[Tom MacWood]

Finegan doesn't say what the new evidence is.

Uzzell's entire account is discredited? I don't think so. His account mentioning the hunting angle is consistent with numerous other accounts, and in that context it should be given proper consideration. If you are going to be that stringent shouldn't you also discount Tilly and Brown's accounts?

Tilly said Colt was in Canada when he was called; Colt was not in Canada in 1913. Tilly claimed his article in January 1913 was the first words written about the project, but there was a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer late in 1912. Tilly said the entire project was financed by Crump. Tilly said Crump died from a tooth ache. Brown said Crump purchased 184 acres from Sumner Ireland.

[Tom MacWood]

George W. Crump was born in Philadelphia in 1838. His mother and father were born in England, and some of this brothers and sisters were born over there too. George W. and some of his younger siblings were born in the US. The old man, William Crump was the editor of a Philadelphia newspaper. I believe I covered all that in my essay.

[JESII]

Uzzell's entire account is discredited? I don't think so. His account mentioning the hunting angle is consistent with numerous other accounts, and in that context it should be given proper consideration.

"Hunting angle"?

What exactly is that?

[Tom MacWood]

The problem, David, is that Brown makes it clear he was reading Cumps notes.

Macwood repeatedly said every source other than AWT contradicted the train story. As the evidence has been revealed it's clear that not only was Macwood fabricating Carr and Baker's support for the hunting story but he intentionally left Brown out who makes it clear that Tillinghast's story gives an excellent description.

These three men knew more about the origins of Pine Valley than any other 10.

Jim
Those are some bold statements.....care to back them up?

This is an example of how emotion, and your emotional attachment to the train story, has effected your objectivity and accuracy. As I have said before, as local myths go this one is relatively minor, so if you have you have some sort of attachments I don't see the harm. In the greater scheme of things its really not that important.

Have you read Brown's history of PV?

Hunting theme, hunting angle...the seven or eight accounts that claim Crump was familiar with the site through hunting.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  

TomM's request seems a reasonable one.  You claim to be posting because you think TomM made a number of false claims. So are you going to back up your claims? I won't start multiple threads about it, nor will I keep after it for months, but it might be interesting if we gave your posts even a fraction of the scrutiny that Tom's posts get, or mine for that matter. Here are the claims from your post above . . .

• "The problem, David, is that Brown makes it clear he was reading Cumps notes."
• "Macwood repeatedly said every source other than AWT contradicted the train story."
• "It's clear that not only was Macwood fabricating Carr and Baker's support for the hunting story . . ."
• ". . . but he intentionally left Brown out who makes it clear that Tillinghast's story gives an excellent description."
• "These three men knew more about the origins of Pine Valley than any other 10."

I don't think a single one of your claims stands up to much scrutiny, but am curious to see you try to back them up and am willing to consider your evidence.  Surely TomM isn't the only poster who ought to be taken to task for what he has (supposedly) claimed?  
_____________________________________________

Bryan, in response to your hunting questions, I don't think we have enough detail to say for certain what all Crump might have hunted on the land, or whether he was always on horseback. But one can hunt just about anything on horseback (and the combination of horseback and dogs was quite common for small game.)  One can also use a combination of horses and walking.  If they were hunting on horseback, I'd guess that they were hunting a much larger area than just the 184 acres or even 300 acres, as those would be a fairly small areas to hunt on horseback.

[Bryan Izatt]

Finegan doesn't say what the new evidence is.

Uzzell's entire account is discredited? I don't think so. His account mentioning the hunting angle is consistent with numerous other accounts, and in that context it should be given proper consideration. If you are going to be that stringent shouldn't you also discount Tilly and Brown's accounts?

Tilly said Colt was in Canada when he was called; Colt was not in Canada in 1913. Tilly claimed his article in January 1913 was the first words written about the project, but there was a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer late in 1912. Tilly said the entire project was financed by Crump. Tilly said Crump died from a tooth ache. Brown said Crump purchased 184 acres from Sumner Ireland.

I would infer that Finegan was again referring to Shelly and the picture of Crump resting amid the pines as the "new evidence".  If there was something newer than that, don't you think he might have mentioned what the newer evidence was?

Did I say that Uzzell's entire account should be discounted?  No.  Just the part about the hunting preserve and Crump inheriting it.  The rest of the article is about the course in 1927.  I haven't really tried to arrive at any kind of judgement about that.  It irrelevant to the discovery story.  There is one paragraph in the article about the discovery.  Here it is again with the erroneous parts stroked out.

"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."

I don't know how you and David can read that and infer any hunting angle vis-a-vis the 184 property that Crump bought from Lumberton who in turn bought it from the Jonas Bowman estate.  

As a separate thought, Uzzell says in the last statement that Crump began work on the course from his home in Merchantville in 1910.  I hope you'd agree that that doesn't align with any other account of the discovery and early design and construction.

[Terry Lavin]

Hunting?

[Bryan Izatt]

................................

Bryan, in response to your hunting questions, I don't think we have enough detail to say for certain what all Crump might have hunted on the land, or whether he was always on horseback. But one can hunt just about anything on horseback (and the combination of horseback and dogs was quite common for small game.)  One can also use a combination of horses and walking.  If they were hunting on horseback, I'd guess that they were hunting a much larger area than just the 184 acres or even 300 acres, as those would be a fairly small areas to hunt on horseback.

In one of Tom's eight sources, there is reference to horseback (with no reference to hunting).  Tom has inferred that horseback equates to hunting in one of the articles.  I was just trying to assess the likelihood of that inference.  I had heard of fox hunting with hounds and horses but I've only seen it in the movies and it always looked to be in relatively open English forests. The Pine Valley property has been described as jungle-like.  I hadn't really heard of hunting on horses for "small game" and "quail" as mentioned in two articles.  I'd have thought that was unusual.  And, near impossible in jungle-like undergrowth.  Anyway, I'd infer that horseback riding does not necessarily equate to hunting.  I know you might think of it as "consistent" with hunting, but to me it's a stretch.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Hunting?

Now, that's a good question.

[Tom MacWood]

Bryan
If you are going to be that stringent shouldn't you also discount Tilly and Brown's accounts?

Tilly said Colt was in Canada when he was called; Colt was not in Canada in 1913. Tilly claimed his article in January 1913 was the first words written about the project, but there was a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer late in 1912. Tilly said the entire project was financed by Crump. Tilly said Crump died from a tooth ache. Brown said Crump purchased 184 acres from Sumner Ireland. What do you say?

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

I don't think I'm being stringent.  Uzzell got the hunting preserve part wrong.  Therefore his account doesn't support the "hunting angle".  That's just being factual. 

As for other articles and histories, sure there are errors in many of them.  If the errors are relevant to the point we are discussing, then we should throw out the point in error.  That is not to say that one error renders a whole piece useless, in my opinion.

Brown saying Crump purchased the 184 acres from Sumner Ireland is right about the acreage and wrong about the seller.  I pointed out the error previously.  That error has no bearing on the "hunting angle" so it is irrelevant to the train and/or the hunting discussion. Nor, does it render the rest of his history necessarily wrong.  As to the rest of your examples, do they bear in some way on the hunting and/or train angle specifically?  How?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

AWT was glaringly wrong on reporting the cause of Crump's death.
He continued to be incorrect as time passed, and no one corrected him.

I see a parallel in the train story.

What you and others continue to ignore are the physical properties immediately adjacent and south of the tracks and the description of what was allegedly seen.

"rolling hills, valleys and pasture land"

Where are the "rolling hills" ?  PLURAL ?  Could you point them out ?

Where are the "valleys" ?   PLURAL ?    Could you point them out ?

Where is the "pasture land" ?   Could you point it out ?

Remember , his train was speeding east.
And remember, Carr and AWT along with other accounts, described the land as dense forest/woods with thick jungle like undergrowth that HUD the land from the mortal eye.

So please point out those physical features/properties that GAC allegedly saw from the train.

Jim Sullivan, could you point them out ?

[JESII]

Pat,

Does this fairly represent your position?

"My initial categorization wasn't that AWT was lying, that was Jeff Brauer's categorization of my take on the train story.
I think AWT got it wrong in terms of one word, "FIRST".
I don't think that GAC "first" saw PV with a "chance glimpse" from a train traveling east at 60 mph.
Neither the terrain/topography/landform nor the dense forestation and undegrowth allow for that.
I've said, dozens of times, which you either forgot or didn't read, that GAC, already familiar with the property, pointed it out to AWT and others on a trip to AC."



David and Tom,

I'm putting together an answer for you.

In the meantime can you tell me if "isolated" here means isolated or something different?

"Jim
That's true, but with so many solid news reports contradicting that story was there anyone who took that isolated story seriously? I didn't.

Of the numerous stories (Wilson, Bunker, Travers, Giles, Uzell, Ford, Wind and Shelley) claiming he found the site hunting and/or on horseback I believe the earliest is May 1914. "

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

Like Yogi, what I write usually represents what I think...... But not always.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, your speculation and assumptions regarding the Uzzell article are interesting, but perhaps we ought to return to reality. You came up with a deed indicating that, in 1912, Crump purchased the land in question.  He did not inherit it.  Thanks for that.  But this deed proves nothing about the past chain of title of the land, past interests (formal or informal) the Crumps might have had in the land, whether the Crumps used the land as their family hunting grounds, etc.

Sticking just to the facts and what of the account you've actually discredited, here it is again with the ONLY discredited portion highlighted and stricken:

"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."

That is it.  You've proven that G.A. Crump did not inherit the property in 1912. You are just assuming the rest follows, but that is not an assumption I am willing to make.
________________________________________

I think it is a mistake for you to continue to assume that the only evidence Shelley had was the photo. He doesn't say that.   He includes the photo, but he does not let on as to how he knew that the photo had a connection to the land in question.  You seem to think Shelley just assumed it was the same land, but in my book that'd make Shelley an idiot.  I don't think Shelley was an idiot so I don't buy your assumption about his lack of common sense when it came to understanding a photograph.
_________________________________________

As for your latest take on how Crump might or might not have hunted the land, you sure have a lot of definite opinions on the matter for someone who knows so little about it. I won't bother with your assumptions and speculation except to say that I disagree with most of them but don't see how getting into it will advance the discussion.
_________________________________

Jim,  Isolated always means isolated, but one needs to always look at the context.   For a half century, until Brown recited AWT's version, AWT seems to have been the sole purveyor of the train story.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

AWT was glaringly wrong on reporting the cause of Crump's death.
He continued to be incorrect as time passed, and no one corrected him.

I see a parallel in the train story.  I understand that you see a parallel. I don't see a parallel. 

What you and others continue to ignore are the physical properties immediately adjacent and south of the tracks and the description of what was allegedly seen.

"rolling hills, valleys and pasture land"  To whom are you attributing this quote?  I don't recall seeing it before.  Or, is it just a rhetorical device?

Where are the "rolling hills" ?  PLURAL ?  Could you point them out ?

Where are the "valleys" ?   PLURAL ?    Could you point them out ?

Where is the "pasture land" ?   Could you point it out ?

Remember , his train was speeding east.
And remember, Carr and AWT along with other accounts, described the land as dense forest/woods with thick jungle like undergrowth that HUD the land from the mortal eye.  Do you think that it was possible to ride a horse through the "dense woods" and "jungle like undergrowth"?  Do you believe that riding on horseback means that Crump was hunting?

So please point out those physical features/properties that GAC allegedly saw from the train.  Been there, done that.  Twice.  Look back in the threads.  There's no point in me writing it out a third time for you, since you evidently don't read the replies anyway. 

Jim Sullivan, could you point them out ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan, your speculation and assumptions regarding the Uzzell article are interesting, but perhaps we ought to return to reality.  Would that be the alternate reality of your speculation and assumptions?  You came up with a deed indicating that, in 1912, Crump purchased the land in question.  He did not inherit it.  Thanks for that.  I truly take heart that we ocassionally agree on a point.  But this deed proves nothing about the past chain of title of the land, past interests (formal or informal) the Crumps might have had in the land, whether the Crumps used the land as their family hunting grounds, etc.  No, it does not deal with past "might have"s.  If you ever find any evidence of past Crump family involvement with that 184 acre property, I would certainly like to see it.

Sticking just to the facts and what of the account you've actually discredited, here it is again with the ONLY discredited portion highlighted and stricken:

"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."

That is it.  You've proven that G.A. Crump did not inherit the property in 1912. You are just assuming the rest follows, but that is not an assumption I am willing to make.

I understand that you're not ready to  make that assumption.  I think it is a highly likely assumption.  Do you think that your alternative is likely, or very likely or just possible?  If I understand your thinking correctly, you think it is possible that G. W. Crump bought the 184 acre property as a "hunting preserve" in the 1880's when George A. was a "boy" and then sold it some time before 1901, but retained hunting rights on the property through Bowman's and then Lumberton's ownership.  Methinks that if I assumed such a sting of events, that you'd rip me to shreds.

What do you make of Uzzell's statement that George A. began work on the course in 1910.  Do you recall anybody else making that claim.  Does it give you more or less confidence on Uzzell's credibility on his background research for the article?
________________________________________

I think it is a mistake for you to continue to assume that the only evidence Shelley had was the photo. He doesn't say that.   He includes the photo, but he does not let on as to how he knew that the photo had a connection to the land in question.  You seem to think Shelley just assumed it was the same land, but in my book that'd make Shelley an idiot.  I don't think Shelley was an idiot so I don't buy your assumption about his lack of common sense when it came to understanding a photograph.

Thanks for setting up a straw man and attributing it to me with no basis for doing so.  Clearly you don't know what I think.  Why would you try to infer that I think Shelly was an "idiot"?  I have said in the past that Shelly presumably had some information that linked the photo to the PV location.  I've only said that it would be nice to know what it was.  Why do you want to tar and feather me with something I don't think and didn't say.  Are you in such need of rhetorical points that you'll make stuff up.  Should I start calling you sleazy, to use one of your words?
_________________________________________

As for your latest take on how Crump might or might not have hunted the land, you sure have a lot of definite opinions on the matter for someone who knows so little about it. I won't bother with your assumptions and speculation except to say that I disagree with most of them but don't see how getting into it will advance the discussion.

_________________________________

Jim,  Isolated always means isolated, but one needs to always look at the context.   For a half century, until Brown recited AWT's version, AWT seems to have been the sole purveyor of the train story.  

[Bryan Izatt]

In my continuing quest to try to document all the sources on the discovery story, following is the January 4, 1914 article from the Philadelphia Inquirer that Brown referred to.  I'll add it into the initial posts of the thread.  I cannot confirm who the author was based on the clipping I have.

"Just about ten years ago, according to their own estimates, a coterie of Philadelphia's deepest dyed-in-the-wool golfers began a search for an ideal links.  Their quest antedated the similar attempts of New Yorkers by a year at least.  By 1904 it was evident that golf had come to stay in America, but the subclay soils among Philadelphia suburbs made it impossible to play with any degree of comfort more than seven months each year, despite extensive drainage systems, put in at larger clubs like Merion.  But a sandy soil that would serve as a filter was not the only thing demanded.  The old guard and some of the new guard, too, for that matter, wished an up-to-date links scientifically trapped and requiring thinking golf, which is more than can be said for some clubs where pink teas and ham bites seem to be the chief end of man and woman.

At first the search was in a desultory way from hearsay and railroad car windows.  Years sped by without definite results, until it became apparent that a closer canvas must be begun, so many an automobile trip was made half with that end in view.

About two years ago, after locations as far away as Northfield and Somers Point had been exhausted, the choice narrowed to Pine Valley, close to the Reading Railway, sixteen miles below Philadelphia, on the direct line to Atlantic City.  It is also close to the White Horse pike, an automobile route.

             *       *          *          *

The land there, comprising 184 rolling acres, is, or was, the highest ground in Southern New Jersey, 200 feet at points above sea level, being 100 years ago the home of the Delaware Indians.  It is the watershed between the Tuckahoe and Delaware Rivers.  The first blow of the ax was struck there last February;   ........................."
       
This article puts a different spin on the discovery - desultory searching by train and more detailed searching on automobile trips over a period of ten years.  It supports neither the train nor the hunting angle.  One does wonder how they would have explored the 184 acre site by automobile.  The nearest road was well away from the site.  Other stories have the assessment of the property taking place after debarking from the train.

I'll also add, as time allows, the Finegan version based on the quotes that have been provided by others.

[Bryan Izatt]

One other interesting feature of the January 4, 1914 Philadelphia Inquirer article was the course map that headed the article.  It looks like an interesting amalgamation of the blue version of the blue/red topo with tree lines from the 1913 topo.  Curious that they'd show the tree lines covering some of the holes, e.g. the 4th.  The holes don't exactly match up with the Colt map.  And, I don't recall seeing the "Swamp" so clearly laid out before.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Re the Uzzell, nice trying to shift the burden to me, but this is not about me vs. you, this is about you vs. Uzzell.   You claimed to have "discredited" Uzzell's story of how Crump became familiar with the property.   "Discredited" is your word, not mine.  But you have only "discredited" one part Uzzell's story --you proved Crump purchased the property in 1912 which means he did not inherit it.  You haven't touched the rest of the story.

And it is not a matter of "might haves" or assumptions on my part.  It is a matter of taking Uzzell's account seriously even though he got the part about the inheritance wrong. You pretend that the whole story must necessarily stand or fall with the inheritance, but that is a stilted, unrealistic reading. More importantly, it is nothing but an stretched assumption on your part and does NOT justify your claim that you "DISCREDITED" the rest. You haven't.  

As between my opinion and yours, please quit putting words in my mouth about what you think I must be thinking. You are not even close.  While you try to spin it otherwise, Uzzell tells us that Crump was familiar with the land because his family had long hunted the land.  I suspect that Uzzell got this part of the story correct and then mistakenly assumed from there that the Crumps must have owned the land they hunted.  This is far more plausible than your version, which seems to have him making up the entire chain of events out of whole cloth.

Here again is the passage.  I've again highlighted and stricken the only part of the story you have actually "discredited."  

"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."

If you have "discredited" more than this, please identify what you have discredited and refresh my recollection on the FACTS discrediting anything else.  Thanks.  

______________________________________

As to the statement that he began work in 1910, what is your problem with that?  I don't know when Crump started working on the project, but it could have been 1910.   We know he went abroad to study golf courses in 1910.  Another source has him sending for maps of Camden County while he was overseas studying golf course.  AWT indicated the "quietly" started working on the project in 1910, when he began "quietly investigating" the site, and I don't recall you objecting to AWT's characterization.  

In fact I am very interested in the timing because I am most curious about whether or not Crump was already considering PV before he traveled abroad, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he already had the site pegged as a potential site for golf as early as 1910.  

But let me guess . . .  since you are out to discredit Uzzell you will try to claim that "work" can only possibly mean physical work on the property, and that didn't start until 1913, therefore Uzzell must be wrong.   If that is your logic, then you would not be discrediting Uzzell but rather yourself.
_____________________

An aside Re the 1914 plan in the newspaper, the road shown in the plan from the newspaper (starting in the upper left corner and ending at the 10th green) is also present on the 1913 topo.  (I had corrected you when you claimed there were no roads on the property per the topo, you asked me to identify the road, it slipped my mind but seeing that plan again reminded me. )
_________________________

Re: Shelley, I am glad you now agree that he must have had more reason to believe that Crump was familiar with the land than just that picture.  But then that raises the question as to what this is all about?  

[Tom MacWood]

That article has been posted half a dozen times or more in the last few years. I think it is pretty obvious Bryan knows next nothing about PV (and golf architecture history in general), and is allowing himself to be a vehicle for a couple of jackasses.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Take Uzzell's account "seriously".  Would I be more serious if I accept, without a corroborating source, that the first sentence is correct.  Your point escapes me once again.

We disagree.  Move on.

_________________________________________________

Why do you think I have a problem with the 1910 statement.  I asked you what you thought of it.  You're being needlessly argumentative.  Please stop attributing positions to me.

In the context of that paragraph it seemed odd to me.  I was thinking about Crump's self-described "landing on" or "happening on" the property in 1912 and this article saying he began "work" (however you want to define it) in 1910 on producing the finest layout on the property that Uzzell said Crump's father bought and sold some time previously.  Seemed like a disconnect to me.  If you are seriously emotionally attached to Crump's father buying the property don't let me get in the way.

____________________________________________________

I asked you where you thought the road, if that is what it is, went from and to.  It starts on the course and ends on a green.  Seems like a strange road. There were no allowances in the deeds for a road or ROW across the course.

_____________________________________________________

Once again, you pervert what I say so that you can take a shot.  Good start to 2012.

______________________________________________________

   

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Yes, I know it was posted before.  I wanted it here for those who didn't want to search for it and in the context of the Brown account.

I'm saddened to see that you're not moving ahead in 2012 in the spirit that Ran wanted for his site.

I'm comfortable with what I know.  I am not disturbed by your pot shots.  I will not retaliate.

I purposely don't front for the offline people.  If you want to battle with them, go off-line.  I suspect they'd be happy to engage.

[DMoriarty]

Take Uzzell's account "seriously".  Would I be more serious if I accept, without a corroborating source, that the first sentence is correct.

You seem to accept quite a bit of that first sentence.  I don't care whether you accept the rest or not, but I'd prefer it if you quit pretending you "discredited" the parts you don't accept.  You haven't discredited a word of that first sentence, have you?

Your point escapes me once again.

More like you are trying to "escape" my point. You claimed you discredited Uzzell's version of how Crump came to know the property.  You haven't.  All you've disproven is the single clause about the inheritance.  

We disagree.  Move on.

Before we move on I'd rather you clarify just what it is you think you have discredited, and provide proof thereof.  You must realize you haven't really discredited anything but the inheritance.
_________________________________________________

Why do you think I have a problem with the 1910 statement.  I asked you what you thought of it.  You're being needlessly argumentative.  Please stop attributing positions to me.

In the context of that paragraph it seemed odd to me.  I was thinking about Crump's self-described "landing on" or "happening on" the property in 1912 and this article saying he began "work" (however you want to define it) in 1910 on producing the finest layout on the property that Uzzell said Crump's father bought and sold some time previously.  Seemed like a disconnect to me.

You've repeatedly suggested that the 1910 mention doesn't ring accurate, yet you scold me for asking you what problem you have with it?  Even though the rest of your response indicated you do have a problem with it?   Yet I am the one being needlessly argumentative?   That's rich.
____________________________________________________

If you are seriously emotionally attached to Crump's father buying the property don't let me get in the way.

So much for your stated desire to "move on."  Or did you mean that I was to "move on" while you continued to take shots at me about the Uzzell issue?  If you want to continue to put words in my mouth and take these petty pot shots at my position, you might want to refrain for a post or two from lecturing me for supposedly doing these same things.

I am not "attached to Crump's father buying the property."  I don't know whether or not he ever owned the land and neither do you.  I don't care whether he did or not. The land in question could have been the Crump family hunting grounds whether or not he ever had a formal ownership interest.  You keep trying to tie the hunting story to the ownership of the property but that doesn't wash.   It was and is quite common for well connected people to hunt land owned by others.  I've explained this to you many times but you ignore it and keep putting different words in my mouth to try and twist my position to one more to your liking.

I asked you where you thought the road, if that is what it is, went from and to.  It starts on the course and ends on a green.  Seems like a strange road. There were no allowances in the deeds for a road or ROW across the course.

It starts on the course?  Another unsupported assumption on your part.  We don't know where it starts because the topo map does not extend beyond the borders of the property.  The map makers didn't even bother to draw the features (such as the contour lines) to the border of the property.   If it was a road used for accessing the property by the owners of said property, a ROW would be redundant.  One does not need a ROW across ones own property.  To support your assumption, you'd have to check previous titles to the property to the south --NOT the deed where PV was purchasing said property because PV's purchase would extinguish the need for such a ROW by making it redundant (same would apply to any other restrictions previously reserving rights for the person who bought the property.)
_______________________________________

Once again, you pervert what I say so that you can take a shot.  Good start to 2012.

I don't think I perverted what you wrote, You have no high ground to stand on when it comes these things.    Perhaps you should work on cleaning up your own act instead of lecturing others.
__________________________________________________

I looked a little bit into hunting culture in New Jersey around this time.  From what I can glean after a quick look, it sounds as if the only woodland suitable for hunting in Camden County was in the southern part of the county.   The area around Clementon was particularly known for its quality rabbit and quail hunting.  Because of overcrowding and depletion on publicly accessible lands, well off sportsman tended toward hunting on privately owned land.  Sometimes they formed clubs or associations to secure exclusive access to private land for the members of the club or association.

[JESII]

I looked a little bit into hunting culture in New Jersey around this time.  From what I can glean after a quick look, it sounds as if the only woodland suitable for hunting in Camden County was in the southern part of the county.   The area around Clementon was particularly known for its quality rabbit and quail hunting.  Because of overcrowding and depletion on publicly accessible lands, well off sportsman tended toward hunting on privately owned land.  Sometimes they formed clubs or associations to secure exclusive access to private land for the members of the club or association.

Isn't this pretty standard when the area in question is attached to a major metropolitan area? As you move away from Camden/Philadelphia the hunting would improve...no?

I would have thought Joseph Baker would have been aware of the family hunting grounds, wouldn't you Tom?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()