Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...

[David_Elvins]

I've just finished reading Phil's latest essay and all I can say is wow. Paper and ink of the period therefore must be genuine, really !! Learned experts give opinion that documents are genuine and Phil triumphantly states this as proof. Sorry Phil it's just an opinion.

Other "experts" read the diaries and acclaim them to be genuine because they mention the sinking of the Titanic and the outbreak of WWI !! Amazing. Presumably you can write away to get this expert accreditation ?

Whilst not as dismissive of the Phillip's essay as you, I have many concerns.  

Concern 1.

Phil's representation of the methodology used.  To quote Phil: "So exactly what were the various processes and means used to authenticate the sketches and diaries, and what determinations were made?......Before going through the results of the examination of the individual Tillinghast drawings I’ve chosen to include the following two sections that were included. They are detailed and explanatory of how they went about the testing process:"

What follows is roughly 1300 words directly lifted into the report from a lecture/paper written as a general summary of modern forensic documentation examination.  It is general and generic information and to allude to it being some sort of methodology for the investigation is stretching the truth.  It actually provides the golfclubatlas reader with no information on how the specific documents were examined and is therefor a waste of 1200 words to quote it in Phil's essay.  Since it is only background reading, a link to the paper that duplicates these words (http://www.step.org/forensic-document-examination-science-today) would have been far more appropriate, especially as it contains other paragraphs that provide greater context to the available testing methods.  Information specific to the testing actually performed would have been far more interesting to the reader.

[David_Elvins]

Concern 2.

The inconsistency of these two statements in the report.

“One of the most frequently requested examinations is to determine the date when a particular signature or piece of writing was made. Sadly, there are no reliable techniques for dating ink on paper despite the efforts of forensic scientists over the last thirty years."

and

“With the permission of the Solicitor and Scott-Taylor Family samples were taken on the ink and coloured sections to determine age and composition of the materials,

[Jim Nugent]

David Elvins, are there reliable methods to determine age based on the coloured sections?  The statement says ink and coloured sections.   

[Duncan Cheslett]

Duncan,  Your hypothesis that David Scott-Taylor may have concocted these diaries (and presumably the related material) in the early 1930's is an interesting one, and it is one that others have shared with me offline.  But I think the facts point to a more modern hand both in the case of the various drawings and also in the case of the diaries.  Among other reasons . . .

David,

I agree that my hypothesis is not a perfect fit and sounds far-fetched in places. However, the notion that Ian Scott-Taylor is a dumb enough idiot / arrogant enough psychopath to fabricate the whole thing and think that he could get away with it is also rather far-fetched.

One or other scenario must be the truth, however.

As for the Scores Hotel issue, I've thought this through.

Maybe Phil is right, and that in 1901 the Grand Hotel was commonly known as The Scores. Not because it was where players went to tot up their scorecards, but because it was located on the corner of a street called The Scores.

Wind forward 30 years, and David Scott-Taylor is burning the midnight oil in his lonely room in Pontybodkin adding the signatures of Alister MacKenzie and himself to the Road Hole sketch. He mistakenly uses the colloquial name for the hotel rather than its real one, because that is the name by which he remembers the place from his twenties.

Too far-fetched?

[David_Elvins]

David Elvins, are there reliable methods to determine age based on the coloured sections?  The statement says ink and coloured sections.   

Hi Jim,  I don't know and don't think it matters, even if there was, the phrasing is ambiguous and uncharacteristic of a professional document.

[Niall C]

I've just finished reading Phil's latest essay and all I can say is wow. Paper and ink of the period therefore must be genuine, really !! Learned experts give opinion that documents are genuine and Phil triumphantly states this as proof. Sorry Phil it's just an opinion.

Other "experts" read the diaries and acclaim them to be genuine because they mention the sinking of the Titanic and the outbreak of WWI !! Amazing. Presumably you can write away to get this expert accreditation ?

Whilst not as dismissive of the Phillip's essay as you, I have many concerns.  

Concern 1.

Phil's representation of the methodology used.  To quote Phil: "So exactly what were the various processes and means used to authenticate the sketches and diaries, and what determinations were made?......Before going through the results of the examination of the individual Tillinghast drawings I’ve chosen to include the following two sections that were included. They are detailed and explanatory of how they went about the testing process:"

What follows is roughly 1300 words directly lifted into the report from a lecture/paper written as a general summary of modern forensic documentation examination.  It is general and generic information and to allude to it being some sort of methodology for the investigation is stretching the truth.  It actually provides the golfclubatlas reader with no information on how the specific documents were examined and is therefor a waste of 1200 words to quote it in Phil's essay.  Since it is only background reading, a link to the paper that duplicates these words (http://www.step.org/forensic-document-examination-science-today) would have been far more appropriate, especially as it contains other paragraphs that provide greater context to the available testing methods.  Information specific to the testing actually performed would have been far more interesting to the reader.

David

I think the tone of my post could have been much better and I don't think that it helps the discussion writing in that way so for that I'm sorry. However if you strip out the sarcasm/cynicism etc, I think the points I make are valid and perhaps not that far removed to the comments you make.

The impression I get from Phil's essay was that the "experts" who were looking at the content rather than the form of this material were more intent on proving the authenticity of the material rather than testing it's authenticity, as borne out by the fact that they seem to be climbing over themselves to add the material to their own collections. Mentioning long gone streets in Dublin doesn't really impress me that much given what historical information that can be had quite readily. The acid test surely should be looking for anomalies or events that couldn't have happened as per the diaries. They had ten whole diaries to look at and would appear to have found nothing while all we've seen on this website is a couple of sketches and a couple of diary entries and we've found enough to set alarm bells ringing.

With regards to the statement of methodology, that's an interesting find and I look forward to reading the link you provided. As an aside it's becoming almost common place in professional reports for methodology to be included, I know it's insisted upon in my profession. Almost always the methodology bit is a standard section and it doesn't surprise me that the text is either a direct lift from the published document or indeed vice a versa. It will be interesting though to read the bits have been left out of Phil's essay/report.

Niall

ps. on the Road Hole sketch, do you know how far each of the drives are ?   

[Niall C]

Here again are the images mentioned by Martin.  According to Martin, he first image is the 1912 architectural rendering of the Redan, which as Martin says was obviously a result of a survey.   The second image is the questioned AWT painting, dated 1899.  The third is an overlay Tommy did for another thread.  The two images are nearly exact.

Would it be possible for Tillinghast to have done the road hole sketch and the Redan sketch some time after 1912 - based on copying available survey drawings?  I assume that knowing Old Tom Morris might give him access to survey drawings of the Old Course at least?

Is it possible that only the dates on the drawing are forgeries? 

David

If that were true then either the diary mentioning Tilly sending the drawings to Scott-Taylor were fake or alternatively these sketches weren't the ones mentioned in the diary which seems far fetched.

With regards the Road Holes sketch, there is a plan/elevational section produced by an Edinburgh architect dated 1911 or 1912, can't recall which, that was published in Golf Illustrated (I think) and is included in Scott MacPherson's definitive book on the Old Course.

Niall

[Bryan Izatt]

Concern 2.

The inconsistency of these two statements in the report.

“One of the most frequently requested examinations is to determine the date when a particular signature or piece of writing was made. Sadly, there are no reliable techniques for dating ink on paper despite the efforts of forensic scientists over the last thirty years."

and

“With the permission of the Solicitor and Scott-Taylor Family samples were taken on the ink and coloured sections to determine age and composition of the materials,

The way I read this is that they tested the ink and the paper separately for age and found that each were the appropriate age.  What they "sadly" can't test for was when the old ink was written on to the old paper.  So, for the conspiracy theorists, the "experts" can't prove that the documents weren't written some time after the fact. 

Quote from: DMoriarty on Today at 03:24:31 AM
Duncan,  Your hypothesis that David Scott-Taylor may have concocted these diaries (and presumably the related material) in the early 1930's is an interesting one, and it is one that others have shared with me offline.  But I think the facts point to a more modern hand both in the case of the various drawings and also in the case of the diaries.  Among other reasons . . .


David,

I agree that my hypothesis is not a perfect fit and sounds far-fetched in places. However, the notion that Ian Scott-Taylor is a dumb enough idiot / arrogant enough psychopath to fabricate the whole thing and think that he could get away with it is also rather far-fetched.

One or other scenario must be the truth, however.

Duncan,

I suggest that there are more than just these two scenarios that could be the truth.  For instance, the diaries and drawings might be legitimate.

[DMoriarty]

So, for the conspiracy theorists, the "experts" can't prove that the documents weren't written some time after the fact.

Bryan,

While this may be accurate for questions of determining the specific date of very old writings, it is definitely not accurate if the "experts" ask whether the ink might have been written in the past few months or years. I know this from my own dealings with ink experts back when I used to investigate fraudulent activities which (like here) sometimes involved previously unknown writings which appeared to explain away some problem with the story.

But if you don't believe me, then look at the boilerplate language copied off of the internet in the alleged report. The report itself suggests that changes in certain chemicals can be detected for up to two years after the writing.  "For example phenoxyethanol present in ballpoint pen ink decreases very rapidly immediately after writing and then more slowly over a longer period. However, by two years there are unlikely to be any measurable changes in the amount of this compound in the ink – any realistic estimate of the age of ink can only be carried out within two years of its writing."

In other words, experts can sometimes determine if a writing has been done very recently, as opposed to decades ago, but they cannot accurately identify the date after a few years.  

So take the alleged May 11, 1901 journal entry, for example.  It seems there is at the very least a possibility that this journal entry and the related journal entries were created after I provided Phil with detailed information as to AWT's whereabouts in the summer of 1901.  That is when they changed their story, and it is also when all the information I provided found its way into the diaries.  An expert who was fully aware of the facts and disputes would first test the ink from those particular entries to determine whether or not they had been created within the past few months.  But of course Phil tells us that the experts were given no guidance as to which journal entries were questionable.

I suggest that there are more than just these two scenarios that could be the truth.  For instance, the diaries and drawings might be legitimate.

Respectfully, Bryan, at this point this is by far the most "far-fetched" hypothesis.

[DMoriarty]

I think perhaps some might have overlooked the significance of David Elvins' post 250 above.  A substantial portion of this latest supposed authentication report by unnamed experts appears to have been copied directly out of an article on the internet. 

_________________________________________________

Duncan,

I don't think it makes sense to chase after these far-fetched hypotheses when all of the facts at our disposal point in the same direction.

As for your Score's Hotel hypothesis, until I have seen evidence that the Grand Hotel was commonly referred to as the Scores Hotel (for whatever reason) I don't give the hypothesis any credence whatsoever.   Phil has long claimed that he has "factual information" indicating the local use of "the name 'Scores Hotel'” for the Grand Hotel but of course he has not come forward with any such "factual information."  As always he instead insists we take his word for it.  Well I am well beyond taking his word for anything, an anyone who still takes his word for such things has his head firmly buried in a bunker.

If the Grand Hotel was colloquially referred to the "Scores Hotel" then lets have these facts so proving it. 

Another problem with your hypothesis deserves more detailed examination.  See below.

[DMoriarty]

The Scores Hotel Letterhead.

One of the specific factual details holding Ian's first story together was the reference to Tillinghast's "thank you" note written  on "Scores Hotel letterhead," the day after the alleged May 11, 1901 dinner.  From their first story:

"In the journal which detailed this gathering was found another priceless treasure, a thank-you note written the day after the dinner on Score’s Hotel letterhead thanking his “old Friend David Scott-Taylor” for the evening they enjoyed the night before signed by Tilly."

And this wasn't the only time guys insisted that this note was on "Scores Hotel letterhead."  Phil repeatedly made the claim on these threads and he insisted that this was the case to me when I was dealing with him privately, even explaining that Tillinghast must have had the letterhead from a previous trip and used it for his thank you (according to Phil this was a common practice of AWT.)   Phil even made a big show of demanding that Ian send the letterhead immediately, but of course that never happened. I've been told that they even went so far as to explain that the only reason the "Scores Hotel letterhead" wasn't included in the original story was because Ian's relative (who was supposedly creating the copies at the solicitors office) messed up the copy and inadvertently left it off!

In short, there is no doubt that these guys claimed that this note was on "Scores Hotel letterhead" and that they claimed to possess the letterhead.

This fact, though, went from a major asset to their story to a major liability once it was proven that 1)AWT could not possibly have been there, and, 2) The Scores Hotel did not yet exist.

If the Scores Hotel did not yet exist, then obviously "Scores Hotel letterhead" could not exist.   And even if we accept the attenuated explanation that the "Scores Hotel" was the colloquial name for the Grand Hotel, this does not explain the claimed existence of "Scores Hotel letterhead."   It is unreasonable to believe that the Grand Hotel would intentionally miss-name their establishment as the "Scores Hotel" on their letterhead. Imagine the confusion.

So what happened to the "Scores Hotel letterhead?"   Ian and Phil just dropped it from the story.  And they have never offered any explanation as to why.  
_____________________________________

Duncan,

The story about the "Scores Hotel letterhead" is the main reason why your hypothesis and Phil's hypothesis both fail.   Even if there was a colloquial name for the Grand Hotel, it wouldn't be on the letterhead.
 

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Other "experts" read the diaries and acclaim them to be genuine because they mention the sinking of the Titanic and the outbreak of WWI !! Amazing. Presumably you can write away to get this expert accreditation ?

I too found this rather silly. The couple of paragraphs on the Irish content of the diaries is quite interesting. I hope the Doctor didn't get paid too much for his work:

“[Doctor] confirmed that Dr. Scott-Taylor’s times and descriptions of Dublin during the 1916 Easter Uprising were consistent with historical records of the event and also that persons mentioned by Dr. Scott-Taylor in his diaries existed and were an integral part of the British and the Irish Republican Army at time. [Doctor] remarked that the diary was a unique insight into a serving British officer’s view of the Irish conflict.”
 
“[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.”


I suppose he mentioned Nelson's Pillar. That would be a good one to mention, as it no longer exists; it was bombed by the IRA in 1966. Maybe the GPO was also mentioned   Case closed: Diaries are genuine!

Could these people have been Pearse, Connolly, Ceannt, Clarke, etc.

As they used say on "Blue Peter", here's one I prepared earlier:

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

Not having seen the content of the diaries, I wonder which streets the mysterious Doctor was referring to. Every junior certificate student in Ireland knows that Sackville Street was renamed O'Connel Street. Information on the 1916 rising was published in the papers of the day; it was a huge story at the time. There have probably been 100's of books written about the events of the Easter Rising, not to mention what's available online. What does getting the facts right on the Rising prove? Surely the diary would have to contain something that couldn't have been know to a person that wasn't present at the time; something that only a few persons present at the time might know. Validating that kind of information could take some time.

Which brings me to my next question: How long did it take the experts to ok the diaries? Are we talking weeks or months?

“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.”

The above paragraph must be a joke; right? or rather it makes the experts look like a joke!

[Marty Bonnar]

These St Andrews hotels:

Today, there still is a Scores Hotel. Located on the street named 'The Scores', it's currently a Best Western. A number of GCAers spent a very jolly evening there only a few years ago in the company of one Lloyd Cole. Splendid evening, indeed. I believe the building was originally a house, but I have no dates. Certainly looks a bit Victorian. Sean Walsh's lovely wife, Rachel worked there while they were living in St A. In fact, I think Sean did too at one point.

The Grand Hotel. Originally built by one Thomas Hamilton as a hotel, then spent many years as 'Hamilton Hall', a St Andrews University hall of residence. Bought by Kohler a few years ago, is now known as the Hamilton Grand, currently being let as upscale residences. Located around the corner from The Scores. This is the red sandstone building behind the 18th green of TOC. Never been the Scores - that was always around the corner.

The Royal Hotel. No idea. Maybe this is now Rusacks adjacent to the 18th? There's Royal hotels in many towns in the UK.

Cheers,
F.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Duncan,

The story about the "Scores Hotel letterhead" is the main reason why your hypothesis and Phil's hypothesis both fail.   Even if there was a colloquial name for the Grand Hotel, it wouldn't be on the letterhead.
 

Phil clearly got himself into an unholy mess over the 'Scores Hotel Letterhead'. It was at this point that anyone with an ounce of humility or self-respect would have conceded defeat and quietly withdrawn in the hope that within a year or so everyone would have forgotten all about the 'Tillinghust Sketches'.

I suspect that there never was a 'Scores Hotel Letterhead' - genuine or forgery. Phil is clearly prone to exaggeration, hyperbole, and never letting the truth get in the way of a good story. I think he got carried away and made up the letterhead detail. When caught out he tried to bluster his way out of the hole he was in by more lies and deceit.

Remember his completely neurotic reaction to Tommy Nacc's amusing spoof of the letter?

I would suggest that the 'Scores Hotel Letterhead' tells us more about Phil Young and his credentials as a historian than it adds to the debate over the veracity of the journals and sketches.

[DMoriarty]

Martin,

As for the Scores Hotel, the buildings date back into the 1800s, but he use as a Hotel only dates back to the 1930s.  Previously, one of the buildings was a school for boys and the other was a medical institute.  The school was converted to a hotel in 1930's, and the other building was joined at some point later.  The hotel website provides a brief history, and I have separately confirmed the existence of the school.  http://www.bw-scoreshotel.co.uk/hotelinformation/  I've searched extensively for references to any St. Andrews hotel referred to as the "Scores Hotel" before the 1930s, but I have found nothing. The first mention I have found was, I believe, 1932.
________________________________________________________________________

Duncan,  As much as I agree with you that Phil has helped make a mess of things here, I strongly disagree with your attempt to make him Ian's scapegoat in this particular instance.  From my dealings with Phil off the site early on, I am convinced that all of the facts in the first story (including the bit about the Scores Hotel letterhead) came directly from Ian. Phil believed that the note was on Score's Hotel letterhead because Ian told him so, and when I first cast doubt on the truth of the story Phil demanded Ian send the letterhead as a test of whether Ian was telling the truth. It was not a detail that Phil had embellished.

Also, Ian reviewed and signed off on the accuracy of the first story, and Phil has told us repeatedly that all of the facts therein came from Ian.

Lastly, of course there never was "Scores Hotel letterhead." That is the point. The fact that they claimed they had such letterhead is in and of itself compelling evidence that their story is false. As for whether they would have gone through with producing fake letterhead, we'll never know because they changed their story when it was no longer convenient.  Further reason not to believe either one of them. 

Frankly, I am not sure why you keep trying to explain away the factual problems with their story in favor of your admittedly "far-fetched" hypothesis.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Frankly, I am not sure why you keep trying to explain away the factual problems with their story in favor of your admittedly "far-fetched" hypothesis.

I'm not really, David.

As much as anything I'm stress-testing your version of events. I have to say that it is standing up rather well!  


There surely must have been some material from Ian's grandfather though; something that kick-started this whole saga. Are you suggesting that Ian just dreamed up the entire story featuring a random ancestor of whom he knew nothing?

[John Kavanaugh]

Duncan, your hate isn't pure!!! How much longer can this go on?  With no rebuttal the haters are turning on each other.

[DMoriarty]

There surely must have been some material from Ian's grandfather though; something that kick-started this whole saga. Are you suggesting that Ian just dreamed up the entire story featuring a random ancestor of whom he knew nothing?

I guess it is possible that there may be some real dairy entries (or something) somewhere. But I don't think that anything produced thus far as from the diaries checks out, and I don't think it makes sense to speculate about the existence of real diary entries until there is proof of such.

But he definitely knew more than "nothing." IMO the obituary is real (although not necessarily entirely accurate), and stories must have have been passed down from Ian's grandmother or even possibly from his half-uncle and aunt (if he knew them.) And there are a number kernels of truth to various aspects of the story. It is just that many of the details are wrong or heavily distorted. It is easy to imagine where he came up with some of this stuff, but harder to imagine where he might have come up with other aspects.

[Colin Macqueen]

David M,

"I guess it is possible that there may be some real dairy entries (or something) somewhere."

Well I guess this is being milked for all it is worth!!

Cheers Colin

[DMoriarty]

Perhaps I should have said, it is not udderly impossible . . .

[Duncan Cheslett]

How much longer can this go on?  

I think its all over.

[Sean_A]

Concern 2.

The inconsistency of these two statements in the report.

“One of the most frequently requested examinations is to determine the date when a particular signature or piece of writing was made. Sadly, there are no reliable techniques for dating ink on paper despite the efforts of forensic scientists over the last thirty years."

and

“With the permission of the Solicitor and Scott-Taylor Family samples were taken on the ink and coloured sections to determine age and composition of the materials,

The way I read this is that they tested the ink and the paper separately for age and found that each were the appropriate age.  What they "sadly" can't test for was when the old ink was written on to the old paper.  So, for the conspiracy theorists, the "experts" can't prove that the documents weren't written some time after the fact.  

Quote from: DMoriarty on Today at 03:24:31 AM
Duncan,  Your hypothesis that David Scott-Taylor may have concocted these diaries (and presumably the related material) in the early 1930's is an interesting one, and it is one that others have shared with me offline.  But I think the facts point to a more modern hand both in the case of the various drawings and also in the case of the diaries.  Among other reasons . . .


David,

I agree that my hypothesis is not a perfect fit and sounds far-fetched in places. However, the notion that Ian Scott-Taylor is a dumb enough idiot / arrogant enough psychopath to fabricate the whole thing and think that he could get away with it is also rather far-fetched.

One or other scenario must be the truth, however.

Duncan,

I suggest that there are more than just these two scenarios that could be the truth.  For instance, the diaries and drawings might be legitimate.

What, no presumption of guilt?  Get your head on straight.  There is no need to wait for all the facts when we have a fine jury ready to declare a verdict.

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

While haters may be too strong a word, there is definitely bias and emotionality on both sides of the debate. Why that would be so is a mystery to me, but then again, much is

In any case, arguments like "if he is caught lying about the letterhead, then that proves the entire story is false" do not hold up to scientific standards of stringency. There may well be a few authentic pieces to the collection and a bunch of add-ons that aren't. The only sensible way of researching this mess is to look at each item seperately, but we do not even have a list of items.

To publish artificially created excerpts of an inventory, as was done here, is a teaser or, if you will, advertising to create interest in a forthcoming sale. Why people here go out of their way to punch holes into a piece of advertising is beyond me. It's not very valuable work on both sides.

Ulrich

[Bill_McBride]

Concern 2.

The inconsistency of these two statements in the report.

“One of the most frequently requested examinations is to determine the date when a particular signature or piece of writing was made. Sadly, there are no reliable techniques for dating ink on paper despite the efforts of forensic scientists over the last thirty years."

and

“With the permission of the Solicitor and Scott-Taylor Family samples were taken on the ink and coloured sections to determine age and composition of the materials,

The way I read this is that they tested the ink and the paper separately for age and found that each were the appropriate age.  What they "sadly" can't test for was when the old ink was written on to the old paper.  So, for the conspiracy theorists, the "experts" can't prove that the documents weren't written some time after the fact.  

Quote from: DMoriarty on Today at 03:24:31 AM
Duncan,  Your hypothesis that David Scott-Taylor may have concocted these diaries (and presumably the related material) in the early 1930's is an interesting one, and it is one that others have shared with me offline.  But I think the facts point to a more modern hand both in the case of the various drawings and also in the case of the diaries.  Among other reasons . . .


David,

I agree that my hypothesis is not a perfect fit and sounds far-fetched in places. However, the notion that Ian Scott-Taylor is a dumb enough idiot / arrogant enough psychopath to fabricate the whole thing and think that he could get away with it is also rather far-fetched.

One or other scenario must be the truth, however.

Duncan,

I suggest that there are more than just these two scenarios that could be the truth.  For instance, the diaries and drawings might be legitimate.

What, no presumption of guilt?  Get your head on straight.  There is no need to wait for all the facts when we have a fine jury ready to declare a verdict.

Ciao

And hang 'em high!    Frontier justice. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Haven't seen it mentioned here, but note that Melvyn Morrow on Facebook points out that Old Tom was in St. Andrews on that day, so it is at least possible that dinner took place........