[Ran Morrissett]

... is now posted under In My Opinion.

A few months ago, we posted an article by Phil Young that depicted two extraordinary Tillinghast sketches and material from Dr. David Scott-Taylor that gave the illustrations context. This Discussion Group reacted with a critical eye and raised serious question about its authenticity. Ultimately, the discussion was tabled as the only thing left to do was turn over the material to professionals.

Stung by the initial frosty reception of this material, the family solicitors counseled the family to do just that. So they did: paper testing, ink testing, signature testing , look for anomalies in the words and sentence construction – the whole gamut.

Two weeks ago, I received from Phil a brief written by an UK independent government-backed entity of over 100 years old whose role it is to document, record, interpret, and share events of historical importance. This brief represents the high level conclusions from the nine institutions to whom the primary body farmed the authentication work out. It serves as the backbone for much of what Phil writes in Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches and Personal Diaries of Dr. David Scott-Taylor.

The final report, which Phil understands will be ~ triple in length from the brief, is due to be submitted to the family around the first of the new year. Maddening to both Phil and me, the solicitors advised that the names/institutions who did the work not be released, at least until the final document is compiled/presented. Anyway, lots of detailed information is contained within Phil’s update and GolfClubAtlas.com is playing its role: acting as a platform for topics to be debated on golf course architecture in a respectful manner. 

Stay tuned for more – Phil heads across the pond next spring for more research and fact finding.

Best,

[Phil Young]

Thanks Ran. I'm thrilled to be able to publish this new essay as I'm confident it will answer many of the questions posed in the previous "debates."

Ran mentioned that the inability to give specific names for both the agency overseeing the actual authentication process and both the specific institutions/expert they used to do each one is "maddening to both he and myself. I want to clarify that a bit further and say that I've been given full access to all the parties names and the names of the institutions they work for. Not only the initial report which is quoted from throughout the essay, but many individual communiques from specific parties involved that contain a great deal more information than what is found in the initial report. As a result, I'll be able to add more information in answers to some of the questions that I am sure will come my way...

In my last post on gca during the "debates" this past summer I stated that I wouldn't come back until I could provide far more specific answers. I now can and have and look forward to the discussions to follow.

[DMoriarty]

Welcome back Phil.

Your latest post raises plenty of questions, but before turning to those, there were a number of questions pending when you left.  Are you going to answer them? 

For just one example, you have not answered the following question which cuts directly to the heart of your assertions about provenance, possession and control of the Scott-Taylor material:

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

[DMoriarty]

While you are contemplating the above question, here is something else for you and others to consider.

The top signature was supposedly written by "David Scott-Taylor" in May of 1901.   The bottom signature was written by "David Scott-Taylor" about a decade later. 



One does not need to be be a handwriting expert to tell that these signatures were NOT by the same hand.

[Phil Young]

David,

Thanks for welcoming me back...

As for your first post, after I stated that I would only come back to the site when I was ready to provide more and specific information, I did exactly that and stayed away. Anything asked of me after that time, and the question you raised in your first post is an example of one, I never saw because I literally didn't come back to the site and go through the various threads.

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

I didn't "represent” it, I specifically stated it. Now let's put the statement into context. From day one I've said that the drawings and diaries have been in the possession of the solicitor's with the exceptions being occasions where the family decided to have them at home to look at themselves and or share with family friends. When these occasions were finished they were sent directly back to the solicitors for safekeeping. When they were sent they came in the trunk in which they were kept at all times. When they were removed from the solicitor’s offices for these occasions the trunk with all items, including drawings and diaries, was stored under the bed of Ian's mother, Mrs. Scott-Taylor. The sole reason why I enjoy mentioning that anecdotal reference is because on the outside of the trunk was the symbol of the Masons of which Ian's grandfather was a proud member. Inside the trunk they were stored beneath his Mason's apron which also had the Masons image on it. I constantly refer to that as the "Nicholas cage National Treasure" aspect of this "discovery." When Ian first began sharing this information with me about drawings and diaries he told me that they were stored at the solicitor’s with the exception of the times when the family had reason for enjoying them privately. During those times they were under “Mum’s bed.” Again, I have always stated that they were stored at the solicitor's office.  

In addition, I gave a complete provenance in the earlier discussions which included referring to the sworn affidavit signed by the solicitor’s stating that the drawings and diaries had remained in the care of the various family solicitor’s since before Dr. David Scott-Taylor’s death in 1933. I then also referred to the following two letters from the family solicitor in later years.

The first one is dated 7 September 1965, was addressed to Ian’s father and was in reference to the disposition of the items as mentioned in his mother’s will, Mrs. David Scott-Taylor. It contains the following statement: “I can also confirm the items in the office, will remain here in our care under your instructions. Your Father’s effects together with a set of diaries, and set of drawings.”

Note that it confirms what was sworn to by the solicitor’s, that the diaries and drawings would “remain in our care” and that this was now per “your instructions,” that is, the instructions of Ian’s father.

Next is a letter sent from the solicitor to Ian and his father dated 15 December 1998 that deals with specific information in his father’s will which states: “It was nice seeing you and your father again last Friday… As agreed, you and your father have set out in the amendment that the items in our possession… The items discussed include: 1. Items from your grandfather. 2. The Grandfathers diaries and sundry items. Various drawings.”  

So once again the family solicitor stated that the diaries and drawings were in the solicitor’s possession. These are but two of the numerous legal documents that the solicitor’s and family have to prove that, with the exception of the special occasions when the family felt a need to privately enjoy their grandfather’s legacy, they were in the possession and safekeeping of the family solicitor’s.

In your second post you do exactly what you condemned me of in the past, presenting evidence without context and simply expecting me to take your word for it. In this case that the signature in the lower picture was written by Ian’s grandfather. What proof do you have for that? What is the date so that you can definitively state that it was written “about a decade later?” Without that information I can’t possibly be expected to provide you an answer since they could range anywhere from it being a DIFFERENT David Scott-Taylor to his wife may have signed a check in his name to any one of a number of answers.

You make a large mistake when you begin the challenge by stating, “The top signature was supposedly written by "David Scott-Taylor" in May of 1901. The reason that I say it is a large mistake is because the Agency that did the signature authentications compared it to known and accepted original samples as well as copies of his signature. One of those examples is the signature on his will.

The report is absolutely clear and without reservation refers to this specific signature as being “genuine.” The essay quotes the expert examiners who stated for the report regarding this specific signature:

“These signatures were compared with copies and originals of the four persons indicated on the drawing.” And further down, “This concludes that all the gentlemen’s signatures on this document are genuine and are written at the time dated. This proves that the documents are genuine.”  

That information can be found in the essay in the section that deals with “Tillinghast No. 2.”

As far as comparing it to another example of his signature, in this one from his diary dated 4/17/1917, to paraphrase you, one does not need to be be a handwriting expert to tell that these signatures WERE by the same hand.


So please provide the proof that this is from an accepted copy of Ian’s grandfather’s signature since, during the first third of the 20th century during the time that his grandfather was alive, there were at least two other Dr. David Scott-Taylor’s that the various British medical societies have knowledge of, including the gentleman down in Australia that was mentioned in the first “discussion” and who most definitely was not Ian’s grandfather.

[DMoriarty]

During those times they were under “Mum’s bed.” Again, I have always stated that they were stored at the solicitor's office.

You didn't just claim they were "stored" at the solicitors office.  You have repeatedly claimed (to me personally and here on gca.com) that the Materials have remained in the exclusive possession and control of the solicitors for the past 80+ years!

Unless "Mum's bed" was in the solicitors' office, the Materials have NOT been in exclusive possession and control of the solicitors for the past 80+ years.

Your claims have been false. You cannot have it both ways.  The fact that the documents were stored under "Mum's bed" completely undermines what you have described as un uninterrupted chain of possession by the solicitors.  You have not only repeatedly mislead us on this crucial point, you have apparently also mislead your latest batch of unnamed experts as well.  From your quotation of their supposed report:  
“'It was explained to the [Agency] that these items had been in the possession of the family since the passing of the Late Dr. David Scott-Taylor, FRCS. The items have been continuously in the care of a solicitor for the family in safe keeping at their offices since that time (1933) to the present solicitor (2014) now acting for the family.'”

This is NOT TRUE.  The items have NOT "been continuously in the care of a solicitor for the family in safe keeping."   The unnamed "agency" was misled and we were misled.   And this is a crucial point, the key point in argument about why this material must have been created before 1933. Yet it is false.
___________________________________________________________

Regarding the signature I posted, you wrote that explanations "could range anywhere from it being a DIFFERENT David Scott-Taylor to his wife may have signed a check in his name to any one of a number of answers."

As to the first explanation, I have searched the world over for "a different David Scott-Taylor," and I am convinced that there was only one David Scott-Taylor remotely fitting the description as I understand it, and I am convinced that I have found him.  

As to your second explanation - that his his wife may have signed on his behalf -  this is interesting theory and one worth exploring. David Scott Taylor's wife died in the mid-1960's, did she not?  When were they married? Were they married in 1910? Surely the diaries must mention her.  

Or have you still not seen the diaries?

[Marty Bonnar]

Phil,
As a proud Scot, Sir Walter Scott is one of our national heroes. There's even a very large monument in his name on Princes Street in Edinburgh celebrating his contribution to our country.
I've never heard before that he fathered an illegitimate child. I'd be grateful if you could provide information as to your source for this as I'd like to learn more about it.
Best regards,
Martin.

[Neil_Crafter]

David, you said that "I have searched the world over...."

You do realise what that actually means? Must have taken a lot of time, plus airfares, accommodation, meals etc to search through all the world's repositories of information...... quite an expensive obsession you'd have to say.

or do you mean you looked on the internet?

[DMoriarty]

Give me a break Neil.  My research hasn't been exclusively on the internet, but even if it had been, you know as well as I do that the internet's reach is worldwide and getting wider by the day. For example, the internet took me to Tillinghast's cricket matches in 1901, told me of his travel, and even his canceled travel plans, thus allowing me to prove that Phil and Ian's original story about the May St. Andrews meeting was bogus.  No plane ticket needed on my part. The internet has also allowed me and others to search the exact "repositories of information" where one would expect to find evidence of the exploits of David Scott-Taylor as described by Phil and Ian. And the stories don't check out.  Far from it.

Let's look at it another way, if David Scott-Taylor is who Phil, and Ian (and apparently you) claim he is, there would be some independent record of it somewhere, either on the internet or off. There isn't. The only "David Scott-Taylor" even remotely fitting the description doesn't match up with many of the outlandish stories being told here.  And his signature doesn't match, either.  

Or maybe I am mistaken.  If so, it should be easy enough to prove.  Phil fancies himself a historian and you have done some terrific work on the MacKenzie timeline.  Have either you or Phil come up with any independently verifiable information backing up these outlandish stories? I am aware of none. To the contrary, others and I have found information casting doubt on virtually every aspect of the story.

[Phil Young]

David,

Now you are being silly in your arguments. I'm not having it both ways. That the family would see reason to have the drawings and diaries in their possession for very brief periods of times through the years is not contradictory to the solicitor's having had them continuously since at least before Dr. Scott-Taylor died in 1933.

The "Agency" has not been misled. They are quite aware of the point that at times the drawings and diaries have been in the family possession for very brief periods of times. After all, I'm quite certain that they can read a return address on the package that contained the Tillinghast sketches as they were sent to them directly from Ian Scott-Taylor who has had them in his personal possession for the past year. That certainly is no secret and you've known it all along. I've also stated it quite clearly all along.

The only reason for tracing the drawings and diaries as having been in the solicitor's possession since 1933 is to prove an unbroken chain of provenancial ownership. As you have accused them of being forged, that proof has been given that cannot be denied, this in the form of the documents sworn to by the solicitor's which, if they weren't true would bring very heavy charges against them, and actual court-filed documents which state that they've been in their overall care during this same period of years in the form of various probate filings by the various family members whose estates they've been part of.

Sorry David, but you certainly couldn't have "searched the world over" and found that there was only a single "David Scott-Taylor." If you believe that my statement that the drawings and diaries being in the family hands for very brief periods of time somehow disproves that the solicitor's sworn affidavit and supporting documents are all lies then what about yourself? Let's see your travel receipts for this supposed search that you made the "world over." By your own logic you can't produce them because it didn't happen.

Now I know that what you meant to say was that you did an intensive world-wide internet search looking for another David Scott-Taylor alive during that time period under whatever specific parameters you entered. I have no problem with your not finding another one. The fact is, though, all you had to do was go back to the previous "discussion" and there was that newspaper article from Australia which referred to a different Dr. David Scott Taylor. We know they weren't the same person since Ian's grandfather was in Wales at the time treating coal miners. That also was stated in that thread. So this proves that you missed at least 1 which means you are already wrong in your assumption on the face of it.

So, back to my question to you... I wrote, "In your second post you do exactly what you condemned me of in the past, presenting evidence without context and simply expecting me to take your word for it. In this case that the signature in the lower picture was written by Ian’s grandfather. What proof do you have for that? What is the date so that you can definitively state that it was written “about a decade later?” Without that information I can’t possibly be expected to provide you an answer since they could range anywhere from it being a DIFFERENT David Scott-Taylor to his wife may have signed a check in his name to any one of a number of answers."

Please provide the answers to the questions I asked as you avoided doing so.

As for the diaries, I have not seen them as only one was sent over to the U.S. and that already sent back. There are many volumes of them and I will get to see them all when I go over next year. Secondly, I didn't say that she signed it, I aid that it was a possible answer. Again, all you stated was that it was signed "about a decade later" than the 1901 date on the Tillinghast drawing. I have to assume that you DON'T have the actual date for the signature or you would have stated "it was signed on such-and-such specific date." If you don't have a specific date then how can you possibly state that it was signed "about a decade later?"

So once again, you're making a claim that you have a document signed by Ian's grandfather within 10 years of May 1901. Its time for you to do what I did by providing exact details whether you accept them or not.

Finally, I know when Ian's grandfather married his grandmother. I'll provide you that date when you provide the above information.

I was just about to post this when I saw your next post in response to Neil. I'm not going to be on for more than a few more minutes as I have other things to do this evening, but whatever search you conducted that you believe to have been "world-wide" wasn't a good one as you certainly didn’t search in the right places. For example, the report contains specific information regarding the details of his military service and how the many mentions of events from the 1914-17 (for example) which were found in that diary occurred exactly as recorded and the specific medical references, or which there are very many, could only have been written by a physician/surgeon alive at that time. As part of the authentication process they also confirmed his military & medical records.

That you couldn’t find them just shows that you were unable to do so, not that others who are experts in these fields and in the country where the information can be found didn’t.

You stated this, “Let's look at it another way, if David Scott-Taylor is who Phil, and Ian (and apparently you) claim he is, there would be some independent record of it somewhere, either on the internet or off.”

How about this as an independent record which verifies one of those wild stories:


So I guess we didn’t make up the “Sir Walter Scott Story” nor that he served in the military during WW I, that his medical practice had him in Wales and that he was married, and here comes a piece of the puzzle that you certainly should have been able to find but couldn’t, that he was married TWICE. That means that there are two marriage certificates. You certainly did miss a lot in your “world-wide search” both via the internet and otherwise. And this from but a single newspaper article.

Those who authenticated the drawings and diaries didn’t as they found a great many things about him, all of which proved the authenticity of the drawings and diaries, and that they shared with the solicitor’s who shared that with the family. 

So again, please produce your proof that the signature of Dr. David Scott-Taylor which you posted is his, giving the date and context, otherwise it means nothing in this discussion.

[Phil Young]

Martin,

Please see the newspaper death notice below in which it states his lineage. A modern family member actually traced it all the way back as well. This doesn't reflect ill on old Sir Walter, it just makes him more human...

[DMoriarty]

First, Phil, you are wrong regarding the solicitors.   If the Materials were sometimes stored underneath "Mum's bed" then the solicitors did not have them "continuously" since before 1933.  Any affidavits claiming otherwise are worthless.  If you don't believe me ask anyone who knows anything about chain of custody.

Second, thank you for posting that obituary.  It is very helpful.  From my perspective it seems to be describing the David Scott-Taylor that I have found, and not necessarily the one you and Ian have been describing.  You probably see it differently, but I'll set it aside for now.  

Third,  as for your questions about the signature, surely you must understand why I am hesitant to provide you the details of my research.  Last time I did so, you forwarded all my information to Ian Scott-Taylor, and lo-and-behold, a few days later all the facts I had discovered miraculously appeared in some never before seen journal records which completely rewrote your story!  

Nonetheless, perhaps we can work out an amicable deal. Tell me about your David Scott-Taylor's first marriage, including his wife's name, when they were married, and the names of any children (if any) and in return I'll fill you in on "the exact details" relating to the signature.

Let me remind you that I have been entirely square with you about all of this from the beginning, and that you know from our dealings that if I say I'll do something, I will.

[Phil Young]

David,

I'm sorry, but that is simply your assumption that he forged them. You area wrong. I have been completely straight and forthcoming with you including this next bit of research. It took me a MINUTE and a half just now to find it. (I had to go pick someone up from the hospital)

I entered "David Scott-Taylor" and "Wales" into Google and it brought me to this:

1.   Edinburgh Medical Journal
books.google.com/books?id=reQ1AQAAMAAJ
1894 - ‎Medicine
Barbados; Selby Woodhouse Morton, New South Wales; and John Neill Keith, ... Wales' William Robertson, Edinburgh; David Scott Taylor, Alyth; Maud Vsrley ...

Edinburgh Medical Journal, Volume 39, Part 2, p. 1144, par.10, under “First Examination – Five Year Course” it states, “Of 17 candidates the following 14 have passed… David Scott Taylor…”

You can download it from Google Books if you'd like.

That is Ian's grandfather who received his medical certification from Edinburgh University in 1894. That's another one that you somehow missed in your world-wide search.

In the earlier discussions a reference was made, I believe by Adam Lawrence although I could be mistaken and if I am I apologize Adam, to a David Scott-Taylor who received his medical degree from Edinburgh University in 1916. He also stated that there wasn't any record of a David Scott-Taylor having received one earlier than that. I believe the above disproves that as well.

I'm sorry, but I simply won't accept the "signature" that you produced as being by Ian's grandfather. You demanded proof from me and now I am demanding it from you. I have no problem accepting it if it is, but at this point can't I say that you forged it to prove your point? After all, that is what you claimed that Ian did. Unlike you I'm not making that claim and I have no doubt that what you found is a signature by a David Scott-Taylor who was alive during that time period. Unless you can provide proof otherwise I simply can't accept it as being Ian's grandfather's signature.

Good night, see you tomorrow...

[Neil_Crafter]

"Give me a break Neil."

Really David??? You seem hell bent on some mission to disprove the legacy of David Scott-Taylor, exactly why I'm at a loss to know, and you want me to give you a break?

I'll just say this, it is not up to Phil to prove "his story" to you, as it has recently been proven 100% by an independent assessor who had access to a whole lot of records that are not on the internet that you are unlikely to be able to access. Whether you believe the authentication is totally up to you. It is done. I thought this is what those who believed these documents to be some elaborate fraud were asking for? Well its been done, the paper, ink, handwriting, signatures, diary books and their paper, ink in the diary pages. All authenticated, plus a whole lot of other drawings not covered in Phil's essay, also fully authenticated.

The burden of proof is clearly on you to disprove Phil's "story", so good luck with that!

Miraculously now the Scott-Taylor that is written about in the press clipping that Ian's family has in their family records that was passed on to Phil and just posted is not Ian's grandfather's obituary but that of another Scott-Taylor, the one that you have "found"?

Really?  Do you have an inkling of how preposterous that sounds?

if you look closely at the clipping you will see that it is just that, a clipping from an actual newspaper. Not a microfilmed copy from a library or a scan from an online newspaper archive, but an original piece of the actual newspaper. How do you suppose the family obtained that David? The simplest explanation in this case is the best, that the family cut it out of the newspaper it was printed in a short while after his death.

[DMoriarty]

Phil, Thanks for the reference to the google book entry, but I already have it.

There was no mention of a "medical certification" or medical degree. "David Scott Taylor" was apparently enrolled in a "five years" course, and he passed his "first examination" of the required series of examinations.

Note that only those passing the "Final Examination . . . were admitted LRCPE, LRSCE, and LFP&SG."  In other words, this document doesn't say what you think it says.  He did not receive a medical degree in 1894.  He passed the first test but I have found no record of him passing the "Final Examination" until many years later.  If you have such a record from 1894, I'd love to see it.

As for the signature, I am not asking you to accept anything.  I'll provide you with the information as soon as you answer my questions.  I've explained my reasons.  

Again, Phil . . .
- Who was David Scott Taylor's first wife?  
- When were they married?  
- Did they have any children?  
- If so what were their names?

What reason could you possibly have for refusing to provide this information?

____________________________

ADDED:   Aside from the diaries themselves what evidence is there that Ian's grandfather was in Wales at the same time a different "David Scott-Taylor" (also a ship's doctor) was on trial in Australia?

[DMoriarty]

Neil, I guess I understand why you are getting so bent out of shape about this stuff, but perhaps you should calm down a bit.  
- Nothing has been "proven 100%" and no self-respecting expert would or could ever make such a claim.
- I didn't "ask for" another round of tests to be done, and I certainly didn't ask them to be done by super-secret unidentified "experts" of Ian's choosing. As I have said before, such reports mean very little until they face critical scrutiny, and given that these guys aren't yet even willing to "put their name on it" no such critical scrutiny can yet take place.
- I am less concerned with burdens of proof and more concerned with the truth.   If the story as told were true, then there would be plenty of information corroborating it.   There would be evidence outside the supposed diaries, and there is little or no such evidence.

Miraculously now the Scott-Taylor that is written about in the press clipping that Ian's family has in their family records that was passed on to Phil and just posted is not Ian's grandfather's obituary but that of another Scott-Taylor, the one that you have "found"?

Really?  Do you have an inkling of how preposterous that sounds?

if you look closely at the clipping you will see that it is just that, a clipping from an actual newspaper. Not a microfilmed copy from a library or a scan from an online newspaper archive, but an original piece of the actual newspaper. How do you suppose the family obtained that David? The simplest explanation in this case is the best, that the family cut it out of the newspaper it was printed in a short while after his death.

I think you are confused. I have no doubt that the clipping is real, or that it came from a family memorabilia. I wouldn't even be surprised if this newspaper clipping provided the skeleton of the family legends which Ian and Phil have been telling.

But I also have little doubt that the David Scott-Taylor described in that obituary is the same person who signed his name as I posted above. The facts described therein fit with the David Scott-Taylor whose signature I have found.  Here again is the signature, below the supposed signature from the Road Hole painting.

[Neil_Crafter]

David, I'm confused? And bent out of shape? I'd better see a doctor.
 
Whether you choose to believe the authentication or not is no big deal to me, I could care less. That is not the purpose of Phil posting this essay, he knew you would be disbelieving of it. And while I'm at it I did not say that the authentication proves the documents 100%, they are your words not mine, thanks all the same.

I'm glad though you can see that the clipping is real, well spotted. As for it being the basis for the family legends that is just silly. DS-Ts life was well documented by himself in his diaries, so the clipping confirms some of the things in the diaries not the other way around.

You bandy around terms like "supposed" signature so as to cast your cobwebs of doubt about the place, but that is childish. The signature on the Tilly drawing matches examples of the signature in the diaries which matches his signature on his will. It is not his supposed signature, it is his signature.

As to your 'supposed' signature, Phil has asked you to disclose the source and date of it, which you so far have failed to do, for what reason I do not know.

There is plenty of evidence outside the 'supposed' diaries (there you go again with supposed, must be your word of the day), and this was found by the relevant experts to fully corroborate what DS-T wrote in his diaries - but then again I 'suppose' you will never be privy to that evidence.

The authenticators have put their name to the authentication report, despite you saying they haven't, along with those of the many other specialists and researchers who are all personally named, from a number of named institutions and laboratories. Ran knows who they are. It's just that this name hasn't been released to you. Do you have any inkling why that might be David?

[Connor Dougherty]

- I didn't "ask for" another round of tests to be done, and I certainly didn't ask them to be done by super-secret unidentified "experts" of Ian's choosing. As I have said before, such reports mean very little until they face critical scrutiny, and given that these guys aren't yet even willing to "put their name on it" no such critical scrutiny can yet take place.

The final report, which Phil understands will be ~ triple in length from the brief, is due to be submitted to the family around the first of the new year. Maddening to both Phil and me, the solicitors advised that the names/institutions who did the work not be released, at least until the final document is compiled/presented. Anyway, lots of detailed information is contained within Phil’s update and GolfClubAtlas.com is playing its role: acting as a platform for topics to be debated on golf course architecture in a respectful manner. 

My understanding is that the names/institutions not being released is the choice of the family and the solicitors, not the actual people doing the research. Similarly, releasing a brief which does not go into the entirety of the research and attaching your name to it can lead to a spattering of various questions, which is probably why nothing has been released and the solicitors have decided to not attach the names and reputations of well-respected individuals and groups.

Just give it a few months and when the entire report is released we can be more critical of the research. Doing anything now is rather ridiculous.

[Mark Pearce]

This entire thread and the "essay" it is based on are ridiculously premature.  Until the final report and the identity of the "Agency" and experts are available it is entirely worthless and proves nothing.  It is not worth debating at this point.

[DMoriarty]

I had a l post here responding to the posts of Neil, Connor, and Mark, but while it is normally not my practice I've decided to delete it. No offense meant, but I don't want to get into back and forth about matters that don't directly advance the discussion.  If anyone really want to know what I said, IM me and I'll forward my post, which I have saved.
_____________________________________________________

Phil,  

In addition to my questions above I wanted to further explore the entry from the Edinburgh Medical Journal. You seem quite certain of yourself that the "David Scott Taylor" listed in the Journal is Ian's grandfather. To quote you, "That is Ian's grandfather who received his medical certification from Edinburgh University in 1894. That's another one that you somehow missed in your world-wide search."  You go on to argue that this also disproves Adam's(?) theory that Ian's grandfather did not receive his medical training until 1916.

My questions to you are:  How do you know that the "David Scott Taylor" who is listed is Ian's grandfather? The name is not hyphenated so how can you just assume it is the correct person?  Do you have any corroborating evidence indicating that Ian's grandfather studied medicine in Edinburgh in or about 1894?  If so, what evidence?

The "David Scott Taylor" listed in the Journal is listed as from Alyth.  From your descriptions, David Scott Taylor was from Holyhead, was he not?  Is Alyth near Holyhead?  If not, how do you explain that he is listed as from Alyth?

[Phil Young]

Connor,

I'd like to clear something up for you and others who are under the same misunderstanding. You stated: "My understanding is that the names/institutions not being released is the choice of the family and the solicitors, not the actual people doing the research."

That's incorrect and isn't what I stated in the essay. I wrote, "First, the solicitors, institutions and individual experts all personally requested this."

I also didn't state that the family doesn't want the names out there, just the opposite, they prefer that the names of the authenticators be put into public view. They also recognize the reasons they were requested to hold this information back for the time being and are honoring it.

The names of all institutions and individuals involved in the authentications process are on the initial report and can, and HAVE, been shared with specific individuals so that they can see that the report's stated work product can be properly verified by those with a clear-cut need and reason for doing so. They just will not be shared on this or any other web site discussion group.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Phil

Welcome back and thank for keeping us all upto date.  While I wait for the final report, the fact that the paper and the ink are contemporaneous means little if testing cannot establish when they came together. The use of period materials is after all a well established trick of fraudsters.



David

I do wish you could tone it down a bit. I think your points would strike harder if expressed with a little more clear eye coolness.  Please?


Firstly, I do agree with you, if the trunk spent time under someone’s bed then they were not in the continuous care of the family solicitor. Thus the provenance is not guaranteed in this way.  End of.


Further Phil says he hasn’t been looking in on here so quite possibly he won’t have seen the fascinating photo of the Redan hole you turned up on this thread.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59480.50.html

From the year 1900.


It has already been shown that the “Tillinghast” Redan skech (dated 1899) overlays perfectly on the modern day Strokesaver one. Now we have this photo which is the best evidence of how it really was “at that time”. Although there is possibly 12 months time  difference between the two images it defies belief that the hole was as it is today, remodelled late 1899/ early 1900 as per the photo  and then returned to its original characteristics.  I know which convinces me.


If the experts are not examining facts, e.g. like the name of the Hotel, the originals on which sketches were based that came after the claimed dates and several others, they are merely evaluating the quality of a forgers art. I doubt these reports will settle anything in this matter as the evidence, when looked at dispassionately,  is already damming.  IMO of course.

[Phil Young]

David,

You are clearly doing nothing more than throwing crap into the air and see what sticks. An example is your statement that, “From your descriptions, David Scott Taylor was from Holyhead, was he not?” 

From my descriptions? I've NEVER stated anywhere that David Scott-Taylor was from Holyhead in his youth. 

“My questions to you are…” Once again the audaciously demanding David comes out. I can answer every one of your questions but now will not since you seem fit to only do what you have so often criticized others for doing. You have already stated to me on this thread that I “can’t have it both ways.” Well neither can you.

You’ve made the public claim that the signature you publicly posted is that of Ian’s grandfather. I’m now calling you to out prove it. I’ll respect your decision to not do so, but unless you do you’re doing nothing other than what you have highly criticized others from having done in the past.

You give yourself away when you stated to Neil, stated to “I am less concerned with burdens of proof and more concerned with the truth.   If the story as told were true, then there would be plenty of information corroborating it.   There would be evidence outside the supposed diaries, and there is little or no such evidence.”

For someone who is “less concerned with “burdens of proof” you certainly keep demanding that from everyone else. And to say that you are “more concerned with the truth” is self-serving when you previously state a lesser need for the “burdens of proof” that will prove the truth. Once again David, YOU can’t have it both ways.

You show every sign of one who is now doing a fishing expedition to garner information they can’t get otherwise. The fact is that YOU can’t find information outside the diaries and nothing more. You then state as “fact” that “there is little or no such evidence” simply because you can’t find it.

You speak of the Diaries as if you have intimate knowledge of the depth of what was written in them. The FACT is that you don’t have even the tiniest knowledge of what they contain, have only been shown copies of barely a handful of the thousands of pages they cover, so how can you even begin to judge the veracity of what they state?

So far in all of your comments you’ve completely ignored the information I provided from the initial report. Let’s refer to a brief part of it:
      “[Doctor] also commented that references made to streets and people in Dublin together with landmarks made the diary entries genuine, as many of these streets no longer exist. [Doctor] also charged two researchers with diaries to investigate the events documented within them from current news to local news and any other information they could gather.  The two researchers were given two diaries each.”
      “The comments [Doctor] received were that every entry corresponded with the correct timeline and events of individual days and events. Striking events commented on were April 1912 and the sinking of the Titanic and the declaration of World War 1. Other events documented in the diaries coincided with actual events on the days. [Doctor’s] conclusion is that the diaries are genuine. The content therein could not have been falsified.” [For clarification, the bold and underline portion is NOT mine but is as it appears in the report.]

Here we see that two researchers were “tasked” by their superior to do nothing other than examine four specific diaries of HIS choosing for factual errors. They could find none even down to references to streets mentioned that NO LONGER EXIST and haven’t for a great many years. Yet you’ve concluded that “There would be evidence outside the supposed diaries, and there is little or no such evidence.”

The information is out there to answer any and all of your questions if you but know where to look. The authenticators found his military, medical and educational records, so again I ask, why can’t you?

You talk of facts… the actual facts are as stated, that the drawings and journals have gone through as professional an authentication process as is possible and the conclusions reached by world-class experts is that they are “GENUINE.”

[Tony_Muldoon]

I probably shouldn’t add this but I can’t help myself.



It’s quite easy to believe the Diaries are at least for the most part genuine, but on their own they have little financial value.   However add in a few sketches with Signatures from Morris etc.  and the value of the 'collection' shoots up.  Maybe I've missed this but why are we concerned with the diaries if the sketches are simply impossible to accept?    

It's documented that the antique Golf Club auction market has already attracted the attention of fakers.  
It’s not hard to forge a few key pieces with period paper and ink.

[Phil Young]

Tony,

Thank you for the welcome back. To answer your statement, “the fact that the paper and the ink are contemporaneous means little if testing cannot establish when they came together. The use of period materials is after all a well-established trick of fraudsters”

I completely agree with everything you wrote. What you missed in the essay is that the age of ink, paper and watercolors used needed to be stablished first and were. The signature and handwriting testing establishes without any question as to when they came together. The report, as quoted from in the essay states the following:

Regarding the Redan drawing: “The signature of A.W.Tillinghast was compared with known copies and original examples obtained by the analysis team.” Also, “Copies of the signature where obtained from the United States and Collectors offered by the [major Scottish Institution]. Also, In conclusion, it is the expert opinion of this examination, by the experts and the information obtained that this document is genuine and was drafted by A.W.Tillinghast in 1899, the time indicated. The paper is also consistent with the samples comparison and further authenticates this document.”
 
Regarding the Road hole drawing: “These signatures were compared with copies and originals of the four persons indicated on the drawing.” Also, “In conclusion, all signatures were made by gentlemen with their right hand.  Three different inks were used on the documents. Of note, A.W. Tillinghast’s signature and drawing were made in one ink consistent with an American manufacturer.  Dr. Scott-Taylor and Dr. MacKenzie’s signatures were written in a fountain pen with separate ink.  Mr. Morris’ signature was made with a dipping pen and is in another ink.  This concludes that all the gentlemen’s signatures on this document are genuine and are written at the time dated. This proves that the documents are genuine. 

So the report simply doesn’t conclude that the drawings are genuine based solely on the proof given for the age of paper, ink, watercolors, etc… Rather, that taken in context with the signatures being authenticated as having been done by those who signed, and in this case as Old Tom died in 1906 this is especially revealing, the drawings and signatures are proven to have come together at the times they state. I’ve yet to know of a forger who creates forgeries in hopes that more than 100 years later someone can reap a huge financial windfall from them.

In addition, although they didn’t examine the golf course details as portrayed on the drawings, they did provide a great deal of corroboration evidence that what was drawn was factually accurate for the time. That is why references were made to the series of railroad maps and the contemporary photographs all showing the stone wall on the Road hole as having been there exactly as Tilly drew it since a number of posters had challenged that feature.

That is a wonderful photograph of the Redan. Actually, despite its being taken from a completely different angle than the orientation that Tilly used in his drawing, it actually appears to authenticate what he drew. A short distance on the other side of the green one can clearly see a heavy line of rough that is much higher than the fairway/green height grass leading up to it which is exactly the way that Tilly drew it.
As for “the “Tillinghast” Redan sketch (dated 1899) overlays perfectly on the modern day Strokesaver one” one to which you refer, it seems that you’re implying that it was drawn/copied from a modern day book created to aid a player with distances while enjoying a round on the course.

The previously presented information presented which provides the definitive dating of the drawing to being done at the time as indicated shows that absolutely didn’t happen.

In addition, I am well aware of a great deal more information that the authentication process came across providing further authenticative proof that both drawings and diaries are “genuine.” It wasn’t included in my essay as it is part of work product information that was shared with me throughout the process. All of it which includes detailed tests such as ink absorption levels as an example and factual information such as the details behind the local use of the name “Scores Hotel” to which you reference will be contained in the final report. I didn’t include these and won’t do so now as I think it would be disingenuous of me to state as authenticated “fact” what hasn’t been, as of yet, placed into an official report.

I can state with absolute certainty that the authenticator’s did not merely evaluate a forger’s art.

I just saw your new post before I was to post the above.

In answer to what you "couldn't help yourself" from posting, if the diaries are genuine then the drawings which are specifically mentioned in them in several places must be. The reason is because of where they appear within the diaries themselves. What you are suggesting is that someone added in the information into the diaries and that there were blank pages which exactly corresponded to the area needed for what was written there.

The diaries were actually the easiest part of the authentication process because of the incredible amount of possible disprovable facts that they contain. Yet despite that everything that has been examined to date in the 10 various diaries has been proven to be factually correct and because of the specifics of the information, MUST have been written contemporaneously with the events.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()