillinghasts story was exactly what was in Crump's own notes? I assume you, Tom MacWood and Pat Mucci each have the pamphlet Brown wrote because you've each referenced it but I'll let you each deny that on your own if you do not.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

I am not asking you to splice sentences, I am asking you to reconcile the AWT story with the other stories.  It is a very similar question to the ones you asked me and I have been patiently trying to answer for about a month or so. 

I think you are trying to have it both ways.  You insist upon your reading of Carr which highlights the possible conflict created by the word "discovered," yet you won't even address the obvious and large inconsistencies between AWT and the others.

Do you really believe that what AWT wrote reconciles with the notion that Crump had been familiar with the land for years?

______________________________________________

As for Brown, I have the book but don't have it handy, and don't remember what he said about the train story one way or another.  Didn't he just quote or paraphrase AWT's newspaper accounts?

[JESII]

This email was in my inbox this morning...it was in yours as well...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gentlemen--

It has be somewhere in all of this discussion, but just in case here is what John Arthur Brown wrote on page 7 of "Short History of Pine Valley"...

  Pine Valley had a rather unusual beginning.

   In the early 1900 a group of enthusiastic golfers from the Philadelphia Country Club at Bala, Pennsylvania, occasionally journeyed to Atlantic City on the Reading Railroad to play the Atlantic City Country Club. George Crump was the leader of the group.

   Our old record indicate that on one trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which apparantly was suitable for a golf course. This raised is curiosity and later he and Howard Perrin, the first President of the Pine Valley Golf Club, spent several days tramping over the grounds which now comprise the Club.

   The property at the time was owned by Sumner Ireland who had a residence nearby. The railroad station at that poine was then called Sumner.

   Crump's old records indicate his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of a most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property had one time had been covered by the ocean.

   Crump formed a syndicate and in 1912 bought 184 acres from Mr. Ireland. Some of the old newspaper articles are interesting in this connection. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1912, is worth quoting in full. It gives and excellent description.[/i]

Page 8 continues with the description from the paper that we've seen before.
 
Hope you all have a Happy New Year.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know you say you don't read those emails, and I can't blame you but this one is quite important...to Tom Macwoods credibility and the fact that he convinced you and Pat to along with him one way or another.

[Bryan Izatt]

An off-line source has provided the John Arthur Brown version of the discovery story.  I have not seen the original book, but have no reason to doubt the validity of this transcription.

As Tom has said since his Opinion piece, it supports the "train" story.  On that basis, I guess that it too must be considered "bogus" in the eyes of Mucci, MacWood and Moriarty.  Anyone else who is still following along can interpret it as you wish.

I will add it to the compendium of quotes in the opening posts when I get a chance.

"Here is what John Arthur Brown wrote on page 7 of "Short History of Pine Valley"...

   "Pine Valley had a rather unusual beginning.

   In the early 1900 a group of enthusiastic golfers from the Philadelphia Country Club at Bala, Pennsylvania, occasionally journeyed to Atlantic City on the Reading Railroad to play the Atlantic City Country Club. George Crump was the leader of the group.

   Our old record indicate that on one trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which apparently was suitable for a golf course. This raised is curiosity and later he and Howard Perrin, the first President of the Pine Valley Golf Club, spent several days tramping over the grounds which now comprise the Club.

   The property at the time was owned by Sumner Ireland who had a residence nearby. The railroad station at that point was then called Sumner.

   Crump's old records indicate his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of a most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property had one time had been covered by the ocean.

   Crump formed a syndicate and in 1912 bought 184 acres from Mr. Ireland. Some of the old newspaper articles are interesting in this connection. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1912, is worth quoting in full. It gives and excellent description."

Page 8 continues with the description from the paper that we've seen before."

Of Course it does make the erroneous claim that Crump bought the land from Mr. Ireland; and, that the land was pasture land.  

  

[DMoriarty]

I know you say you don't read those emails, and I can't blame you but this one is quite important...to Tom Macwoods credibility and the fact that he convinced you and Pat to along with him one way or another.

Any emails with TEPaul or Cirba as sender or recipient are edited out of my inbox.   This includes when they are CC'ed.  It may mean I miss a relevant email or two, but it beats slogging through their hundreds of screeds.  I have no interest in their email circle jerks which are nothing but pathetic cries for attention.

I have no idea why you think that passage above impacts TomM's credibility.  Bryan is the one who has been trying to put together a listing of the various accounts, not TomM.  Is there something in particular about this account that puts TomM's credibility into question?

The passage looks to me like he is paraphrasing the AWT articles, but maybe Shelly's book is influencing me on this.  (If I recall correctly Shelly indicated that the train story came from newspaper articles.)

Now Jim, will you please address my questions about the AWT articles?

[JESII]

Bryan,

Pat has said every inch of the property was an impenetrable jungle but the contemporaneous sources don't go quite as far. He's used Tillinghast as support for this conclusion but AWT's only reference that I've seen is in discussing the 13th greensite being hidden from view, not the rest of the property. I don't read Brown's words to say every inch was covered...




Do any of these early sources mention an active sand mining operation in any way?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()