[DMoriarty]

Jeff,  Continuing on to your other comments . . .

My take is that in January-March 1907,
CBM and committee finalized the routing.  
They then told a surveyor to mark the boundaries, perhaps 150 feet off the proposed centerlines they had staked out.
That came out to more like 180 acres over 110 acres.  
CBM may have considered reducing the golf course, but it was more important than the leftover land, so he kept it as designed.  
He then allocated the remaining 25 acres to hit the 205 total contracted for near current 17 for Founders land.  Is it any coincidence that it is on an existing (albeit then unimproved) road with some water view, which would be best for lots?
He may have contacted some founders, we do not know, but he obviously felt comfortable with a much reduced Founders parcel.

First, do you really think they were out there in the middle of winter planning? I can't say for certain, but I'd be very surprised if we ever find proof that a lot of field work was taking place during the winter. It doesn't seem like much happened during the winter in places like Southampton.

Second, and more importantly, I don't think the stuff about coming up with a 180 acre golf course then adding 25 acres to get to 205 makes any sense whatsoever.  The entire east side of the border was locked.  CBM had already described it by December 1906.  The only wiggle room was on the west side of the property.  Look at the border on the west side.  It is drawn to fit the golf course.  There is no place where he added in an additional 25 Acres to get to 205.  Any extra land was either on the locked side or in between holes.  

You don't really think that the developer was going to let CBM carve out little inaccessible islands (or donuts as you guys have called them) of land, do you?  

This is why I keep imploring everyone to look at the maps.  There was no extra land.  CBM tailored the border to fit with the golf course. This is what CBM told us he would do in December 1906.   He said nothing about Founder's lots, and no room for them anyway.  

In some ways, this recalls the Merion debate, in which you seemed pretty certain that CBM had routed the course after a quick visit in June, despite writings saying otherwise.  I believe in both cases, finalizing the routing simply took more time than you imagine.  I don't believe the routing was completed prior to purchase, even if they had found enough good holes in singles to know they wanted that land.

Congratulations, Jeff. You've managed to grossly mischaracterize my understanding of the creation of two courses in one paragraph. So as to not get off track, I'll ignore it, but in the future please don't try to characterize my position on NGLA, Merion, or any other course. You get in wrong every time.  

So what leaps of faith do we take?  That the suggestion of housing was in fact the most logical use at the time and was the real plan?  Believing that no one would send out surveyors to get those exact acreages prior to purchase and finalizing the routing? (If they did not, how would CBM know he had 205 acres in Dec 1906?)

I have no idea what you are asking here, but if you are asking where I think you are wrong, let me provide a few ideas:

1. You misdated your timeline, as I explained in my previous post. You pushed
2. You and Mike are assuming that CBM came in to the project thinking he was going to subdivide 90 acres of housing. I think this idea (if it ever was one) was already dead at the time CBM had previously tried to buy 120 acres of property.  
3. If it wasn't dead then, it would have certainly died when CBM determined to purchase land from an active real estate development targeting CBM's potential members for customers.

In other words you guys have erroneously assumed your conclusion (that CBM wanted to include 90 acres of housing at the NGLA) and then mischaracterized the timing to make it seem more plausible than it really is.

[Keith OHalloran]

I know I am treading into waters I shouldn't, but I have a question. I have heard that CB lived in a house across the water and oversaw the construction. If there were a bunch of building sites available on the property, why did he not build a house on site to oversee the construction?

[DMoriarty]

Macdonald ' s plan for years was to buy 200 acres on Long Island, estimating 110 needed for course and the rest for Founders lots.

CBM's "plan" was to build the ideal golf course, not to become a real estate broker. CBM had tried to purchase 120 Acres from the same developer.  This demonstrates that 1) He was NOT committed to buying 200 acres, and 2) He was NOT committed to supplying his Founders with 90 Acres of home lots.

If he secured 185 acres, or 224 acres, or 157 acres in Dec 1906 instead of 200 acres I'd certainly be inclined to agree with David's interpretation of events but I don't believe the number was coincidence when next day newspapers all reported the cottage component.

Okay, let me see if I follow you here . . .  You seem to be implying that if it was any number than 200 you'd "certainly be inclined to agree with" me.  The heart of your argument seems to be that any purchase of 200 acres by CBM automatically meant that CBM was definitely planning to subdivide 90 Acres for Founder Lots.  And you believe this because some newspapers paraphrased a 1904 letter about a hypothetical 200 acre purchase?

Surely you understand that this doesn't really make any sense, don't you?   You must realize that there could be other reasons to purchase 200 Acres (or 205 Acres.)  For instance, CBM might have purchased that particular 205 acres because it turned out that HE NEEDED THOSE 205 ACRES TO BUILD HIS IDEAL GOLF COURSE!

It is not a "coincidence" that he purchased just enough land for his golf course!  He didn't get lucky and just happen to get the right amount because he was planning on  a real estate development using up almost half his land!  This is CBM we are talking about.  He had been traveling the world studying golf holes to replicate on his ideal course.  Yet you think he would have carefully studied the land, the identified a number of holes and a number of other features, and still underestimate is golf course land needs by 83%!

That is what you seem to be arguing here.  After all the preliminary work CBM had already done on this land, and after already developing a good idea of how the course would sit on the land, you think he miscalculated the amount of land he needed for his ideal golf course by 83%.  He thought he needed 110 Acres, but he ended up needing 205. (Slightly more actually, if you count the additional small purchase west of the property which was not included in the initial purchase.)

And yes, I know he eventually purchased 205 acres around July 1907 but forget where and why he added to his purchase. ..

Wait . . . didn't you just suggest that "200" was somehow a magic number, and any variation from that number would mean that you agreed with me?  It looks like you just remembered that he actually purchased 205 Acres, not 200.  Yet you still don't agree with me.  Strange. If exactly 200 means you are correct, and 185 or 224 or anything else other than 200 means I'm correct, then why doesn't 205 mean I'm correct? None of this makes any sense. 

You forget why he added five acres to the purchase?  The reason was because he needed the extra five acres for the golf course.   It was all about the golf course for CBM, before, during, and after the process.  It was always all about the golf course.

[DMoriarty]

I know I am treading into waters I shouldn't, but I have a question. I have heard that CB lived in a house across the water and oversaw the construction. If there were a bunch of building sites available on the property, why did he not build a house on site to oversee the construction?

Keith,
That is a very good question.

I don't think any answer exists, though, because there were never any building sites on the NGLA property, and, most probably, CBM never intended to put building sites on that particular 205 Acre property.  

As for CBM's building site across the Bay, I don't remember the date he purchased it but I assume (and sort of remember) that it was at some point after December 1906.  

Mike or someone will probably try to tell us that after carefully studying the land for months, locating a number of holes, and developing at least a rough idea of how the course would fit on the land, CBM must have still been planning to build his house on the current NGLA land along with the 60-70 Founders, but then at some point that winter it finally dawned on them that they weren't going to have a spare 90 Acres lying around.

Seems silly to me, but that seems tobe what they are arguing.

[MCirba]

I don't agree David and that's okay. I can explain more why I don't agree if I have any energy to do it yet again this coming week. From the reading of others posts I'm pretty sure they get what I'm saying very clearly even if you continue to act dumfounded though so you may want to try a different tactic.  

At least we agree that designing the golf course and routing it was a months long process.  Now you just need to convince Patrick.

[Bryan Izatt]

For those interested in roads here's a puff piece from the Realty Co from March 1908 about what they were calling the Shinnecock Hills Colony.  They were a little optimistic that the course would be open for play in the fall of 1908.  They claim that only three fine new roads have been constructed, the new North Highway and two north-south roads at the Suffolk Downs and Shinnecock Hills Stations on the RR were located.

Interesting that the names of various members of the Club keep getting published.  I guess it was society page stuff in those days.  Privacy at private clubs seems much more common now.  Hard to imagine PV or Augusta publishing the names of some of their membership today.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is some more information, from what looks to me like a very reliable source, about the history of the clubhouse at NGLA.

In the summer of 1910, two years after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, Macdonald finally decided that he wanted to build his clubhouse on the site where it sits today, on a hill overlooking Peconic Bay.  It appears that in 1910 that he did not own the site on which the clubhouse is sited.  The Realty Co offered to sell him the 2.5 acre site where the clubhouse now sits, but only as a site for the clubhouse. After some negotiation he bought the parcel of land and assisted by a committee had the clubhouse built over the summer of 1911 and completed by September.  They tried to fund the clubhouse through the issuance of debentures.

The fact that he didn't own the clubhouse site in 1910 throws a wrench in my understanding of what property he did buy in 1906-07.  Did they buy property with a lot in the middle withheld, or did the property not originally go as far west as the current 18th green and 1st tee?

At any rate, it appears certain that this site for the clubhouse is not where he always intended it be.  If it was, I imagine that he would have thought to buy the site as part of the original land deal in 1906.

[MCirba]

Very interesting Bryan.  It would be fascinating to find the original metes and bounds but the routing extended to the current first and 18th holes from the get go, as depicted in the Aug 1907 article showing the routing.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, I am pretty sure your source is confusing the location of the clubhouse with the location of the pro shop.

CBM addressed the purchase to which you refer in the January 1912 letter . . .

. . . During the past year we found it necessary, in order to protect ourselves, to purchase two and one-half acres of additional land on Peconic Bay at the western end of the golf course. The Shinnecock Hills & Peconic Bay Realty Company were loath to sell us this at a price under $1,000 an acre, but eventually, as expressed by them, to give us their aid, they sold us the two and one half acres for $750 an acre. They have land adjoining this two and one-half acres. It can therefore be safely stated that our original purchase of two hundred and five acres would be cheap at $500 an acre, as no land contiguous to ours can today be bought for less than that figure. To sum up, our two hundred and seven and one-half acres have cost about $45,000, including legal expenses, guarantee of title, and meadow rights subsequently purchased in order to make our water front absolutely secure.

Note that the land was at the western end of the golf course, on Peconic Bay, and adjacent to land controlled by the developer.  The description fits for the pro shop and practice green location, but not the clubhouse location.  Note also that this land doesn't seem to be included on the blueprint (this is assuming that the bunker in the upper corner is at the back of the 18th green.)

The pro shop, practice green and perhaps a bit of the current 1st tee sit on approximately 2.5 acres of property.

[Bryan Izatt]

Some other tidbits about the early timeline for NGLA.

Regarding the acquisition of the land, they apparently made a down payment in late 1906 and paid the balance in the spring of 1907, presumably after they had done some detailed planning of the course and nailed down the land they wanted.

CBM, HJW et al may have hit balls on the roughed out course during construction in 1907-08.

In June of 1908 the Club was incorporated in the State of New York.

In 1909 some small groups lead by CBM "played over the course tentatively".

A small tournament, won by Ward, was played in 1909 according to CBM, although the contemporaneous news reports put it in 1910.

In May 1910 CBM issued stock in the Club.

CBM wrote to the Founders that the official opening was September 16, 1911.

[DMoriarty]

It is interesting, though, that according to your unnamed source, that the developer would restrict the use of this parcel to a golf course related use (clubhouse/pro shop). Sounds like the developer was not interested in selling CBM land for building lots unencumbered by restrictions.  

This makes sense.  Why would the developer sell CBM discounted land for residential building lots, when the developer itself was trying to sell full price building lots adjacent to the course?  As the developer readily acknowledged, a golf course enhanced the value of the development. Whereas a CBM subdivision cut directly into the developer's business.  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

The source is pretty explicit that the 2.5 acres was the site of the current clubhouse and that the Realty Co explicitly wanted that to be the only thing built on it.  But, I suppose you could be right and they are misinterpreting the correspondence of the time.  I guess the deeds and their metes and bounds would be the only certain way to demonstrate where this 2.5 acre plot was.

[DMoriarty]

David,

The source is pretty explicit that the 2.5 acres was the site of the current clubhouse and that the Realty Co explicitly wanted that to be the only thing built on it.  But, I suppose you could be right and they are misinterpreting the correspondence of the time.

Bryan, From past experience I've learned to take unidentified sources with a grain of salt unless they back up their assertions. If you and your source want to provide his/her backup identifying the parcel as the clubhouse location (and not the pro shop location) I would be happy to consider it.

In the meantime, I think the best evidence (by far) is CBM's detailed description of this purchase in his Jan 1. 1912 letter to the founders.According to CBM, the additional 2.5 acre plot was:
1. "On Peconic Bay"
2. "[A]t the western end of the golf course."
3. "[A]djoining" land held by the developers.

None of these describe the clubhouse location. All describe the pro shop location.

If your source thinks that there must have been another 2.5 acre purchase (in addition to the one described by CBM in the letter) I'd ask why the additional 2.5 Acre purchase is listed in the 1912 letter?

From a common sense perspective, do you think that the developer would have sold CBM a donut shaped property, with their remaining holding locked-in by NGLA's land?  For that matter, do you think that CBM would have allowed the developer to control a parcel right in the middle of his course when such a parcel would have required access easements through his course?

Do you see a cutout for this supposed parcel in either the blueprint or the August 1907 stick routing?  I don't.

I guess the deeds and their metes and bounds would be the only certain way to demonstrate where this 2.5 acre plot was.

 

Again, we are faced with your dilemma of whether to go with the best evidence and the most probable conclusion, on the one hand, or whether to wait in for your desired absolute certainty, on the other.  It is an easy decision for me.  I'll go with CBM's contemporaneous account every time.   But I'd be glad to reconsider if you ever come up with anything factual which refutes CBM.

[Bryan Izatt]

The source material is also based on written correspondence by CBM and the Realty Co.  There are quotes from it and there is mention of the 1st tee and a possible caddie shack, so your scenario is plausible.  But, it explicitly limits the site to the clubhouse.  Perhaps CBM agreed to that and then built the pro shop on it.  Who knows?

I agree with your common sense thoughts, but I'd like to see the deeds. 

I don't think it's a great dilemma.  There is no time pressure to draw a "most probable conclusion".  We, and others, have been at this for years.  We can afford to wait and look for more factual information.

BTW, if you think the source is one of your off-line protagonists, it's not.

 

[Sven Nilsen]

Who were the transferors and transferees of the original 205 acre parcel.

I find it hard to believe the club didn't own the doughnut hole between 1 and 18 from the get go.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  I didn't think the source was one of my off-line protagonists. The information seems a bit too sound to have come from them. That said, there may be a few points that might be worth clarifying . . .

Regarding the acquisition of the land, they apparently made a down payment in late 1906 and paid the balance in the spring of 1907, presumably after they had done some detailed planning of the course and nailed down the land they wanted.

CBM wrote that they "obtained an option on the land in November, 1906, and took title to the property in the spring of 1907. "  An option isn't quite the same thing as a down payment, but that is a small point. I only bring it up because I am wondering if your "source material" contains information about the purchase which contradicts CBM's description.

In 1909 some small groups lead by CBM "played over the course tentatively".

Your source seems to be quoting Scotland's Gift. CBM wrote that in 1909 that they "played over the course tentatively" (at about 6100 yards from the regular tees.)  I don't consider a group of twenty to be a "small group" but I suppose that is a matter of interpretation.

A small tournament, won by Ward, was played in 1909 according to CBM, although the contemporaneous news reports put it in 1910.

There was an "improvised competition"in 1909 for around 20 players and another well-publicized tournament in early July 1910. Ward played in both, but did not win either.
- In the 1909 tournament Herreshoff beat Ward in the semi-finals, and W.T. Tuckerman beat Hereshoff in the finals of the first flight of eight. CBM beat Robert Watson "one up" in the finals of the second flight of eight.
- In the well-publicized invitational in July of 1910, CBM played in the first flight (not the second.)  The first flight was won by Herreshoff, and S.K. DeForrest of Shinnecock beat Frank Thomas in the finals of the second flight.  Neither Tuckerman nor Watson played in the the second tournament.  

Modern commentators (including your source) seem to think that CBM misdated the first tournament as 1909, when it actually occurred in 1910. But judging by the different winners and participants, there were definitely two tournaments.  (The confusion probably stems from the fact that CBM indicated that Ward's great round was in 1909, when in fact it was in 1910.)

CBM wrote to the Founders that the official opening was September 16, 1911.

According to CBM, the "formal" opening was on this date. But they had been golfing on the course for a few seasons before this.  Keep in mind that once the Shinnecock Inn burned down, the club had no clubhouse until the current clubhouse was finished in 1911. In my opinion, this goes a long ways toward explaining the delay.

[DMoriarty]

Here is the Oct. 16, 1906 Boston Globe article discussing the acquisition:



There are obviously a few potential inaccuracies with this article.  For example the purchase had not yet taken place, although it is possible that CBM and HJW had reached an informal agreement. (My guess is that CBM/HJW or Travis let it slip that the developer had agreed to sell CBM property for the golf course.)  Also, the acreage is reported at 250 and not 205 yards.  Not sure if this is a mistake or whether CBM had not yet narrowed it down to 205.  Sebonac neck fits the physical description.  (Surely Mike will now relaunch his old theory about a mystery third site, but hopefully the rest of us won't take the bait.)

The reason I reposted the article is that it indicates that CBM and HJW (and perhaps Travis) had already been hard at work studying the contours, and that elevation maps had already been made and sent to overseas advisors.

[MCirba]

David,

Given the number of inaccuracies in the report,  do you think it's possible that the reporter confused CBM sending maps and hole drawings to those folks from his overseas visit?  I always had that impression given Macdonald ' s claim that the Sebonac Neck site had never been surveyed at the time he was considering it for purchase.

Also...no need to discuss third sites.  I'm comfortable we know pretty closely where he was hoping to purchase at first now that we understand no major roadways would have impeded that aquisition.

[Sven Nilsen]

David,

The source is pretty explicit that the 2.5 acres was the site of the current clubhouse and that the Realty Co explicitly wanted that to be the only thing built on it.  But, I suppose you could be right and they are misinterpreting the correspondence of the time.  I guess the deeds and their metes and bounds would be the only certain way to demonstrate where this 2.5 acre plot was.

CBM sold 205 acres to the club in 1910 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Aug. 20, 1910).



In 1912 (as David noted above), CBM noted the club held 207.5 acres, including the 2.5 acres purchased for the proshop location.

Seems pretty clear that when the clubhouse was built in 1910, it was on the original 205 acre parcel.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for the clarification, Sven.
________________________________________________

David,

Given the number of inaccuracies in the report,  do you think it's possible that the reporter confused CBM sending maps and hole drawings to those folks from his overseas visit?

The possible inaccuracies (if they are in fact in accuracies) are not all that surprising. It is not unusual to find a land purchase reported at the time the parties came to an agreement, rather than at the time the formal transfer of title took place. (For example this same thing happened with Merion - the sale was reported months before the sale was actually finalized, and it happened with some of the underlying properties as well --the sale of the 21 Acre Dallas estate was reported months before the sale was finalized. This is in part the nature of real estate transactions.  As for the 250 acres, we don't know if that is inaccurate or not.  It could be that developer had agreed to sell CBM up to 250 acres, but that CBM ultimately decided he only needed 205.   Or it could be an inaccuracy.  I don't put much significance on it either way.  

There is plenty in the article that rings true. CBM's intentions, the (pending) sale, the construction schedule, the general description of the topography, the desire to seek expert opinions here and abroad, the names of the experts CBM consulted, Whigham working with CBM on the property, Travis's involvement, the location and description of the property. The information came from someone who was very familiar with project. By the list of the names of foreign experts I'd guess the information came from HJW or CBM himself (either directly or indirectly), those guys were CBM's crowd, and not the type of names that someone is just going to pull out of thin air.

As for your theory that maybe "the reporter confused CBM sending maps and hole drawings to those folks from his overseas visit." Pardon me for saying so, Mike, but you seem to have just made this up. There is no evidence of which I am aware that CBM sent overseas experts information about overseas golf holes, and I can think of no reason why CBM would be trying to educate them about their holes. The idea of CBM providing John Low with descriptions of holes on the Old Course is pretty funny to imagine, but entirely factually baseless.

In short, we can't just make up facts we like to replace facts we don't like. Yet that is exactly what you seem to be trying to do here.

I always had that impression given Macdonald ' s claim that the Sebonac Neck site had never been surveyed at the time he was considering it for purchase.

When CBM first mentioned the property he said it had never been surveyed and everyone thought it was more or less worthless. But he and CBM didn't think it was worthless, and while they were out there earnestly studying the contours they certainly had the resources and/or ability to come up with some semblance of maps/drawings with elevations and ideas about what they wanted to do with the course. Besides, weren't you the one who was recently arguing that, when CBM said that the land hadn't been surveyed, he must have meant that it had never been surveyed for housing? (Somehow I think you'll change your mind about that.)

As for your last paragraph, I'll refrain from comment except to say I don't agree with your understanding.

[DMoriarty]

Above Keith OHalloran asked, if there were a bunch of building sites available on the property, then didn't CBM build a home on NGLA's property? I tried to answer, but I was hoping Mike or Jeff would also try to explain it (but frankly I don't think they can reasonably explain it.) In the interim, I thought some might like to see the house CBM built across Bullshead Bay from NGLA.  Here is a photo from 1913:


According to the article the house sat on a couple hundred acres that CBM had acquired a few years before, and featured extensive landscaping including an Italian garden. Here is the a link to the 1913 article.
https://books.google.com/books?id=8vxHAQAAMAAJ&dq=ballyshear&pg=RA6-PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false

When reading about CBM's palatial estate, keep in mind that Mike claims that in December 1906 CBM intended for their to be "cottage component" on the land at NGLA where all of the Founders would have been given lots to build "cottages" on the current golf course property. (Mike even tried to claim the building lots were for "cabins" but he had no factual basis for so claiming.) Apparently Mike thinks that cabins and cottages sound less imposing and therefor more plausible than summer homes. Just so we are clear on what passed as a "cottage," here is an image of a Southampton "cottage" from around this time:


The photo comes from a book called Southampton Cottages of Gin Lane.
http://www.amazon.com/Southampton-Cottages-Gin-Lane-The/dp/1609492781

[JESII]

David, it's CBM who made the statement/intention/suggestion to give 1.5 acres as inducement for the $1,000 Founder subscription. Mike simply thinks the notion of providing something in return for the subscription carried forward...which it clearly did considering CBM's letter to the Founders posted sometime back. You and I disagreed on this a week or so ago, but that letter clearly places the Board of Directors higher on the chain of command than the Founders.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

There is a very simple explanation as to why CBM didn't take 1.5AC of land within NGLA - He wanted a 200 acre estate and bought one right next door.

I do agree with you it might be very possible that the other founders - look at some of those names - may have told CBM that they would need more land for their summer cottages, and that is the start of the end of the plan to provide land for cottages.  Perhaps CBM simply misread the market for such things, but that is just speculation.

In any case, I know my timeline is later than yours, and yours may even be closer to correct on the basic design.  But, I still have to wonder how CBM would assess how many acres he had on horseback and whether surveyor would be brought in before there was an option.   That three months to finalize the deal seems tailor made for that kind of activity, and I suspect CBM didn't focus on the extra land, etc. until he finalized the routing, got the surveyors, knew the acreage he had taken, etc.

I am not sure how you can look at that graphic and claim the border hugs the golf course in its entirety.  You seem to be ignoring it to make your point. It does everywhere but the 17th, where there is an extra 60-90 yards of land from the edge of the fairway.  CBM said there was extra land after the fact, the map shows extra land by 17, so really, that has to be what he was talking about, no?

[MCirba]

David,

Again, here's what Macdonald said about when the course opened in "Scotland's Gift";

"It was not until 1909 that some twenty friends played over the
course in an improvised condition, our club-house a tent. The
course was very rough and, as I have said, distinctly shorter than it
is now.."

Yesterday you wrote;

There was an "improvised competition"in 1909 for around 20 players and another well-publicized tournament in early July 1910.

When did the improvised golf course become an improvised competition?

[DMoriarty]

Read the book again Mike. It is always said "improvised competition." I've explained this to you now three times at least, yet you stick with your made up quote.  Yet you wonder why I get frustrated with you?  You see what you want to see, not the real facts.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()