Sad conclusion to the Scott-Taylor matter

[Ulrich Mayring]

The question of Phil's involvement in this affair seems to hinge on statements like this excerpt from his "hubris" apology:

I have been involved with a series of ongoing research projects for the Scott-Taylor family separate from the Tillinghast drawings. I am currently not at liberty to reveal what they involve and will not do so. They involve information found throughout many different volumes of the journals of Dr. Scott-Taylor and in each case I actually did see photographs of the relevant pages from them. They were exactly correct in backing up what the family had told me about the things they had me researching.

To me that seems to say that there are a number of things "checking out" about the diaries and he has done all the necessary research work, but isn't allowed to reveal it. He called Ian Scott-Taylor "my friend". But now that his trust was betrayed, I suppose he doesn't feel bound by this friendship anymore. Therefore it would be good to hear the entire story from him, what exactly he has researched and established about the materials.

Ulrich

[Ulrich Mayring]

And how about this quote from Ran Morrissett:

What I can speak directly to is that I have personally seen with my own eyes proof positive that the paper/journals have been in the care of the lawyers and stored by their firm at their offices since the death of David Scott-Taylor in 1933. To me, that means we are looking at material of age.

Sorry, if I ruffle some feathers, but perhaps this affair should be cleared up in its entirety.

Ulrich

[Bill_McBride]

Bibo ergo sum

I drink therefore I am. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Kelly, thanks for bringing Michael's reply up, I had missed it.

Michael, the analogy is not valid as it ignores the primary party (readers of GCA.com) and only addresses an issue with a third party. I am not sure the analogy could be stretched; the question would be something like, is it acceptable to cheat on your wife, or to betray a friend's trust, to catch someone stealing something from your safe? Further, if the question really is a utilitarian one, I've asking whether ends justify the means, then it probably should be expanded note that the safe is either empty or contains not much of value - meaning specifically here that the monetary damages to GCA.com would appear nil to small.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer,

Good post. Honestly, I really haven't given the business side of this much thought. My assumption was that ownership of the materials was not in dispute, just the authenticity. So, when the time came for any potential financial gain, the party to receive such gain was not in dispute. The task was just to authenticate and for that I believe Geoff Shackelford would have been an appropriate source to contribute to the process.

As for GolfClubAtlas, overall I believe it has been to the benefit of the site. Honestly, I am amazed people like David Moriarty put so much time and effort into the issue, but that is to their credit and, I think, to the credit of this website for bringing us all together.

A couple thoughts about Ran in all of this:

I strongly believe Ran has secured a place for himself in the history of writing and commentary about golf architecture. I won't say that my golf architecture library is world class, but it is about 350 books, including most of the most well known for golf architecture junkies like ourselves. Based in that, I think I can say that Ran's course review writing is as good as anything that has been produced and arguably the very best.

Then, of course, there is the sometimes maligned discussion group. Not perfect. Could be better. But, in the grand scheme, it is something really great which I think we should all cherish. Just my opinion.

So, I was a little shocked to learn just recently about the Foulpointe story. What I think this Scott Taylor thing demonstrates, is that a Foulpointe like action should just be avoided. Ran has a huge bank of good will for those of us who just love golf architecture and that should be protected, not depleted. Please note that I am not suggesting the Scott Taylor thing is exactly the same as Foulpointe, just that it does offer a lesson.

All that aside, I very much appreciate your contributions to this site. Really nice that we have a balance of professionals and hobbyists.

[Jay Flemma]

Ironically, I read these quotes just yesterday while sitting on the beach and knocking down a cold one:

"If you would be a real seeker of truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
- Rene Descartes

and

"There are two ways to be fooled.  One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
- Soren Kierkegard

Fwiw.  

Bogey

Wow! No wonder he considers Game of Thrones cookbook "so last year"  Happily I will solve that problem:)

[Richard Choi]

I am happy to knife others    -  because I feel like a fool for being sucked in by Neil Crafter's and Phillip Young's deception. 

Possibly the ugliest thing I've read on GCA. To accuse Neil and Phil of being knowingly complicit in the fraud is a nonsense. As for the assertion that the first thing you should do when handed a professional report is assume it might be fake and therefore test it accordingly........well that's just as ludicrious as accusing Neil Crafter of wilfully taking part in a fraud.

Niall

"Trust but Verify" is the rule of thumb for anyone seeking the truth. When you are not willing to do even the easiest and simplest fact checking, and not only that, but to vehemently denounce others who do so, you are exposed as a fool - because you are. There is nothing ugly about it, it is just a statement of fact.

[Niall C]

From Merriam-Webster - "deception, fraud, double-dealing, subterfuge, trickery mean the acts or practices of one who deliberately deceives."



Richard

See above. David was asserting that Neil and Phil had willfully set out to deceive. I suspect he's the only one on here who thinks that, or at least I hope he is. While he might be disappointed in the stance they took, accusing them of deception is a nonsense and really quite ugly, to borrow a phrase from Tony.

With regards to how you treat "professional" reports, let me suggest that as Neil/Phil believed IST was genuine, and lets face it the guy comes across as very plausible given his gca background etc, then I don't think it unreasonable not to question whether the report is a fake. Indeed in 30 odd years in business where I've dealt with professional reports on a daily basis, I've never even thought if checking if the report is for real, even when I strongly disagree with its contents or think it poorly written. I suspect most people on here would agree with that.

It appears that IST seems to have built his deceipt on the validity of these reports. While the naysayers were able to pick holes in the various material, they had the great benefit of not having been taken in by these reports or of having been charmed by IST, and therefore approached the issue with perhaps a more open mind.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff Brauer,

Good post. Honestly, I really haven't given the business side of this much thought. My assumption was that ownership of the materials was not in dispute, just the authenticity. So, when the time came for any potential financial gain, the party to receive such gain was not in dispute. The task was just to authenticate and for that I believe Geoff Shackelford would have been an appropriate source to contribute to the process..........

All that aside, I very much appreciate your contributions to this site. Really nice that we have a balance of professionals and hobbyists.

Tim,

I agree the ownership is clearly IST and family.  And, if he/they were truly trying to authenticate old materials, it would have been his call to bring in a second and third opinion.  And, they did, (although maybe it took some prodding from this site) and thought that the handwriting, ink and paper experts were the proper ones to authenticate the materials, rather than a Geoff Shack type (who basically is in the same arena as Phil) to bring a differing perspective to the process.  And if they got around to the supposed Riviera sketches, then Geoff would be a more proper expert as author of the club history than anyone else, of course.  There really would be nothing wrong about calling him in on any Mac stuff.  As you say, it would make sense to have the foremost Mac guys look at it, just as it made sense for Phil to look at the Tilly stuff.  Credentials do matter, I suspect.

I feel as if Phil felt he would be good enough, and wanted to be the only one historian involved, to get the scoop on a find under his special area of interest.  Again, just a guess from Phil's perspective, since IST clearly didn't actually authenticate anything.  

As you can tell, I am not ready to throw Phil under the bus as a co-conspirator on a public site, given how serious an accusation that is.  Given what little I know, I am not even willing to call Phil really dumb, just because good con men can be so convincing.

[Richard Choi]

Niall,

I don't think anyone is faulting Phil or Neil for getting duped by a con-artist. Ran certainly falls in to the same bucket, but he is not being denigrated here (at least not for this particular incident alone).

It is fine for somebody to believe what they have been told without double checking initially. However, when others point out the inconsistencies, factual errors, and other objectionable materials from the said material, you have an obligation to check the source material to see if it is in fact a genuine article. Especially, when you are the only ones with the relevant information. This is what I do whenever I am offered conflicting information in my line of work, I would certainly hope that you do as well.

The fact that Phil and Neil failed to do so, and worse yet, attacked others who did fact checking is what is going to ruin their reputations. Anyone can make honest mistakes, not everyone turns mistakes into bigger disasters.

[Niall C]

Richard

I put the dictionary definition in there to show that what David Elvins was accusing Neil of was deliberate deception rather than being an unwitting participant in a decpetion. That is a huge difference and quite unwarranted. I'd like to think David will reflect on that and perhaps modify or clarify what exactly he means. Hugely disappointed he may be, but I would hope that he would still be able to make a considered judgement.

With regards to reports, I've never phoned up a consultant or professional firm and asked whether they actually produced a report just in case what I had been given was a fake. I've often phoned up to ask what their report actually means but that's a different matter.  I take your point that many on here and presumably Max's were questioning this report. On the other hand they were doing so without having had sight of the report but on the evidence of the findings. On the other hand Ran/Phil/Neil were in the "privileged" position of having a copy of the report or at least having seen it (or at least I'm assuming they had). Putting myself in their position, having been sucked in by IST, who on the face of it seems to be very persuasive and plausible, I very much doubt I'd have questioned the authenticity of the report even if I didn't agree with the findings.

It appears to me that IST has been very clever in using Ran, Phil and Neil as a human shield and it is really him we should be directing our anger.

Niall

[Tim Martin]

Richard

I put the dictionary definition in there to show that what David Elvins was accusing Neil of was deliberate deception rather than being an unwitting participant in a decpetion. That is a huge difference and quite unwarranted. I'd like to think David will reflect on that and perhaps modify or clarify what exactly he means. Hugely disappointed he may be, but I would hope that he would still be able to make a considered judgement.

With regards to reports, I've never phoned up a consultant or professional firm and asked whether they actually produced a report just in case what I had been given was a fake. I've often phoned up to ask what their report actually means but that's a different matter.  I take your point that many on here and presumably Max's were questioning this report. On the other hand they were doing so without having had sight of the report but on the evidence of the findings. On the other hand Ran/Phil/Neil were in the "privileged" position of having a copy of the report or at least having seen it (or at least I'm assuming they had). Putting myself in their position, having been sucked in by IST, who on the face of it seems to be very persuasive and plausible, I very much doubt I'd have questioned the authenticity of the report even if I didn't agree with the findings.

It appears to me that IST has been very clever in using Ran, Phil and Neil as a human shield and it is really him we should be directing our anger.

Niall

Niall-The idea that Phil and Neil have no culpability in perpetuating the IST ruse is farcical. As Richard so aptly points out there was a myriad of conflicting information that these guys justly blindly ignored. Shouldn't the light have gone on at some point that there was a problem? I just don't see how you can stand behind Phil and Neil and act as if they didn't have some responsibility to substantiate the information in light of so many inconsistencies. It doesn't seem that any points are awarded in the research area for blind faith.

[Craig Sweet]

Seven pages? Everything that needed to be said on this topic was said back on page one.

Yawn....get over it.

[Brent Hutto]

Seven pages? Everything that needed to be said on this topic was said back on page one.

Yawn....get over it.

What's that saying?

"The thing speaks for itself."

Around here even the most obvious "thing" doesn't speak for itself, apparently. Not without being drowned out by the usual sectarian bullshit.

[Niall C]

Tim

Well at least you accept it was an IST ruse as you put it, rather than a Ran/Phil/Neil/IST production, so I suppose that's something.

With regards to what part Phil and Neil (and indeed Ran) played in the IST story, only they can answer but this witch hunt of a couple of guys who do a hell of a lot more than most on this site with regards to uncovering the history of gca is becoming unsavoury in the extreme. This is after all a hobby site, that provides entertainment to those of a certain mind. What they have done is give an honest opinion, and that most on here would say they have been proved wrong in that opinion is neither here nor there, they shouldn't be receiving the level of criticism they are getting.

"Culpability" - you'd think they'd robbed a bank for fecks sake !

Niall

[Tim Martin]

Tim

Well at least you accept it was an IST ruse as you put it, rather than a Ran/Phil/Neil/IST production, so I suppose that's something.

With regards to what part Phil and Neil (and indeed Ran) played in the IST story, only they can answer but this witch hunt of a couple of guys who do a hell of a lot more than most on this site with regards to uncovering the history of gca is becoming unsavoury in the extreme. This is after all a hobby site, that provides entertainment to those of a certain mind. What they have done is give an honest opinion, and that most on here would say they have been proved wrong in that opinion is neither here nor there, they shouldn't be receiving the level of criticism they are getting.

"Culpability" - you'd think they'd robbed a bank for fecks sake !

Niall

When you are a historian/researcher you certainly are "culpable" for the supposed factual information you stand behind especially when there are such glaring contradictions. I don't take an ounce of joy in the way this played out but to minimize their role is laughable. The analogy to them robbing a bank is even more so.

[Niall C]

You don't take joy in it? Oh well that's all right then. What's laughable is someone like you who offers hee haw to the actual debate and then comes in at the end to start slinging mud. Actually I take that back, it's not laughable it's pathetic.

Niall

[Tim Martin]

You don't take joy in it? Oh well that's all right then. What's laughable is someone like you who offers hee haw to the actual debate and then comes in at the end to start slinging mud. Actually I take that back, it's not laughable it's pathetic.

Niall

The only pathetic thing I see at this point is guy's like you wishing away their responsibility in the matter and half heartedly trying to give them a pass. Now that's laughable.

[Niall C]

No idea what "giving them a pass" is meant to mean. Do I think they were wrong in thinking that the material was genuine ? Well obviously. I said so long before you decided to join in heaping abuse.

However what they did was offer their honest opinion no matter how misguided we now think that to be. As I said before, they offered an opinion, not commit a crime hence my comment on the language being used to criticise them.

Niall

[David_Elvins]

No idea what "giving them a pass" is meant to mean. Do I think they were wrong in thinking that the material was genuine ? Well obviously. I said so long before you decided to join in heaping abuse.

However what they did was offer their honest opinion no matter how misguided we now think that to be. As I said before, they offered an opinion, not commit a crime hence my comment on the language being used to criticise them.

Niall

Niall,
Neil didn't give an opinion, he gave an assurance.  I am surprised you can't see the difference, specifically what iis implied by an assurance.

Anyway, I don't want drag this out, I think I have expressed my disappointment adequately and I bear no ongoing  ill will towards Neil and Phil. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

It seems convenient to paint IST as the devil and all others as his victims. But the facts, as they are known right now, don't support that. The only thing IST has admitted to fabricate is the preliminary authentication report.

In other words, there is still a mountain of possibly genuine material out there including the full authentication report, the drawings and the diaries. Remember, Ran still hasn't retracted his claim that he has 100% positive proof that they are old. Phil still hasn't retracted his claim that according to his research, a lot of their content checks out.

Ulrich

[Duncan Cheslett]

Ulrich,

I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for the full authentication report. Surely Ian's fabrication of the interim report suggests that there never was any authentication process commissioned by him, his family, or their solicitors.

I can think of two very good possible reasons why this may be the case;

1. Ian knew that much of the material was false and so couldn't risk exposure.

2. Ian couldn't afford to pay for authentication. The cost would run into many thousands of dollars.

As for Ran and Phil's position; they appear to have dropped Ian completely and run for the hills. Hands will be wiped clean and all blame for the entire fiasco will be heaped on Ian Scott-Taylor in an attempt to save face. Ian's admission of falsifying the report has given them the opportunity they have been waiting for.

The irony is that I suspect that there may well be genuine items of historical interest among the artefacts. These could remain in a masonic chest for another 80 years before a future generation of golf historians 'discovers' them.

That is possibly the "Sad conclusion to the Scott-Taylor matter".

[Scott Warren]

Ultimately, Ian's claim wouldn't have meant nearly as much without Ran, Phil & Neil's public backing. Their involvement mattered when these documents were supposed to be legitimate, so their involvement matters now that the whole thing is revealed as a con.

That doesn't make them complicit in the scam, but their reputations are undoubtedly hurt by this because their word meant something and their backing added significant credibility to the claim. Getting it wrong hurts the credibility that made their word mean so much in this case.

Perhaps as unsavoury as trying to con the world and revise history is Ian's seemingly calculated decision to damage three seemingly good men in the process. Still, they need to account for themselves once it started to unravel and they refused to modify their backing for the claim.

[Niall C]

No idea what "giving them a pass" is meant to mean. Do I think they were wrong in thinking that the material was genuine ? Well obviously. I said so long before you decided to join in heaping abuse.

However what they did was offer their honest opinion no matter how misguided we now think that to be. As I said before, they offered an opinion, not commit a crime hence my comment on the language being used to criticise them.

Niall

Niall,
Neil didn't give an opinion, he gave an assurance.  I am surprised you can't see the difference, specifically what iis implied by an assurance.

Anyway, I don't want drag this out, I think I have expressed my disappointment adequately and I bear no ongoing  ill will towards Neil and Phil. 

David

An assurance yes, but on what basis ? Did he intend to assure you that the material was genuine or that he'd seen a report that says it was genuine. I'm sure Neil will regret more than anyone that he was conned and how he worded his pronouncements on here but the real question to you is when you accused him of deception did you mean that Neil was knowingly party to a fraud ?

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

WEll, I won't comment again, because I think its all said.

However, the last few posts have me wondering if I am way off base on the self importance some attach to this website?

This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while.  Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly.  Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil.  Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night.  It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.

So, while I understand the anger, especially at IST, in general, I don't get the words like culpability, free pass, etc. Especially for Ran, who brings us a web site and content devoted to a little interest group, and acted to bring even more, potentially exciting material for our interest group, mostly at his cost, BTW, and made a mistake. 

Fraud happens, maybe Ran and Phil have something to learn from this to make it a better web site, but really, IMHO, that's about it.  Sounds like some of you are ready to press charges or hang someone from a tree, when in reality, you may be offended, but you haven't been damaged.

At least in my world, the anger level is far beyond what it really needs to be.