Provenance of Scott Taylor material

[Niall C]

From Rans opening post on the thread introducing Phils essay and in Phils essay itself great play was made of the fact that the Scott Taylor material has been in the hands of various fimrs of solicitors for over 80 years, and therefore by implication was beyond doubt. In one of the other threads I posted some questions as to the provenance of the material we were being presented with. Phil responded to me by email suggesting that I would be embarrassed by the answers. I responded that I wasn't and frankly most of the answers he provided were what I expected. I asked him then and I'm asking him now to post the answer to those questions so others can make up their mind as to how cast iron the provenance is for this material. To summarise what was asked;

1 - was the material ever in the hands of SR Dew Prothero Williams Solicitors and did Mr Eilian Williams have any connection to this firm or Mr Stephen Williams who was the sole remaining partner when the firm was wound up and who subsequently was convicted of embezzlement and forgery of documents ?

2 - is the material still in the hands of Mr Eilian Williams or has it been passed on to the family ?

3 - Mr Williams is supposed to have signed an affidavit with regards to the material. What does this affidavit say ? Does it say that journals/plans etc belonging to Mr David Scott Taylor have been in the keeping of various firms of solicitors or does it include an inventory of the material eg. plans by Tilly, journal entries discussing MacKenzie, Old Tom etc. ?

The reason I'm trying to nail this is because Phil seems to be hanging on to the supposedly irrefutable provenance of the material as a rebuff to the mounting evidence that something isn't right with this material. Look forward to the answers.

Niall

[Duncan Cheslett]

I suspect that it is only a matter of hours before Phil realises that he is in a big hole and that it is time to stop digging.

His loyalty to Mr Scott-Taylor is admirable but boy, it must be wearing thin!

[Mike_Young]

As long as all of these Tillinghast courses have well maintained  greens then I'm fine

[Bill_McBride]

What monetary advantage to Solicitor Williams to have forged presumably innocent documents such as the journal to the extent that they included a dinner at a hotel that didn't exist?   As always follow the money, but I don't see any prospect of financial gain there.

This whole thing is dodgy. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

 As always follow the money

Exactly.  Who is in need of money?

[Bill_McBride]

Reading other threads it appears the sketches referenced would be worth a lot of money if authenticated.  The authentification seems to have hit a snag. 

[Bill_McBride]

From Rans opening post on the thread introducing Phils essay and in Phils essay itself great play was made of the fact that the Scott Taylor material has been in the hands of various fimrs of solicitors for over 80 years, and therefore by implication was beyond doubt. In one of the other threads I posted some questions as to the provenance of the material we were being presented with. Phil responded to me by email suggesting that I would be embarrassed by the answers. I responded that I wasn't and frankly most of the answers he provided were what I expected. I asked him then and I'm asking him now to post the answer to those questions so others can make up their mind as to how cast iron the provenance is for this material. To summarise what was asked;

1 - was the material ever in the hands of SR Dew Prothero Williams Solicitors and did Mr Eilian Williams have any connection to this firm or Mr Stephen Williams who was the sole remaining partner when the firm was wound up and who subsequently was convicted of embezzlement and forgery of documents ?

2 - is the material still in the hands of Mr Eilian Williams or has it been passed on to the family ?

3 - Mr Williams is supposed to have signed an affidavit with regards to the material. What does this affidavit say ? Does it say that journals/plans etc belonging to Mr David Scott Taylor have been in the keeping of various firms of solicitors or does it include an inventory of the material eg. plans by Tilly, journal entries discussing MacKenzie, Old Tom etc. ?

The reason I'm trying to nail this is because Phil seems to be hanging on to the supposedly irrefutable provenance of the material as a rebuff to the mounting evidence that something isn't right with this material. Look forward to the answers.

Niall

Niall, do you know when the solicitors committed these forgeries and embezzlements?   The whole tale is murky at best. 

[RJ_Daley]

Respectfully withdrawn

[Niall C]

Bill

As it happens I don’t doubt the integrity of Mr Eilian Williams. The other Mr Williams however for whatever reasons clearly wasn’t beyond committing forgery for financial gain. I’ll let Phil respond before I offer any more comment on that particular point.

What I’m trying to establish here is that the provenance of this material isn’t as secure as made out. Once you accept that, then you can start looking at the material with a fresh eye as to its authenticity. At that point all the historical inconsistencies such as Tilly’s whereabouts in 1901, the Scores Hotel mention etc, together with the uncanny dimensional accuracy of the sketches, and you start adding all that up and you really do have to wonder if there is any credibility in what’s being presented ?

Let me also say at this juncture that I don’t doubt Phil’s integrity either. I’ve no doubt he believes this material to be what it’s claimed to be.

Niall 

[Bill_McBride]

Bill

As it happens I don’t doubt the integrity of Mr Eilian Williams. The other Mr Williams however for whatever reasons clearly wasn’t beyond committing forgery for financial gain. I’ll let Phil respond before I offer any more comment on that particular point.

What I’m trying to establish here is that the provenance of this material isn’t as secure as made out. Once you accept that, then you can start looking at the material with a fresh eye as to its authenticity. At that point all the historical inconsistencies such as Tilly’s whereabouts in 1901, the Scores Hotel mention etc, together with the uncanny dimensional accuracy of the sketches, and you start adding all that up and you really do have to wonder if there is any credibility in what’s being presented ?

Let me also say at this juncture that I don’t doubt Phil’s integrity either. I’ve no doubt he believes this material to be what it’s claimed to be.

Niall 

Niall, when did all the forgery and embezzlement charges against Stephen Williams take place?

[Phil Young]

Niall,

Thank you for the confidence in my integrity and Eillian William's integrity as well.

I would like to clarify the role that he has in this. It is peripheral only. He was appointed by the state agency responsible for this to administrate the SR Dew Pothero accounts. He did not have any link to the firm or the person who's crime shut down the firm. If he had he would not have been appointed and, that he was, especially speaks to his character and veracity.

As for the other Mr. Williams, he had absolutely nothing to do with Ian's family. The solicitor they sued at the firm was someone else entirely and had nothing to do with the trouble that the other Mr. Williams caused.

The solicitor that the family uses today hasn't been named and it the journals, etc... have been in his firms' care since the closing of SR Dew. Eillian swore out the aphidavit, and not their current solicitor, because he was the go-between between the old firm and the new one.

Eillian Williams should not be a part of this discussion especially in a negative way. 

[DMoriarty]

Phil,  I am glad to see you are posting again and I hope that this means thing have stabilized with your son. 

I asked this on the other thread, but I am asking here too because, as I am sure sure Niall will agree, it cuts directly to the heart of your assertions about provenance, possession, and control of the Scott-Taylor material.

Isn't it true that you have previously represented that the Scott-Taylor Material was actually stored in a box underneath the bed of Ian Scott-Taylor’s mother?

Thanks.

[Greg Tallman]

Hope I am not the only one who thinks this would be better hashed out somewhere other than this forum.

[Niall C]

Greg

I sincerely hope you are the only one, and I say that with respect. We have had a much trumpeted account of events that if were true would have huge historical impact. There is very good reason to doubt this information so where should we discuss this other than the site that offers frank discussion on these matters ?

Phil

Got your offline message, thanks. Like David, I hope your son is now OK.

A few points re your last post;

1 - are you now saying that Eilian Williams is no longer the family solicitor ?

2 - the family sued someone from SR Dew Prothero Williams but not Stephen Williams, do I have that correct ?

3 - so is the material with solicitors or is it in the hands of the family, and if its in the hands of the family, how long have they had it ?

Niall

[Greg Tallman]

Greg

I sincerely hope you are the only one, and I say that with respect. We have had a much trumpeted account of events that if were true would have huge historical impact. There is very good reason to doubt this information so where should we discuss this other than the site that offers frank discussion on these matters ?

Niall

Perhaps a document authentication site or perhaps a Sotheby's or Christie's forum?

Cross examination of someone over a damn sketch is not what I am here for. 

[Mark Pearce]

Greg,

Don't read this thread, then.  To suggest, however, that it doesn't belong on a site dedicated to discussion of golf course architecture is perverse.

[Greg Tallman]

Great, I can only hope Doak has doodled a sketch of a famous hole, say Cypress 16, so we can piss and moan years from now whether Ran was there to sign the document or if he was off playing his hickories at Oakhurst Links. Good gracious.

I would suggest my objection is far from the most perverse offering on this topic to date.

[DMoriarty]

Bump