[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

I'll go back and read Piper, thanks.

As far as my point about the 18th, I was only pointing out a discernible difference but I'm unclear what it means.  I think the fact that both Clubhouse sites were being considered as that one article pointed out is proof the McDonald did not always want the clubhouse cited where it ended up.

Mike:

I wouldn't put much thought into any differences between a stick figure drawing and a full plaster model of a course.

As for proof of what CBM wanted, you've made yet another giant assumption.  It could be that he did always want the permanent clubhouse to be on the north end of the property, but logistics, cost or simply other concerns caused him to consider the southern end after the Inn burned.  All we know is that at that point in time he considered both locations.

Sven

[DMoriarty]

Your mistake notwithstanding (about east and west) how is my question misunderstanding your position? Why is it relevant? I asked two simple questions - 1) do you see the 60-90 yards of land near 17 not used for golf? (2 Do you think this is the surplus land CBM mentioned in 1912? One of the reasons these things go 20 pages or more (yes, I am confident that this will do that!) is that you manage to talk past any direct point that might refute your position, by misdirection.  Just do as you ask Mike to do, answer the damn question!

My answer to all of your questions in the order you asked them:

1. You misunderstood my position when you stated that I "claim[ed] the border hugs the golf course in its entirety." What I actually claimed was that it hugs the golf course along the western border, which is the only part where CBM had wiggle room as of mid-December 1906 (or before.)

2. It is relevant in response to your previous theory that CBM staked about a golf course of 180 acres, and then 25 acres near 17 was included to hit the 205 Acre figure.  My point is that the land between 17 and Bullshead Bay wasn't included to get to 205. Rather, it had to part of the purchase at this point because the eastern border was locked.  It happened to be surplus (along with other snippets) so the Founders presumably controlled its disposition.

3. Yes I see the land next to the 17th.  In fact you and I discussed this land earlier in the thread.

4. I think it more likely that CBM was generally referring to all the snippets of land not specifically used for the golf course, including but not limited to the small chunk of land next to the 17th.

5. Interesting theory on why the threads go so long. Might I suggest an alternative theory?  One reason these threads go so long is that you keep misrepresenting the positions of others (see No. 1 for example, or the example below about Raynor) and you don't always seem to follow the train of the discussion (see number 2, for example.)
____________________________________________________________

David had suggested maybe Raynor was out there surveying in the summer of 1906, but this makes it seem unlikely.

I made no suggestion that it was Raynor who was out there surveying in the summer of 1906.    Raynor was not the only person in America capable of drawing a rough map noting the respective elevations of the features on potential golf holes.  

Remember that CBM and Whigham had just spent many months overseas gathering similar information on the great golf holes. Raynor wasn't with them. I don't know if CBM and Whigham were creating the stuff they collected themselves or whether he had someone assisting, but whatever they were doing overseas they could have been doing on NGLA's site.

[ . . . David did say that some articles said that topo maps had already been done in 1906.  I can't recall seeing those posted in this thread, but must have been posted in the last marathon.]

Here again is the Oct. 16, 1906 Boston Globe article, which was posted a few pages back.

It also notes that CBM made his third trip abroad sometime in 1906 to "finalize his research" which sounds like making the last of his hole notes, etc., but we can't be sure.

CBM and HJW's trip overseas in 1906 is well documented on this site and elsewhere.

[MCirba]

Sven,

Except that the statement was that CBM "always intended" the present site for his clubhouse and that is demonstrably untrue. CBM writes that the hole he intended to be his first became the 10th and so on. He even uses the word intended.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

The article [about the hiring of Mortimer Payne] Bryan found and posted was from May 10th, 1907, so apparently when Macdonald told reporters in mid-December 1906 that the next five months would be spent selecting the holes, routing and planning the golf course prior to construction he meant what he said.

Now we know quite definitively that the golf course was not planned prior to securing the 205 acres in December of 1906.

I wish you were joking Mike, but experience tells me you are not. 

NGLA hired Mortimer Payne "lay out a golf course on it property."  He wasn't hired to design it, or to plan it. He was hired to physically lay it out on the land.  In other words, in this case, to help construct, sow, and sod it.   The plan was already in place.

[MCirba]

David,

Of course he was hired to construct it beginning May 1907,  five months after CBM secured the property and after the planning phase was completed.  Why the incredulity?

[DMoriarty]

Because the date he was hired tells us absolutely nothing about what planning had taken place before mid-December 1906.   

Yet you twist it to claim, "Now we know quite definitively that the golf course was not planned prior to securing the 205 acres in December of 1906."

That is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

[MCirba]

Yet it is completely consistent with what Macdonald said in Dec 1906 that he and his committee would be doing for the next several months. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Except that the statement was that CBM "always intended" the present site for his clubhouse and that is demonstrably untrue. CBM writes that the hole he intended to be his first became the 10th and so on. He even uses the word intended.

Of course he intended the current 10th to be the 1st.  They were using the Inn as the clubhouse.

There is nothing that suggests he wasn't contemplating switching that arrangement once they had the means/wherewithal/focus/ability/necessity to build a permanent structure.

[DMoriarty]

Yet it is completely consistent with what Macdonald said in Dec 1906 that he and his committee would be doing for the next several months. 

So what?  In December 1906 CBM suggested he planned to start to build the golf course in late spring, and he started to build the golf course in late spring.   So what?

How in the heck can you go from this to the declaration that "Now we know quite definitively that the golf course was not planned prior to securing the 205 acres in December of 1906."

[MCirba]

Because the golf course planning was not completed by December 1906  prior to securing the 205 acres and Macdonald told us that the holes would be decided on and the yardages determined over the next several months.  I'm sure you can find the quote because I'm sitting in an airport typing on my phone

I'm not saying no planning took place prior but planning in earnest to determine the holes and route the course was after then.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  As for your attempt to help clear up my perception regarding the location of the course and its perceived value, thanks for the effort, but it still seems like you are playing games to me.

It doesn't matter what happened to the development over the next 30 years.  What matters is CBM's and the developer's perception at the time:
   1.  They thought that NGLA would increase the value of the property property throughout the development and on the Neck. (And CBM indicates that this happened at least initially.)
   2.  They thought that the golf course was adjacent to the NGLA, immediately accessible to NGLA, an important feature of the development itself.  They were even planning to share the most important structure on the development and the golf course, the Shinnecock Inn.

So it is unreasonable for you to argue that the parties didn't consider the properties to be right next to each other.  

And it is unreasonable to argue that there were no places for building lots close to NGLA.  

And it is unreasonable for you to claim that the developer wouldn't have cared if CBM had subdivided his property into 60-70 large lots.

And it is unreasonable for you to contrast the NGLA site with the Canal site in terms of available, because they both had readily accessible building lots.  

In short, you seem to be blatantly fudging the facts so as to not have to admit there were convenient and accessible building lots close by, and that the developer had an interest in selling at least some of these to NGLA's members.   There were lots, and the developer was interested in the membership's business.  You know it, CBM knew it, and the Development knew it.

[DMoriarty]

Because the golf course planning was not completed by December 1906  prior to securing the 205 acres and Macdonald told us that the holes would be decided on and the yardages determined over the next several months.  I'm sure you can find the quote because I'm sitting in an airport typing on my phone

I'm not saying no planning took place prior but planning in earnest to determine the holes and route the course was after then.

No one ever said the planning was completed before mid-December.   

You still haven't explained your declaration that, "Now we know quite definitively that the golf course was not planned prior to securing the 205 acres in December of 1906."

Why don't you just acknowledge that this is was an absurd claim on your part, and the Payne hiring had nothing to do with the issue, so we can move on.   

[MCirba]

David,

The canal site would have plots bordering on two or three sides the length of the golf course

The Sebonac Neck site touched the boundary of the planned development near today's 9th green.  They were so available to the members that virtually none were sold, correct?

Mortimer Payne was hired to build the golf course once months long planning had been completed in May 1907.  

[DMoriarty]

Irrelevant, Mike.

Were there building lots convenient to NGLA, or not?  

Was the developer looking to generate business from NGLA's membership, or not?  

____________________________________________

As for Payne, his hiring tells us nothing about what happened in the summer and fall of 1906.  You must realize this.  

[MCirba]

No, they obviously weren't convenient enough, apparently.

Agree Payne ' s hiring sheds little on 1906 events but Macdonald told us in Dec what remained to be done over the next several months and Paynes hiring is consistent with that timeframe.

Gotta board.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Here again is the Oct. 16, 1906 Boston Globe article, which was posted a few pages back.

It also notes that CBM made his third trip abroad sometime in 1906 to "finalize his research" which sounds like making the last of his hole notes, etc., but we can't be sure.

CBM and HJW's trip overseas in 1906 is well documented on this site and elsewhere.

David,


First, thanks for the answers. Second, I think we can all be accused of not following along, or at least missing the point of several posts.  While I have made my mistakes, too, surely your non answers to Mike fit the bill.  Mike is quoting CBM directly in those Dec 1906 articles, and it seems pretty straightforward.

As to your October article, thanks again.  However, I read that as the topo maps have been prepared but the design work hasn't really started. I would agree that CBM and HJW had made their three day ride by then, and had identified the Alps, Redan, Short, etc.  However, most of the articles repeat those little snippets, and say no more.  All the comments about design work are that the topo maps have been sent to others, and others will be brought in (note the future tense).  

I don't see how you can read it any differently, other than to force your interpretation on it.  I have forgotten what other corroborating documents you use to support your theory, but this one seems pretty weak and does not appear to say what you have told us it said.  What I can believe is that after the ride sometime in the summer of 1906, CBM or SHPB did hire a surveyor to map the topo.  How long do we think that took? In that thicket, maybe a few months?  Was CBM working on this every day or week, or did his real job keep this more of hobby secondary avocation that made it take longer than we think it should?

I agree with you that some very basic planning took place in 1906, enough to determine that this was the general land they wanted, and picking some of the holes.  It just doesn't appear to me that they got as far as you think they did, which is an honest disagreement of opinion based on sometimes muddled documentation.

In Dec. 1906, CBM says they will start the hard work of finalizing the routing.  Again, Mike twisted absolutely nothing, he read it direct for what it said - that the holes will be selected and routing finalized in the next 5 months.  Again, I have a hard time putting any other interpretation to it other than to read it for exactly what CBM says.

I can tell you from walking many routings in the woods that connecting natural features you want to use is not a fast process.  For example, they wanted to use the hills for the Alps on current hole 3.  And, the presumably felt it ought to be a par 4 of certain length.  What if they found what they thought was a great tee, but got back to the maps only to find it was 505 yard par 5?  Well, they shorten the tee, but then what to do with 2 green, and what hole should be copied with a hole of that new length, etc.  I can see exactly why he said they were going to decide on hole lengths and features to copy in that time period.  In other words, the 9th inning in a baseball game counts just as much as the 1st inning to the outcome.

I believe you think routing was quicker and easier in those days, and for some, it probably was (Bendelow in his Spalding days) but not for someone laying out an ideal course and a life dream.  As far as compared to today, I can only imagine that kind of project would be slower, given lesser technology, horses instead of Cushman carts, etc.  How quickly could all the players come together on the same weekend (or day off) to ride the routing and make changes as a group?

I also believe the Dec 1906 snippet says that the boundaries will not be surveyed until the final design is done. This five month period is clearly when the wiggle room that was left to later had to be decided and nailed down to the nut.  I can't see it being done sooner.  And, if the boundaries of this theoretical golf course routing had not been settled and surveyed, it would be hard for CBM to know how many acres he use, right?  And certainly the final adjustments had to be made to get to the agreed upon 205 acres he wanted.

BTW, I am not so sure the eastern border was locked, was it?  I don't know the boundaries well, but do know that SH didn't own the northern land next to NGLA 10 until later.  Who owned the land until then?  Was it SHPB or another entity?

And as to May 1907, I believe Raynor was hired to lay the golf course out on the property and Payne hired to build it as he built SH, but then again, that little bit has nothing to do with the timeline we are debating.....I think Raynor was brought on several months before Payne for that work.

[MCirba]

Jeff,

Nice synopsis and spot on.

All,

I'd have to be a masochist to put up with further abuse here and I'm not so I wont.  Besides, I'm very confident that I've cleared up the remaining questions in my mind so until someone finds new info or better yet the metes and bounds I'm bowing out.  Thanks to those who contributed productively.

[DMoriarty]

No, they obviously weren't convenient enough, apparently.

Mike is denying that there were building lots convenient to NGLA, despite:

   1.  NGLA's de facto clubhouse, the Shinnecock Inn, was part of the development.

   2.  There were 1000+ acres of building lots in the development adjacent to NGLA.

   3.  New roads led directly to NGLA's de facto clubhouse, and according to the developer every building lot had road access to the Inn.

   4.  Many advertisements featured the golf club and emphasized the convenient access, as if the club was part of the development itself.

   5.  The statement of the President of the Development Co. raved about how the advantages of having NGLA so located were "obvious."
 
   6.  CBM told us that there were building lots were available.

Mike's apparent reasoning for ignoring all of this is that they weren't convenient to NGLA because the development wasn't as successful as intended.

I hope that those who wonder why I get frustrated with Mike are reading along.

[John Kavanaugh]

David,

No one is reading along so I feel safe saying this in confidence.  If you and Mike can't work things out please note that it is your turn to quit the site.  Mike has truly been a breath of fresh air since his return.

[DMoriarty]

Kavanaugh, if you had been reading along you'd know that Mike's "air" on these topics is anything but fresh.

Now run along and troll somewhere else.

[DMoriarty]

Mike is quoting CBM directly in those Dec 1906 articles, and it seems pretty straightforward.

This is NOT true.  Mike is NOT "quoting CBM directly" about supposed Founder's lots. There are extensive quotes in those articles from CBM (and HJW) about the actual project, but NOTHING about a scheme to give land back to the founders for building lots.  As Mike has acknowledged for at least some of these reports, that information is paraphrased from the 1904 letter.

As to your October article, thanks again.  However, I read that as the topo maps have been prepared but the design work hasn't really started. I would agree that CBM and HJW had made their three day ride by then, and had identified the Alps, Redan, Short, etc. However, most of the articles repeat those little snippets, and say no more.  All the comments about design work are that the topo maps have been sent to others, and others will be brought in (note the future tense).

I find it funny that an architect would argue that "the design work hadn't really started" when they had already been out studying the property, had found a number of golf holes, had created elevation maps, and had forwarded those maps to a number of prominent advisors. You don't suppose those elevations maps they sent to their friends and advisors overseas were totally blank, do you?

Maybe what constitutes "design work" is different nowadays, but it sure sounds like the "design work" had begun to me.  

As for your theory about not being able to figure out the acreage, didn't you just acknowledge that they already had elevation maps?  

And I never said it was a quick or easy process.  In fact I am arguing that it took a lot longer than you and Mike seem to think.  
  - Based on my reading of the facts, they started planning the course on the property in the late summer or fall of 1906.
  - You guys seem to think that "the design work hadn't really started" until mid-December 1906 (even though this is obviously not the case.)

Regardless, like Mike you've got a number of facts wrong, and your timelines contrast with CBM's version of events.  I'll go with CBM over you or Mike any day.

As for the land Shinnecock (or those directly related to Shinnecock) controlled, I think you are mistaken on that as well.

[DMoriarty]

Below I've set out the timing of key events in Mike's chronology, but tried to leave out all the material that is largely beside the point.  The words in Mucci Green are direct quotes from Mike's post No.379, in the order presented by Mike:

Mike's Chronology
  1. CBM considers 450 acres of land up in Sebonac Neck . . .
  2. In Macdonald’s words, “So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.   Finally we determined it was what we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably…the company agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
  3. That contract securing the land was signed on Friday, December 14, 1906, again at $200 per acre.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
  4. After that 1906 agreement was reached, CBM tells us the next steps; “Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.”
  5. In the December 1906 newspaper articles . . . Macdonald is quoted as saying the next several months would be devoted to selecting the holes and planning the course in detail, after which the boundaries would be staked out and plaster models would be created to guide the builders.  

Note that Mike claims that only the first two occurred before December 14, 1906.

The trouble with Mike's chronology, and Jeff's for that matter, is that their version of events directly contradicts CBM's version, and the version told by the contemporaneous newspapers.  In both cases, they have inserted in the "Agreement" in the wrong place.  Look at Mike's No. 4, above:  
After that 1906 agreement was reached, CBM tells us the next steps; “Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.”

But here is the actual CBM quote, with the next line included:
". . . Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
        We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green.  Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape.   We had a little over a quarter of a mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and we skirted Bull's Head Bay for about a mile."

So all this happened BEFORE December 14, 1906. We know this because the Dec. 15 newspaper accounts discuss all of this!  Next, CBM noted that they obtained an option on the property.  

Mike's and Jeff's chronology is inconsistent with CBM's account. Mike's "next step" occurred before the option. I understand one possible point of confusion but it might be easiest to set it all out in a timeline of my own.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike is quoting CBM directly in those Dec 1906 articles, and it seems pretty straightforward.

This is NOT true.  Mike is NOT "quoting CBM directly" about supposed Founder's lots. There are extensive quotes in those articles from CBM (and HJW) about the actual project, but NOTHING about a scheme to give land back to the founders for building lots.  As Mike has acknowledged for at least some of these reports, that information is paraphrased from the 1904 letter.

One of your more frustrating traits is putting words in others mouths to change the subject, just to take a slam at them. In this discussion, we spoke only of what CBM said in Dec 1906 in those articles and the future work to lay out the holes, and we did quote him directly on that.  YOU had to go an add the bit about the building lots, not part of this discussion, for the sole purpose of slamming Mike.  That is pretty low, but typical of how you operate around here.

As to your October article, thanks again.  However, I read that as the topo maps have been prepared but the design work hasn't really started. I would agree that CBM and HJW had made their three day ride by then, and had identified the Alps, Redan, Short, etc. However, most of the articles repeat those little snippets, and say no more.  All the comments about design work are that the topo maps have been sent to others, and others will be brought in (note the future tense).

I find it funny that an architect would argue that "the design work hadn't really started" when they had already been out studying the property, had found a number of golf holes, had created elevation maps, and had forwarded those maps to a number of prominent advisors. You don't suppose those elevations maps they sent to their friends and advisors overseas were totally blank, do you?

If you insert the phrase "design process" instead of design work, then you and I agree it has started. And, then, we can agree it takes longer than many here think. 

However, the design process involves information gathering first, then preliminary concept or "test" designs, then refinement.  After being rejected on the other property, he was not apparently in a huge hurry to find another site with half a year of no reports.  I believe you said there was some evidence that the three day ride might have occurred as early as May 1906, right?  We are not sure what surveys and maps SHPB had, but he probably acquired those, did soil studies, and what not.  So, maybe that takes a month.

He commissions a topo map, which I will guess takes two months to map 450 acres (based on my early career experience doing it with levels and gear not much different than those used a century ago)  That takes us until at least August.  Then he negotiates with SHPB to make sure they are amenable still and strikes a deal in September or so, first reported in October. (Not sure why it was reported again in Dec., other than the solicitation letter, and can agree that he was active after effectively getting control of the land via option)

So yes, I have always acknowledged some work took place, but it wasn't necessarily routing.  You (and probably most amateur designers and first year landscape architecture students) often feel they would just jump right in, but they wouldn't.  CBM wasn't trained in design, but its the same process as making business decisions, or scientific experiments.

You will probably tell us I don't know how design worked in those days, or accuse me of speculation, which is true to a point. (of course, we are both speculating, whether you want to admit you are doing it or not)

However, the October article only says the topo maps were made, a preliminary site visit was made by CBM and HJW. I don't doubt that they sent blank topo maps to their friends, as that is what you start a design with.  They may have added notes such as "Alps hole goes here" but there is no basis for you to speculate that they had a whole routing done.  Even if they had a tentative routing done, CBM says in December that the next five months will be devoted to finding holes, lengths, and features, etc. 

That indicates that whatever preliminary work they had done was at the very least subject to change as you would expect from any designer working through the refinement process to the final design.  And at the very least, CBM said what he said about the status of the plans in December, and there is no way your intuition is strong enough to over ride that.

However, we do agree that the design process isn't always point A to B. Obviously, part of their land analysis was the ride and in this case, not just identifying general golf features good for design, but specific ones, like the Alps.  That made this process a bit different and that is not uncommon to look (or at least see) specific features you want for later use.  But just as you thought CBM observing that a little stream parcel at some other course we won't mention constituted evidence that he had a routing in mind, and I didn't, I strong believe the same is true here.  See my previous example of how long it takes to fit holes together sometimes.  In my experience, the stronger you want to use a specific feature or two, the longer it takes to fit the other 14-16 holes around it.  In modern times, we might just opt to build an Alps mound rather than so narrowly site a green, but that wasn't an option for them.




Maybe what constitutes "design work" is different nowadays, but it sure sounds like the "design work" had begun to me. 

See above.

As for your theory about not being able to figure out the acreage, didn't you just acknowledge that they already had elevation maps? 

elevation is vertical, acreage is horizontal.  Yes, they probably had a general idea of the 450 acres. Some rough measurements might have gotten them close (if nothing else eyeballing about half the total land for them to consider.  One thing I did note is the article said their potential acreage actually extended all the way to the railroad.  Interesting side bit of speculation on what it might have looked like had the Inn not been built and road improved.  Could the NGLA have started right at the train station for convenience?  But, I digress

And I never said it was a quick or easy process.  In fact I am arguing that it took a lot longer than you and Mike seem to think. 
  - Based on my reading of the facts, they started planning the course on the property in the late summer or fall of 1906.
  - You guys seem to think that "the design work hadn't really started" until mid-December 1906 (even though this is obviously not the case.)

Regardless, like Mike you've got a number of facts wrong, and your timelines contrast with CBM's version of events.  I'll go with CBM over you or Mike any day.

I don't think my time line misstates anything, but so like you to make that claim expecting everyone to take you at your word.  By the way, as to your timeline, do you have any other earlier articles that actually say what you say they say, i.e. the holes were laid out?  Because again, the October one puts design of the golf holes by the committee in the future.

As for the land Shinnecock (or those directly related to Shinnecock) controlled, I think you are mistaken on that as well.

I will admit that idea came from an outside source, but I don't think SH owned that land until they needed it for the Flynn redo, which was later.

BTW, as to your argument with Mike about how close the development was, I will agree with you.  The label "Block 97" sits on the 9th green of NGLA, or close, indicating the roads were planned that close to NGLA prior to them laying it out.  They changed a bit with subsequent development, of course, but I get your point there.

Again, I think thing just take longer than you envision, with more steps, which would have necessitated the final design not occur until he had the land option secured.  He said he needed five months from the announcement to finalize things, and low and behold, five months later, he started construction.  Seems as if he had about......five months worth of work left in Dec. 1906, doesn't it?

[Jeff_Brauer]

And I will concede that with the option basically in place in October, that the second earnest study of contours could have very well been between October and December.  Which is why I have always said I don't think Dave and I are that far apart, unless he insists that the second earnest study of the contours occurred prior to October general agreement to buy the land.

CBM still says he will spend the first five months of 1907 setting hole lengths, picking features to replicate and what not. I have to ask, if it has already been done, why do it again?  

If Dave wants to argue that they were simply "triple checking" their original ideas, I can't say that is impossible.  However, they just mailed maps out in October, whereas Dave seems to imply it was all done before the topo maps were finalized.  I don't see why or how that could be.  Without the maps, they would be flying blind.

Dave, just what newspaper are we contradicting?  Certainly not the October article that puts design largely in the future?  Do you have another one you want to run by us as your proof?  Or, are you and your "common sense" your source for your theories again?  I hate to ask you to post another article again, but if you posted one earlier in this thread that I forgot, or found convincing, it eludes me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

One last thing, but I notice that you took liberties with what CBM wrote in post 80.

You wrote:

Scotland's Gift sets it all out in chronological order, but of course Mike cherry picks out one phrase and pretends like this is all that happened.  Here again is what happened, according to CBM:

1.  There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonack Neck.
2.  CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback inspecting the property and studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price.
3.  The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes.
4.  CBM and HJW (and others) earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted.
5.  After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the exact final boundaries to be determined later.  
6.  At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a relief map may have been created (one was created, but I am not sure of the date.)
7.  At that point the purchase was finalized and construction began.



However, in reading it, CBM said they studied the contours again in earnest AFTER SHPB agreed to sell them the land, not before, just as Mike and I have said.  Read it again:

"Whigham and I spent three days riding the over it, studying the contours of the ground. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purposes.  Again, we studied the contours earnestly selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.

So, the TRUE pattern was:

Study contours,
Buy the land (or get the option for further study, and probably starting in October 1906 under gentleman's agreement)
THEN Earnestly study contours again AFTER the option, not before (from October through May 1907)
Then stake out the holes, AFTER probably to finalize the land deal.

It seems you deliberately/disingenuously or erroneously misstated CBM's own words and flipped the order of events from what he wrote to make your point, launching 20 pages of debate.  I suppose we could assume you figure that an agreement to let him study the land prior to purchase was the agreement to sell them the land, but that would be generous.  I have no doubt that the agreement was in October, as reported.  And that the earnest study started then, as most of the historic data suggests. 

And again, if we agree that this design work of starting to pick the holes starts in October when the option was basically secured in principle, then we may agree.  Certainly that would fit CBM's words as well as newspaper articles in December saying some holes had already been picked out.

If you insist it was far earlier, then you and I will simply have to strongly disagree.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()