Two Tillinghast treasures seen here and now for the first time

[Adam Lawrence]

Phil, I would love you to show me a case of a medical officer being promoted to the rank of an executive officer in the Royal Navy. The Navy does not and did not hand out ranks as a reward for good deeds. Ranks relate to their roles on board ship. Lieutenants were responsible for supporting the Captain in the running of a ship. Medical officers were responsible for administering medical care.

[Phil Young]

Adam,

I believe I just did...

Pat, once again you get hung up on a phrase. There is no question that the journals were written by Dr. David Scott-Taylor PRIOR to his death in 1933. Why he sued the phrases he did when he did can't beanswered today with anything other than that 5 years-ols argument, because he did.

I'm quite sure that some future historian studying the internet will question what was in the mind of this Pat Mucci who had a strange proclivity for refering to everyone as "Moron." The fact is that you do and that DS-T did write what is in the journals.

[Adam Lawrence]

Furthermore, it should be noted that promotion to lieutenant in the Royal Navy entails one's name being entered on the Navy List and a note of this being published in the London Gazette. Records of all commissioned officers are included on the National Archives website here - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/royal-naval-officers-service-records.htm. There is no trace of Scott Taylor receiving a commission in the Royal Navy, in 1901 or at any other time.

Here is the London Gazette entry from 1916 when Scott Taylor received a temporary commission as a lieutenant in the Royal Army Medical Corps.


No such Gazette entry exists for his purported commissioning in the Royal Navy.

Here, as additional evidence, is his medal record for his service in WW1. Note he is listed as having joined up in the 'naval service' before transferring to the RAMC, in which he served as a sergeant before the promotion to lieutenant I noted in 1916. He was later promoted to captain.

[Peter Pallotta]

Hi Phil - help me to understand this better. I will ask a question that I don't know the answer to; then I will state what I think I know/learned from your updated essay; and then I will ask a second question.  (Of course, if I've gotten something wrong in the statements I gleaned from your essay, please correct that as well).

Question: At what point/month in 1901 do you believe Tilly visited St Andrews?

Statements:
1. Tilly was not at the May 11 1901 dinner with Scott-Taylor, Old Tom and Dr. Mac.
2. Tilly had earlier in 1901 sent Scott-Taylor a set of 4 golf hole drawings, including one of the Road Hole, which Tilly had signed and dated 1901.
3. Scott-Taylor notes in his journal that he received these drawings on or about May 4, along with some of Tilly's writing about cricket and golf, and news that Tilly would likely be there in July.
4. Scott-Taylor brought the Road Hole drawing to his May 11th dinner, which is when Old Tom, Dr Mac and Scott-Taylor signed it.
5. On May 28, Scott-Taylor writes in his journal that he has received a note from Tilly (written on May 12? On scores letterhead?) thanking him for his hospitality in St Andrews.

Question: if Tilly was not there on May 11, and wouldn't be there until July, what "hospitality in St Andrews" was Tilly thanking Scott-Taylor for?

In other words, and to repeat my first question: When do you believe that Tilly was in St Andrews in 1901? Do you believe Tilly had been there between January-late April 1901?

Because if Tilly had not been there during those early months, and if he was only in St Andrews in/after July, the only way I can see for Scott-Taylor to bring a Tilly Road Hole drawing (dated 1901) to a May 11 1901 dinner  was for the Tilly to have seen/photographed the hole prior to 1901 but to have only set pen to paper that year, 1901, and dated it as such.

But if that is the case, i.e. if Tilly wasn't in St Andrews until July 1901, again I find myself wondering what "hospitality in St Andrews" Tilly could've been thanking Scott-Taylor for (in the letter received on May 28, 1901)? Was it for a visit the year before?

Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Hope i haven't added to the confusion.

Peter

[RJ_Daley]

This whole thing reminded me of something.  Perhaps I'm off base but with a little googling, I came up with what makes sense to me as a comparative dynamic of human nature.   It took the words and explanation of a woman analyzing that 'something else' that this episode reminds me of to draw the comparison for my limited understanding of such matters.  This, from "Distinguished Educator", Lori Steinbach:

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-nature-significance-the-royal-nonesuch-453339

I can't help but also reflect back on the general theme by this same great American Author, Mark Twain as he wrote his delightful book:
"A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court", and is a sort of reverse process in his story of trying to fool the folk of aniquity with tricks of modernization, but here an attempt to fool modern folk with an antiquitization of the past.  

Mockery?  I'm not smart enough to mock this on my own, all I can do is Google.  But seriously folks, there are actual very smart people on this forum that do not get fooled, to which I thank them for their diligent and scholarly integrity.  This ought to serve as a very good lesson, IMHO.

[Kevin_D]

I can't tell what the angle is, but this whole thread seems like an episode of "American Greed"

I wouldn't have thought anything (perhaps I'm gullible, and frankly didn't care much about these lost drawings to begin with, though am now fascinated by the whole thing), but once you look at that drawing with a little skepticism, the thought that all those architects would sign and date that sketch just seems ridiculous.

What I wonder is, why does anyone believe (or want to believe) so strongly that these are authentic?

[Duncan Cheslett]

 once you look at that drawing with a little skepticism, the thought that all those architects would sign and date that sketch just seems ridiculous.

What I wonder is, why does anyone believe (or want to believe) so strongly that these are authentic?

Exactly Kevin.

The notion that the supposed participants at that dinner would so conveniently all sign and date the sketch is preposterous. I am sure that it is this that aroused the suspicions of so many here.

As for those believing strongly in the sketches' authenticity, again you are spot on in my opinion. Historians so want to be in at the discovery of game-changing new evidence that occasionally they allow their hearts to rule their heads. Professional ego.

My earlier allusion to the case of the Hitler Diaries was a perfect example, and a near perfect analogy to this case.


Phil,

Please don't make a fool of yourself.  Tommy's spoof letter was just that - a spoof. It was funny.

You are already coming across as a pompous prig. Please don't be a humourless pompous prig.

[DMoriarty]

Phil, Thanks for trying to begin to address just a few of the plethora problems with these Scott-Taylor documents.   I have a few brief comments and questions.

1.  The Two Solicitor Letters.  
If you have been basing all your claims of unassailable authenticity and an unbroken chain of title on these two letters, then you have drastically overstated your claims.

2.  The Date Supposed Journal Entries were Written.  
If, as you state, that the words and phrases in the journal entries were in use in 1901 (or 1917 for those entries) then surely you can come up with some examples.
  - What are some examples of the phrase “drinking buddies” having been used in 1901?  
  - How about the phrase “very posh” to connote luxurious conditions?  
  - How about the phrase “not my cup of tea" to express dislike of something?
  - Same questions for each one of my examples listed in my post on the other thread.

Surely if these were in use in 1901 or 1917 you can come up with some examples.

3.  "Golf Course Design".
Along the same lines as above, since you are a historian of golf course architecture, please provide us with some specific examples from 1901 or earlier of the use of the phrase “golf course design” or related phrases such as “golf designer.”

4.  Peripheral Stories Contained in the Journal Entries.  
The peripheral stories could have come straight from newspaper accounts (and in some instances David Scott-Taylor is supposedly reciting what he had just read in the paper.)  All that information is easily accessible by anyone with an internet connection. Surely you realize that, don’t you?

5. The Note on Score’s Hotel Letterhead.  
You wrote: “. . . I have yet to receive the copy of letter showing [the letterhead] . . . .”  Phil, you requested that a photo of the letterhead be sent on July 23.  Why haven't you received it?   What excuse has he given for failing to send you this image?

Is Ian Scott Taylor still claiming that May 12, 1901 note was on Score's letterhead, or has he changed this aspect of the story as well?

6.  The Solicitor's Affidavit.  
On July 23 you requested of Ian Scott Taylor a "Certified copy of the solicitor's affidavit stating that these have been in their possession since your grandfather's passing along with their knowledge of them prior to that date."   I take it by your request that as of July 23 that you had not even seen the actual affidavit?  Is this correct?   Has it been sent?  If not, why not?  What, specifically, does the affidavit say?

7.  Why the Journal Entries Have Not Been Brought Forward Earlier.  
On July 22 you wrote to me the following :
"One other thing which I left out and just rememberred. The family will not allow the journal entries in which Dr. David Scott-Taylor recounts the dinner at the scores Hotel to be shown at this time. It is because there is some highly personal family information also found on that same page which they do not wish for anyone to see. That was the reason I put the journal page from 1918 in which Dr. Scott-Taylor writes of meeting up with his good friend Alister MacKenzie on the front lines of WW I in the essay as it gives a glimpse of their close friendhsip." (my emphasis)

Obviously your representation was false.  Why did you falsely represent that the reason you could not post the May 11, 1901 entry was because the entry contained "highly personal family information?"

I have more questions, but let's start here.  Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Duncan Cheslett]

The authenticity of these documents appears to hinge completely on an affidavit and two letters from a solicitor on Anglesey stating that various journals and sketches has been in the possession of his firm and predecessors since 1933.

There appears to be no proof whatsoever that the journals and sketches that we have been discussing for the last week or so are actually the same documents that have been under lock and key in Holyhead.

Has Phil Young studied the documents in the solicitor's office?

Has the solicitor or one of his staff copied the documents and sent them to Phil direct?

Or has Phil been reliant on the word and good faith of a member or members of the Scott-Taylor family?

[Niall C]

Duncan

I would go further and ask whether the solicitor was aware of what these plans were, and what was in the journal. Indeed I already have asked that question of Phil and I'm waiting for an answer. Because material was left with various firms of solicitors over a period of time doesn't mean that what is being presented was part of that material, which is why I have asked both on here and direct of Phil, what exactly has the solicitor testified to ?

Niall

[Niall C]

Phil

As I see it there are two inter related issues here. The first issue is the provenance of the material and the second issue is the inconsistencies in the material, namely the plans.

With regards to the provenance I posted some questions regarding that which resulted in us having an email exchange. I would ask you now to post your responses to my questions.

With regards the material here are some questions off the top of my head;

Sketches - what's your take on how these sketches are proportionately in scale with published scaled drawings of later vintage ? Why do they show features that never existed eg. wall to side of 16th green, but miss out others such as the road on the Road Hole, the railway sheds and the fence seperating the road and course just short of the 17th green on Road Hole ?

Scores Hotel - the Grand Hotel was never known as Scores Hotel yet that was the name put on the sketch. You suggested that was the name of the restuarant within the hotel which I think I have heard claimed in relation to the new development but have never read anywhere else. Ignoring the fact that they surely would have been a bit more careful naming the correct hotel on the sketch, where did you come by the information relating to the name of the restuarant ?

Timescales - as previously asked elsewhere, can you please outline what you now consider the timeline to be, and how the dates etc on the sketches fit in with that.

Thanks

Niall

[Marty Bonnar]

Phil,
any comment AT ALL regarding the images I posted?
regards,
Martin.

[Phil Young]

Guys,

My appologies for being off till now and this will be short. I'm not avoiding anything at all. Martin, I've yet to get there and will do so in the morning.

Niall, no, I did not say that the Grand hotel was known as the Scores hotel because " thatw as the name of the restaurant within the hotel" which is what you misread what I wrote to mean. I said that it was referred to as the Scores Hotel back then because that is where many of those who played would go to after their rounds were over and where they added their scores. It became so well known locally because of that when the new hotel was built they took on that name for themselves.

I'd like to clear up a few things as there are anumber of guys who are "deeply concerned" for me as to how this will effect my reputation and possibly that research work I do for my clients. I've received emails and phone calls including from a number who simply can't see how I am correct. I want all to know that I deeply appreciate these gestures, that I am and will remain fine no matter the outcome and that its the discussion and the truth that counts.

There is one rumor that I would like to put to rest before it goes any further. It was said to me today that they learned that I "had been thrown out of the Tillinghast Association." That is absolutely NOT true. I am and remain a member of the Tillinghast Association in good standing. What I did was resign my position as the official Historian and member of the Board of Directors of the Association. I did this without any prompting, suggestions made, conversation with or even an email suggetsing this from my fellow Board members. teh reason I did so goes back to my beginning conversations with david. I told bothe he & Ran that if it turns out i was wrong about the May 11th date that it would be proper for me to do that. I've said this several times here and I'll say it again. I own my mistakes and my personal concern is that this one would reflect badly on the Tillinghast Association and that it was proper and fitting for me to do so. The remaining Board members remain my friends and have my deepest respect.

The last thing I want to correct is misinformation that is being placed on the thread as true about Dr. David Scott-Taylor. An example of this is the newspaper clipping of an event that occurred in Australia in which a "Dr. david Scott-Taylor" was tried for murder following a failed operation. This was NOT Ian's grandfatehr. It was another person with the same name who happened to also be a doctor. I can especially appreciate this because in high school I dated a lovely young girl who some years later would marry Philip Young, an airline pilot.

The reason this can be proven as not being DS-T is because at the time of the trial hew as at work in South Wales attending to the health care needs of the coal miners...

I'm turning it off for the night. I'll be posting some new information and answer more questions, including Martin's, in the morning...

[Marty Bonnar]

Phil,
Be well. We've met and shared some great quality time together. You know none of this is personal and as you so perfectly state, it's the truth that counts. It's only golf!
Best regards,
Martin.

[Joe Bausch]

I've removed said post until further notice.

[Marty Bonnar]

Joe,
With all due respect, Tom Paul gave up his posting rights when he departed this site. I think it's entirely inappropriate for you or anyone else to be posting on his behalf on this or any other thread.
Regards,
Martin.

[Joe Bausch]

Joe,
With all due respect, Tom Paul gave up his posting rights when he departed this site. I think it's entirely inappropriate for you or anyone else to be posting on his behalf on this or any other thread.
Regards,
Martin.

No biggie, Martin.  Post removed.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Having just discovered these threads, and having read them as they are interesting reading...

I'm reminded of all the excitement cold fusion generated circa 1988.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

[Duncan Cheslett]

The last thing I want to correct is misinformation that is being placed on the thread as true about Dr. David Scott-Taylor. An example of this is the newspaper clipping of an event that occurred in Australia in which a "Dr. david Scott-Taylor" was tried for murder following a failed operation. This was NOT Ian's grandfatehr. It was another person with the same name who happened to also be a doctor. I can especially appreciate this because in high school I dated a lovely young girl who some years later would marry Philip Young, an airline pilot.

The reason this can be proven as not being DS-T is because at the time of the trial hew as at work in South Wales attending to the health care needs of the coal miners...

Phil,

The murder case in Australia has no relevance to our discussion here and the newspaper clippings were posted purely because they were of some mild background interest.

I have no idea whether there might have been two David Scott-Taylors practicing as ships' doctors in the early 20th century (although on the face of it this seems unlikely) and frankly do not really care.

I am happy to accept your assertion that the botched operation in Sydney was not carried out by Ian's grandfather, as clearly this is important to somebody.




Presumably however, our Dr David Scott-Taylor - an avid keeper of a daily journal - will have recorded exactly what he was doing in March 1926. Just as he will have recorded what he was doing on every other day of his life from at least 1901 until his sudden death in 1933. So far we have only seen the journal entries for a handful of days which interest us specifically with regards to golf course architecture.

What about all the other thousands of pages?

Clearly someone has read them all very carefully indeed. How else would they have chanced upon the reference to Alister MacKenzie in France in 1917?

Or the meeting on the train in 1922?

Mackenzie shares a train journey with his friend Lt. Col. Surgeon David Scott-Taylor RAMC who MacKenzie knew through his time in the Medical Corps. MacKenzie had been visiting Colt and was returning north via London, they both got off at Chester, and carried on their discussion in the buffet at Chester. MacKenzie later carried on by train to Liverpool.



In an interview with 'American Golfer' last year Ian Scott-Taylor talks about his grandfather's relationship with Alister MacKenzie and gives a very different account of how they knew each other. Strange that, because the version on the Mackenzie Timeline quoted above is credited to one Ian Scott-Taylor.

“My grandfather, Dr. David Scott-Taylor, and Doctor MacKenzie first met in Edinburgh,” Scott-Taylor recalls. “Grandfather was at the university’s medical college, was a scratch golfer and also had the reputation as a fine rugby player. MacKenzie was keen on rugby and they became fast friends. They both served in the British Army during World War I and later my grandfather became a surgeon at Chester Royal Infirmary and would host MacKenzie at his home there and also in Wales at Holyhead. On one such visit to Holyhead, grandfather took MacKenzie to Nefyn to play and he was so struck with the dramatic cliff top holes that he set about looking for land to emulate what he had experienced. I believe this trip became the inspiration for his design of Cypress Point and also his work at Monterey Peninsula Country Club’s Dunes Course.”

http://americangolfer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/golf-architect-ian-scott-taylor-made.html

Dr Scott-Thomas must have recorded these visits in his diary. How else would Ian know about them? His grandfather died 30 years before Ian was born.

It would be interesting to see the journal entries detailing these meetings.

It would be even more interesting to see the journal entries for all the uneventful days in between!

[RJ_Daley]

Where is Melvyn? 

[Niall C]

"I was able to learn that the original Grand Hotel was also known as the "Scores Hotel" as many who just played the old course would walk into its bar & restaurant to "tally up their scores." That is the genesis to how the modern Scores Hotel got its name. It is a single source and I'll see if I can confirm that further but I found that fascinating."

Phil

You are correct, you didn't say it was the restaurant that was called the Scores, my mistake. What you actually said is posted above. I haven't been able to find where I iread that the restaurant in the hotel was sometimes called the Scores but fairly sure it was to do with the recent development of Hamilton halls which does make it sound suspiciously like marketing fluff to me. A bit like some of the nonsense you get from caddies. Either way I've never heard of the hotel itself being referred to as the Scores Hotel.

Can you say what your source is for the Grand Hotel being referred to as the Scores Hotel ?

Niall

[Niall C]

I can't tell what the angle is, but this whole thread seems like an episode of "American Greed"

I wouldn't have thought anything (perhaps I'm gullible, and frankly didn't care much about these lost drawings to begin with, though am now fascinated by the whole thing), but once you look at that drawing with a little skepticism, the thought that all those architects would sign and date that sketch just seems ridiculous.

What I wonder is, why does anyone believe (or want to believe) so strongly that these are authentic?

Kevin

That was my reaction as well. I just thought that this was all too fantastical. From that perspective I've been a sceptic since the outset and as the inconsistencies for want of a better expression have mounted up, that scepticism has increased. With regards the signatures all on one bit of paper, what's the chances ?

Let me put it this way, MacKenzie was a golfing non-entity at that point even if he was a big pal of Scott Taylor. Lets say if I was lucky enough to get Jack Nicklaus's autograph on say the commemrative 5 pound note that the Royal Bank of Scotland produced a few years ago, you can bet your last cent that not even my best friend would have been allowed to add his signature to it.

Niall

[Duncan Cheslett]

Spot on Niall.

The presence of MacKenzie's signature on that plan is the single most important thing that makes the whole story unbelievable.

And someone's biggest mistake...


It always troubled me that the signature was exactly like Dr Mac's signature in later life. Most peoples' signature changes over time slightly; at 50 it is not normally exactly the same as it was at 30.


The Scott-Taylor signature of course, transcends generations!   

[Adam Lawrence]

I actually disagree with that Duncan. In my opinion, there are two smoking guns in this case.

One is the 'Scores Hotel' designation on the Road Hole plan, when we know that the Scores did not come into existence until after 1930. We have this claim that this was an informal name for the Grand based on golfers using the place to tot up their scores (a claim in support of which no evidence has been offered); but this ignores the rather more obvious reason for the name change, that the name of street on which the hotel is located was changed from Swallowgait, as it had been since medieval times, to The Scores, when the street was developed for housing at some point in the 19th century - and before 1853, as the street plan of that date I posted shows.

The other is the WW Johnson plan of the Redan that Martin Bonnar posted yesterday. The similarities between the two drawings are too pronounced for this to be coincidental.

It is not possible for either of these documents credibly to be judged authentic.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I agree totally Adam.

These inconsistences became clear later after further research however.   MacKenzie's signature was obviously wrong right from the start.