[DMoriarty]

Mike, is it really so hard for you to provide the proper citations for the articles you post?   All that is required is the date and newspaper.  The latest article, from Dec. 17, 1906, is from the NY Evening Telegram. See how easy that is?  

You keep mentioning "cabins" but this article makes no mention of "cabins" although it does seem to draw on the Eagle report about "cottages" from the day before. In fact it seems to be drawing heavily on the information in the articles from the few days before.

As for the location of the Canal site, I agree with Bryan.  It has been beaten to death in years past.  All we know is that it was near the canal, and far away from Shinnecock Golf Club.

Sven, Thanks for pointing that out.

[MCirba]

David,

Sure, and I'm pretty sure I've included attribution information for virtually everything I've posted but missed that one.   Also, I generally think of cabins and cottages as pretty interchangeable, don't you agree?   Which one would you prefer I use and I'll try to be consistent.

For completeness, the 1904 and 1944 Topos with Roads and Housing Development through those dates is purchased from historicaerials.com but others can look them up online to track road construction over the years and don't need to purchase anything.

As far as the location of where CBM wanted his ideal course originally, don't you have any intellectual curiosity about the matter?   I sure do.   Last discussion got so far offtrack with Patrick trying to show us active, busy highways ran through the area and you ridiculing me for even speculating as to be a waste of Ran's server space.

However, now that we know the North Highway wasn't even passable until 1907 and we also now know that the North Highway never ran as far north or northwest as it was drawn on the Olmsted/Vaux plan those original objections are moot.

Also, since I was good enough to answer your direct questions I would ask for your thoughts on whether or not you believe CBM cleared the unwalkable land of Sebonac Neck prior to December 1906 or after?   Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

No Mike, I don't think that cabins and cottages are interchangeable when it came to the development of Southampton around this time. Look at the type of "cottages" these types of men were building.  More importantly, why not just provide accurate information rather than putting your spin on it?  You keep injecting in "cabins" when the articles say nothing about cabins.  It seems you want to create a Butler Cabin scenario, but the record doesn't support that, so you change the record.

As for the location of the 120 acre site near the canal, we know what we know, and yet another wild goose chase on the topic isn't going to change that.  

[MCirba]

David,

I had no idea and thought the terms cottage and cabin were used interchangeably.   Apparently not, as this article describes;  

http://www.loughboroughinn.on.ca/blog/cottages/differences-between-cabins-and-cottages/

With that in mind, where do you think the writer of that article got the idea that cottages would be built?   CBM's 1904 Agreement with the Founders doesn't mention cottages.   If each of these news articles were all simply stealing from each other one or just copying from the 1904 Founders Agreement would think they'd maintain consistent language and functional integrity, no?  

Instead, one calls them "building plots", the Brooklyn Daily Eagle refers to them as "summer cottages', another quotes directly from the 1904 Agreement saying "it is therefore possible to give each subscriber and acre and a half of ground in fee simple", this Evening Telegram article states, "some of the ground...may be sold or rented to the Founders for the erection of cottages" with the money going back into the club to help the overall financing.   Do you think perhaps some had other sources than each other and CBM's 1904 Agreement?

Also, you may have missed it but do you think CBM cleared the unwalkable land of NGLA prior to his securing the land in December 1906 or after?

[DMoriarty]

Mike, Southampton started as a "cottage" colony, but eventually became a "Summer Residence" community, with huge architectural houses with elaborate estate gardens and such (See CBM's summer residence, for example.)  During the transition from one to another, the residences and mansions were sometimes still called "cottages" like the original summer cottages. The guys who were founding NGLA did not spend their summers in what we think of as cabins or what you might think of as a summer cottage. They spent their summers in mansions which were sometimes referred to as cottages.  

With that in mind, where do you think the writer of that article got the idea that cottages would be built?   CBM's 1904 Agreement with the Founders doesn't mention cottages.   If each of these news articles were all simply stealing from each other one or just copying from the 1904 Founders Agreement would think they'd maintain consistent language and functional integrity, no?

No. Precisely because they were "stealing from each other."  If you have been beat to the scoop and are cribbing from already published articles to try and catch up, you better put your own twist on the languageor you end up looking stupid.  The first two articles - the Sun and Tribune - contain language that is undeniably from the 1904 Agreement.  The later articles contain their own spin on the exact same information.

As often happens in the press, it is like a big game of telephone.
1.  Mid-December 1906 CBM and HJW send out Notice of Payment Due to Subscribers along with the 1904 Subscription Agreement setting out a "suggestion" about splitting 90 acres among the founders.
2.  December 15, 1906, the Tribune and Sun published articles based the new information from CBM and HJW along with the OLD information from the 1904 Agreement. Both articles paraphrase extensive portions of the 1904 agreement and mistakenly assume that the "suggestions" in that agreement apply directly to the NGLA property.  
3.  December 16th and 17th (and for months thereafter) additional newspapers (The Eagle, Evening Tribune, Witchita, etc.) publish articles repeating much of the same information already published, along with snippets of new information.
4.  At each stage, the language about divvying up the lots is tweaked, but the essential information remains the same.

Note that the articles rely on extensive quotes from CBM and/or HJW addressing the specific NGLA purchase, but there are NO QUOTES about dividing the land up between the founders.  This is because it is old information and wasn't being addressed by CBM or HJW at this time.  

Do you think perhaps some had other sources than each other and CBM's 1904 Agreement?

No. I think they were all working off of each other and the same basic material and previous reports, and trying to put their own spin on the story. These articles rely extensively on direct quotes from CBM/HJW.  Yet the bit about divvying up the land is never in the form of a direct quote.  It is always just reporting facts without providing the source. Had CBM wanted to put out there that he would divvy up 90 acres to the founders it would be included in the extensive quotations.

You admit that the original stories were cribbing from the 1904 Agreement.  All the others flow from this.  

[DMoriarty]

As for your last question as for what CBM had been doing on the land, I'd have to go back and look at the October and November articles to see what they had been doing, and I don't have time to do it now.   I do recall though that there was some talk of already having sent plans and drawings to advisers abroad, so whether or not they had cleared the land they were apparently well on their way regarding the planning.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I can attest there are different definitions of cottages.  On my mother's side an uncle had a cottage up on a lake in Michigan.  1500 SF, nothing special. On my fathers side, we visited their "cottage", which was a mansion on the shores of Lake Michigan, over 5000 SF, boat house, etc. (they had married into the Lazy Boy family)

That said, they can also be interchangeable.

Also, if CBM provided new info in those 1906 articles (and I seem to recall one old article mentioning CBM holding sway somewhere) how can we be sure he didn't verbally provide some updates to one intrepid reporter or the other?  I don't think we can be sure that every stinking article was solely from the 1904 piece, since they could easily have sought out CBM and HJW on their own for more specific info to make their pieces different, as David suggests.  And, some differences might have come from CBM and JHW each putting their spin on words in any interview, formal or otherwise.

We just can't be that certain, can we?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

Anything is possible, I guess.  But there is nothing in the record directly indicating that CBM "verbally provide[d] some updates" indicating that he wanted to divide up a large chunk of NGLA into housing lots for the founders.  The articles are full of quotes from CBM and HJW on NGLA.  Yet no quote about divvying up the property property for real estate.  And CBM certainly did not write about any such plan in Scotland's Gift.  Nor did he mention a plan divvying up substantial portions of the property for real estate lots in the 1912 letter.

So you can assume stuff about what CBM might have said if you want, but I think a more reasonable explanation is that the info in these articles came directly or indirectly from the 1904 Agreement  and/or the articles that got it wrong in the first place. In fact even Mike admits that the language in the two original stories is directly cribbed from the 1904 Agreement.

Again,  it is just like a game of 'Telephone.' You know how in Telephone the story gets garbled the more it gets passed on, so it ends up making no sense?  Well, take a close look at the December 17, Evening Telegram article.  It makes no sense.
  - Do you really believe that CBM told a reporter that some of the land may be sold to the founders at a profit, to pay for the land acquisition?  Really? This isn't even consistent with the other articles, and it makes no sense.  Do you really believe that CBM told the Telegram that he was going to dupe some of the founders into paying for the same land twice? And the second time at a profit for the Club? Or is it more likely that the Telegram is just getting confused from what has been printed before in the other articles and in the 1904 Agreement?
  - Or how about the bit about cottage rentals? CBM has already been quoted as saying that he was not going to get into the bed business.  Do you really believe that two days later he told the Telegram he was going to go into the cottage rental business?   Or is it more likely that, like with the telephone game, he is going into the cottage rental business?

Nothing is certain in historical research, but it is generally a better approach to go with what makes the most sense rather than assuming into existence conversations that may or may not have happened.

That said, you guys can believe whatever you like.  If you guys really want to believe that CBM intended to divvy up a large portion of NGLA into residential lots and/or cottage rentals, then nothing in the historical record is going to dissuade you.  

I'm still hoping that, as an architect you'll show me how this would work, though.   Because based on CBM's descriptions of the course as of mid-December 1906, it sure doesn't seem like there was room for 90 acres of housing to me.  

___________________________________

There is no reason to discuss cabins at all, because Mike just made that up.  There is no mention of "cabins" in any of the source material.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Please tell me that you're not relying on the sketch below to prove that NGLA didn't own the land behind the 9th green. 

Bryan,

Don't be a moron, of course I'm not relying on that schematic.
I'm relying on NGLA.
Who are you relying on ?

I asked you to let us know where that site "near" the Shinnecock Inn is ?

 It doesn't even have a scale on it, nor is it in the context of a map of the area, nor does it say that it depicts the property boundaries.  Why don't you get the deeds to prove your point that there was no land that NGLA owned behind the 9th green.

I don't need to as that information has been supplied by highly credible sources

Who owns the land between the 9th green and the highway to the south today? 

"Today" is irrelevant.   But NGLA purchased the land behind the 9th green long after the clubhouse was built
How many acres are there?

You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you. 

No, I don't agree

Or are you saying that CBM was wrong and that he didn't own a site near the Shinnecock Inn?


I'll repeat that which I've stated numerous times before.
NGLA did NOT own the land behind the 9th green prior to the construction of the clubhouse

Mike,

I think everyone knows that NGLA didn't own the Shinnecock Inn.  I hope you're not catching the Mucci disease of stating the obvious.   

You're not really going to start again on the location of the Canal site are you?  We beat that to death a couple of years ago. 

The other sketch showing the Locker House behind the 9th green is also not to scale (even worse) but does suggest that he owned enough land behind the 9th green to house the Locker House.  Did I not read somewhere that it was to become an adjunct to the club-house?

Bryan, you're wrong...... Again.
The "locker house" is NOT behind the 9th green.
It's next to the 10th tee

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Must I correct you again ?

Not the LIE Mike, but RT 27.

In fact, you may recall, in one of your shotgun blasts, you claimed that the course was sited right on top of the North Highway (RT 27)

I pointed out to you that the location you chose had RT 27 running right down the middle of your golf course.

Has anyone posted the 1928 schematic that appears in "Scotland's Gift" ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

...................

I'm relying on NGLA.

............................

I don't need to as that information has been supplied by highly credible sources

There is no way for us to assess the credibility of anonymous sources.  Do they have the deeds?  Did they show you the deeds?  Can you produce them here?


So you agree that NGLA currently owns the area between the 9th green and the highway as seen in the aerial below.  When exactly did they purchase it?  Did they have an option on it before they purchased it?

You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you. 

No, I don't agree

So, you are stating that CBM was mistaken, lying or delusional when he wrote in Scotland's Gift that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"

The "locker house" is NOT behind the 9th green.
It's next to the 10th tee

So, your contention is that the current halfway house is the same "locker house" as depicted in the 1907 drawing?  Does the current halfway house have lockers and showers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

...................

I'm relying on NGLA.

............................

I don't need to as that information has been supplied by highly credible sources

There is no way for us to assess the credibility of anonymous sources.  Do they have the deeds?  Did they show you the deeds?  Can you produce them here?

The source isn't anonymous.
I identified it for those who can read

So you agree that NGLA currently owns the area between the 9th green and the highway as seen in the aerial below.  

No, I don't agree with the lines you've drawn

They currently own the land behind the 9th green, but I don't recall if it extends to Rt 27 and I don't think it extends to the right flank of # 9 as you've conveniently, if not disingenuously, depicted

When exactly did they purchase it?  

Decades after the construction of the current clubhouse

Did they have an option on it before they purchased it?

No option dating back to 1906-8

You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you.  

No, I don't agree

So, you are stating that CBM was mistaken, lying or delusional when he wrote in Scotland's Gift that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"

That's not what I'm stating and that's not what you stated in your original query.
You stated "he", when in fact the direct quote is "we"

The "locker house" is NOT behind the 9th green.
It's next to the 10th tee

So, your contention is that the current halfway house is the same "locker house" as depicted in the 1907 drawing?  
Does the current halfway house have lockers and showers?

That's not my contention, that's your conclusion.
But, No, and did the one you're referencing have lockers and showers ?

With NGLA NOT owning the land behind the 9th green, why don't you tell us how the members were going to access the "locker house" behind the 9th green ?  ?  ?

If you don't own the land behind the 9th green, if you don't own the land adjacent to Rt 27, tell us how you would access a clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Do I read you right that you have contacted someone within NGLA to get the old property lines?  I am sure we would like more info on the people you contacted.

As you know, memories of long time members have been proven inaccurate in many historical searches elsewhere, so I don't think its OB for Bryan to want to know if your source is on that level, or the club historian, or deeds, or whatever.

And, while I agree the property line he drew is an estimate, probably wrong in some details, and most likely wrong on the east side where there are no clues to real property lines, I don't think you need to call him disingenuous to take a stab at it.  Again, most of your post is about what someone else said, and pretty light on facts concerning what you said.  Being defensive is not giving a constructive answer to those who, for some reason that is getting harder to fathom, actually care a bit about this discussion.

David,

I understand your points, and again, we aren't far apart on what we think on this, but you always seem so sure it could have happened only one way, and I don't share your certainty on our interpretations. 

As you said, every paper was going to get its own spin on the material, and the typical way to do that is to interview the main participants to get a unique quote.  Its not hard to imagine they even perhaps talked to one of the actual founders or whatever who put down money.  So many times, the historical quotes are both garbled, mixed, and sometime wrong, and it could be for several reasons.

As to fitting any specific land in, yes, there is only a bit of land by 17 and a few smaller pockets, certainly not suited for the mansion type cottages most members may have been envisioning.  Like I say, we know the plan was dropped, and our only differences are in the certainty of when and how.  Maybe the key is the CBM quote about wanting to be away from things when playing an ideal course.  Did he decide that himself?  Did an early founder tell him he wouldn't build a cottage there for whatever reason?

Again, never intended when he mentioned the leftover land, or intended but something just didn't work out for reasons we don't know.  This stuff is interesting, but not interesting enough for me to argue with you about those details we will never know.  Ditto on the original premise. I can see Patrick's interpretation, but I can also see Mike's.  Obviously, CBM and others weren't considering some website like this 100 years later debating every word as if they were 100% precise in what they were trying to say.

[MCirba]

Mike Cirba,

Must I correct you again ?

Not the LIE Mike, but RT 27.

In fact, you may recall, in one of your shotgun blasts, you claimed that the course was sited right on top of the North Highway (RT 27)

I pointed out to you that the location you chose had RT 27 running right down the middle of your golf course.

Has anyone posted the 1928 schematic that appears in "Scotland's Gift" ?  

Pat,

The "North Highway", such that it was, wasn't passable by Auto in 1905-06 when CBM made his offer on the 120 Acres near the Shinnecock Canal.   "Hardening" it for automobile travel is something that was accomplished by the Real Estate company around the same time they built the Shinnecock Inn.

What you pointed out back when was its proposed location on the Omsted/Vaux subdivision map that was drawn in 1907, but the highway was never built as far northwest towards the canal as that map projected until after WWII.   Did you not see the 1904 and 1944 Topo maps of the region (including Sebonac Neck) that I posted yesterday that showed the road systems as they existed during that period?

Which 1928 schematic are you referring to?   I have Scotland's Gift on my computer so if you can tell me which page you are referring to I can provide here.   ***EDIT*** I see there's supposedly a drawing of NGLA in the back of the book but my electronic version doesn't include it, unfortunately.

Thanks.

[MCirba]

David,

I would respectfully disagree with your assessment that all newspapers reports after December 15, 1906 were cribbed from the original.

First, the news accounts were not triggered from a mailing that went out to the Subscribers asking for payment.   They were triggered by the fact that contracts were signed the previous afternoon for CBM to secure land at Sebonac Neck and it seems instead that a Press Release in the form of printed materials and even a News Conference that evening would have accompanied that event.   One paper on Saturday the 15th said that Macdonald “announced (news and details of the agreement) last night”.  Another quoted him directly and extensively.  (see below)

Otherwise, if materials weren’t distributed at that event, what would these fellows be doing with a 1904 Agreement between CBM and the Founders?   Where and when would they have received that private communication?

The contracts were signed Friday afternoon, Macdonald evidently announced it that Friday night, and two New York papers reported it the next day, while the Brooklyn Daily Eagle (with information not included in either of the first reports such as information about 200 Associate memberships) held out for the Sunday edition.   All are included below for reference.

Would you agree that at least with these three accounts it was not a case of “Telephone” or “whisper down the lane” but instead having received materials directly from CBM who had just announced his land acquisition?   Thanks.


New York Tribune, Saturday 12/15/1906




New York Sun, Saturday, 12/15/1906




Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Sunday 12/16/1906

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

You're now reduced to this level of hair splitting to try to preserve your theory?


What do you think CBM meant when he wrote in Scotland's Gift (I added the parenthetical comment for context):

"We abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"

[DMoriarty]

Read the articles you are posting.   The Sun article specifically says that CBM sent the subscribers a notice.  Never heard of a written announcement?

You've admitted that the two original articles were cribbing directly from the 1904 Agreement.  Are you really going to argue that the later articles had a totally independent source for the same information, other than the 1904 Agreement or the previous articles?

If so, what is your evidence of this?  Given the extensive CBM quotes, if CBM made this sort of statement, then why isn't there a quote where CBM said he was going to divvy up large portions of this particular property to distribute to the members?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

...................

I'm relying on NGLA.

............................

I don't need to as that information has been supplied by highly credible sources

There is no way for us to assess the credibility of anonymous sources.  Do they have the deeds?  Did they show you the deeds?  Can you produce them here?

The source isn't anonymous.
I identified it for those who can read

So, now the source is an "it".  Would that "it" be NGLA?  Did the golf course whisper it to you in one of your seances?  



So you agree that NGLA currently owns the area between the 9th green and the highway as seen in the aerial below.  

No, I don't agree with the lines you've drawn

They currently own the land behind the 9th green, but I don't recall if it extends to Rt 27 and I don't think it extends to the right flank of # 9 as you've conveniently, if not disingenuously, depicted

Thank you for agreeing that they do own some land behind the 9th green now.  It wouldn't hurt for you to say yes, and then question the lines.  Yes, the lines were a guess that I made to give you an idea of the area I was talking about.  Now, if we had the deeds we could put an actual boundary around it.

Well, the path from beside the 9th green goes pretty much right up to RT 27, so I'd guess that the property extends to the highway.  They seem to be dumping detritus on the property so I hope they own it.


When exactly did they purchase it?  

Decades after the construction of the current clubhouse

That's not exactly exact.  Could you narrow it down to the decade?  Or, year?  Who did they buy it from?  It'd be helpful in finding the deeds.


Did they have an option on it before they purchased it?

No option dating back to 1906-8

You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you.  

No, I don't agree

So, you are stating that CBM was mistaken, lying or delusional when he wrote in Scotland's Gift that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"

That's not what I'm stating and that's not what you stated in your original query.
You stated "he", when in fact the direct quote is "we"

Wow, a new low in hair splitting to avoid answering the question.  

The "locker house" is NOT behind the 9th green.
It's next to the 10th tee

So, your contention is that the current halfway house is the same "locker house" as depicted in the 1907 drawing?  
Does the current halfway house have lockers and showers?

That's not my contention, that's your conclusion.
But, No, and did the one you're referencing have lockers and showers ?

I'm confused.  Which "locker house" are you saying is next to the 10th tee?

The one I'm referring to is the one in the drawing at the bottom - the one that shows it on land you say NGLA didn't own behind the 9th green.  And, yes, the articles (which apparently you didn't read) said it was to have lockers and showers.

With NGLA NOT owning the land behind the 9th green, why don't you tell us how the members were going to access the "locker house" behind the 9th green ?  ?  ?

If you don't own the land behind the 9th green, if you don't own the land adjacent to Rt 27, tell us how you would access a clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn

Let me throw it back to you - if their land didn't abut what is now Rt 27 how would they access a club-house down by Peconic Bay.  Do you suppose CBM didn't think about access to either the originally intended club-house site near the Shinnecock Inn or the eventual site overlooking Peconic Bay, when he purchased the land?  There was certainly limited access on dirt roads in all that area when he was buying.  The developer was trying to build roads presumably to serve the Shinnecock Inn that they were building, but by all reports there wasn't a whole lot of access to Sebonac area at the time.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, I don't want to get involved with the back and forth between you and Patrick except to say that your interpretation of the "We abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build . . . ." language makes sense to me.  The only question in my mind is whether he was referring to the simple bath/locker house, or ultimate plans for something larger. That said, I do think the most sound reading is that if CBM did have future plans for a clubhouse, then he was probably thinking of doing something "near the old Shinnecock Inn."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're now reduced to this level of hair splitting to try to preserve your theory?

I thought that I would just respond in kind


What do you think CBM meant when he wrote in Scotland's Gift (I added the parenthetical comment for context):

"We abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"


I think he meant that he was going to build his clubhouse where it was always intended to be.

You should know that the current clubhouse sits well below the "high ground", which could be the 17th tee area, the 2nd fairway or where Sebonack's clubhouse now sits

[MCirba]

Read the articles you are posting.   The Sun article specifically says that CBM sent the subscribers a notice.  Never heard of a written announcement?

You've admitted that the two original articles were cribbing directly from the 1904 Agreement.  Are you really going to argue that the later articles had a totally independent source for the same information, other than the 1904 Agreement or the previous articles?

David,

Perhaps they had Federal Express back then to go along with Patrick's Super-highway through the dunes but I can't imagine that Macdonald signed the papers Friday afternoon and then "announced" them in written form Friday evening in time for the Saturday morning papers.  

Even if he sent out a telegram Press Release, it must have been pretty extensive with all of that information and details that were reported.  

You never answered my primary question though;  What would each of those individual newspapers be doing with a copy of a Private Correspondence "Agreement" Macdonald had sent to subscribers over two years prior?   After all, even if you argue that the report on the 16th was cribbed from the two who independently reported the same thing on the 15th just as the ink was still drying, how would they each have a copy?  

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  Try to get cute all you want, but the newspapers had CBM's written notice to the members to collect on the 1904 subscribers agreement, as the Sun article explicitly stated.  And at least the original two papers had the accompanying 1904 Subscribers agreement.

Why did they have the Notice and Agreement?  Either because a subscriber or CBM gave it to them. It makes no difference which.

You do understand, don't you, that when providing notice to collect on an Agreement that it makes sense to include that Agreement with the Notice?  

[MCirba]

As for the location of the Canal site, I agree with Bryan.  It has been beaten to death in years past.  All we know is that it was near the canal, and far away from Shinnecock Golf Club.

I have to admit a bit of disappointment that I seem to be the only one interested in the location of the first site Macdonald picked to site his Ideal Golf Course, which had been his dream for many years and which led him on a search for a site that went on for several years.

But alas…

Still, I think we know quite a bit more than has been suggested.

For instance, we know that for Macdonald, finding the right site was half the battle, literally.   As far back as 1897 he wrote, ”A sandy soil sufficiently rich to make turf is the best.   Long Island is a natural links.”

Later in 1906 he wrote in Outing Magazine, “…there can be but one opinion as to the nature of the soil the course should be built upon, as well as the contour of the surface of the fairway green – running as this should in more or less gentle undulations as at St. Andrews, breaking in hillocks in a few places, more or less bold in certain parts as at Sandwich and North Berwick….There can be no really first class golf course without such material to work upon.   Securing such a course is really more than half the battle, though …Having the material in hand to work upon, the completion of an ideal course becomes a matter of experience, gardening, and mathematics.”

We also know that CBM believed he could fit his Ideal Course on the 120 acres of the site because apparently that’s all he asked for.   And as David mentioned, we know the site was near the Shinnecock Canal and that CBM didn’t want to get too close to Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.

After he was rejected by the Real Estate Developer, when Macdonald eventually secured the 200 acres of Sebonac Neck he announced, “The soil is much better than on the Atlantic side of the dunes, and the undulations, instead of being high and long, as the Shinnecock Hills, are short and billowy, much easier to adapt to a variety of good lies for the ball.”

The Atlantic side was south of the railway intersecting that part of Long Island and the Shinnecock Hills I’d imagine was the more elevated, more undulating mid-section as seen on the topographical map below from 1904.  

We’ve also since learned that although Real Estate sales were envisioned and a sub-division map drawn by Olmsted and Vaux in 1907, sales were very very slow and very little development took place in the next several decades.   We’ve also learned that the “North Highway” wasn’t passable by car until 1907-08 and didn’t extend anywhere near as far north or west as drawn on the Olmsted plan until the 1940s.

Given those considerations, and comparing the topography of Sebonac Neck CBM described as meeting his needs with the corresponding undulations of the land of the north shore near the canal, with is it really so difficult to imagine where those 120 acres may have been located?

[MCirba]

Mike,  Try to get cute all you want, but the newspapers had CBM's written notice to the members to collect on the 1904 subscribers agreement, as the Sun article explicitly stated.  And at least the original two papers had the accompanying 1904 Subscribers agreement.

Why did they have the Notice and Agreement?  Either because a subscriber or CBM gave it to them. It makes no difference which.

You do understand, don't you, that when providing notice to collect on an Agreement that it makes sense to include that Agreement with the Notice?  

David,

Do you really think the news was CBM sending notice to Subscribers to pay up or do you think the big news where all of that information got revealed was due to the fact that after almost a decade of dreaming and planning, Macdonald had finally secured his land for an Ideal Course and he announced it the day prior?

[DMoriarty]

I don't know what you are talking about Mike and don't much care what you think the "big news" was, nor do I think it mattered one bit. 

It is not that complicated. 

1. The newspapers had a copy the Notice and Agreement sent by CBM to the founders, as well as additional information from CBM and/or HJW.
2. The newspapers mistakenly thought and reported that the hypothetical in the 1904 Agreement controlled what would happen on the ground at NGLA. 

Is this really too hard for you to understand?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()