[MCirba]

I do think it would be greatly helpful if someone could locate;

1)  The contract CBM signed on Dec 14, 1906 to secure some 200 acres on Sebonac Neck which has to be in the public record somewhere.

2)  The metes and bounds of his spring 1907 purchase.

[DMoriarty]

David/All,

In the interest of advancing the discussion I recall reading a first hand account by either Macdonald or Whigham where after discovering an Alps hole he/they turned and saw an ideal place for a redan.  Can you recall or better yet reproduce that article/account here?

In Scotland's Gift CBM wrote that they found an excellent setting for the Alps hole (only improved) and then all they had to do was look back and find a perfect redan. Might be elsewhere as well, but I don't have anything handy. What is your point?

[MCirba]

David,

Thanks, I'm trying to determine the timing of that discovery as relates to our differing interpretations of the passage of the book discussing those founding events.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,  we are in agreement on the 2.4 acre parcel.  By the description of the exchange in the book, I have even less doubt that the were talking about the proshop location.  As you mentioned the timing is off for the clubhouse.  And CBM's description of his need for the land (location of the first tee impinging, need for a caddyshack, balls sailing off property) fits the proshop site. And the physical description of the property is of the pro shop property, even the water frontage one acre wide desc fits. And the negotiation, dollar amounts, and timing match CBM's description of the purchase of the pro shop land.  Even the developer's stated desire to accommodate the club tracks.

You are dispensing with the information that the source says that the site was for the clubhouse and was not owned and that the developer apparently made its use as a club house a condition of sale.

My takeaway is that developer wanted CBM to build his clubhouse adjacent to the developer's land for obvious reasons, but that isn't what CBM wanted and it isn't what he did.  Maybe he did, but I'll wait and see.  If you want to declare game over, that's fine for you.

The logical conclusion to your argument is that CBM agreed to the site being the clubhouse site and then built the pro shop on it instead - breaching the condition.  

If you were familiar with the site, the location of the first tee, 18th green and the topography, you'd know that building the clubhouse there is  impossible.
______________________________________

Bryan,  this is a great example of why your insistence on (and application of) your absolute certainty standard is flawed.  There is no reasonable debate to be had here.

I think your use of the word "flawed" is flawed.  You want to draw a final conclusion based on the balance of probabilities.  IF there is the possibility of more definitive factual information coming forward I'd prefer to wait to draw a firm conclusion.  Neither approach is flawed.  This is not a competition to see who got the right answer first.  On most of the things we talk about on here we will never know for sure what the right answer is.  There is the "fog of war" - well I think there is the fog of history too.  

We have a credible source, with access to club records, saying they didn't own the clubhouse land.  

So you would have us believe that CBM bought the entire shoreline on Peconic Bay, a quarter of a mile, and all the land along Bullhead Bay, a mile, and left a donut hole that he didn't own between the 1st and 18th fairway.  Is that your position ?

Let's look at it from the seller's perspective.
What real estate seller would sell 205 acres out of 450 acres and allow the buyer to avoid buying that donut hole which would be totally useless to the seller ?

You'd have to be a financial moron to leave yourself with a useless piece of land, land that was unaccesable because it was surrounded by land owned by CBM.

You'd have NO ACCESS to get to that donut hole.

Your theory is beyond moronic.

It's the Pro-Shop, not the clubhouse.


I've said that it could have been the pro shop land based on the information you've stated above.  It could also be that the source was correct.

Not in a million years.
The seller would never leave himself with a donut hole of land that was inaccessable and unsaleable to anyone other than CBM/NGLA

You want to draw a conclusion on the balance of probabilities.  Where there is factual information, either that the club has, or that we can glean from the deeds, I'd prefer to wait and see before drawing a conclusion.  Why the rush to judgement - this happened more than 100 years ago.  I can wait for the deed information for more certainty.  I don't need to draw a final conclusion today or even tomorrow.

Good, since you have so much time on your hands, explain why a seller would sell 205 acres and leave himself with an island of land in the middle of that 205 acres that could never be sold to anyone other than CBM/NGLA ?  2.5 acres with zero access ?

Please feel free to consult with your source when answering that question.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,  I just don't think it makes sense to pretend the scales haven't tipped when, as you must realize, they have --I was quite surprised when much of the information in the draft cut against your position.   Your demanding "absolute certainty" when it suits you seems to me to be more a rhetorical tool than a real, workable standard.

David, what you going on about? What scales?  This is not a court.  The draft says they didn't own the land.  You don't believe it.  I understand.  I'll wait for the deeds.  Who am I demanding anything of?  It's my personal preference to wait until then before drawing my own conclusion.  You and Sven may well turn out to be right and perhaps as a result the draft may be amended in the future.  That's would be good.  Continuing to take shots at me is not helpful.

People are put to death based on a lower evidentiary standard that you are willing to accept in this trivial discussion.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

And there is no evidence of a "breach" because there is no evidence that CBM ever accepted the condition.

How do you know there's no evidence?  You don't know what evidence the author had before writing that piece of the draft.

You want to draw a final conclusion based on the balance of probabilities.  IF there is the possibility of more definitive factual information coming forward I'd prefer to wait to draw a firm conclusion.

I don't think this is quite accurate on at least three  accounts.
- First, so far as I am concerned when it comes to this material there is no such thing as a "final conclusion." All conclusions are subject to revision if better information comes out.  Such is the nature of historical analysis.

So why are you admonishing me?  Strike out "final" if you want to parse words. Your statement sounds reasonable to me. You have drawn your (temporary?) conclusion now and you'll change it later if the deeds prove out to be the clubhouse site.  I prefer to wait before making a conclusion.  This argumentative nonsense doesn't move us forward at all.
 
- Second, you aren't waiting.  You have stated that you are going to stick with the version in the draft until it is proven false with absolute certainty. This isn't exactly waiting for definitive information.

I respect the credentials of the researcher and their access to information we probably don't have.  Why would I not consider their position if there is additional information (in the deeds) that would provide more certainty one way or the other?  You coined this "absolute certainty" nonsense some time ago as a put down.  Let it go.  I am not put down.



- Third, you aren't consistent with your application of the standard.

Nonsense.  You're getting totally off track on the subject at hand in criticizing me.  Why don't you stick to the topic.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Go to bed.  Wake up in the morning and reread the previous posts so you know what we're talking about. As a starting point, it NOT what I "would have us believe" NOR is it my "theory".  Think about who you are really calling morons here.

[Steve Lang]

 

In regard to the property on the west flank of NGLA, I know there are some old GCA threads on the old CH Sabin Bayberry Land/Electrical Brotherhood property around the time of the Sebonac course development, but their contents and "facts" seem a little loose in parts.

This view is not exactly to scale, but indicative.


I find it interesting that CH, a NGLA Founder, ended up with his own caddy shack and entrance to NGLA at the NW corner, having started acquiring all the NGLA bordering properties in 1910, in building up his 314 acre estate, and prior to building his "cottage."  

The view of the SH&PR Co. President (Redfield) is most instructive, as is the longer term "colonization" of South Hampton per David Goddard and how things didn't quite pan out as intended...  land blocks remained relatively cheap.






Redfield lost his court battle.. adverse possession prevailed for the Aldriches.  The court case may be read at:
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 132 App. Div. 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)

SHINNECOCK HILLS PECONIC BAY REALTY v. ALDRICH








Nice view from Bayberry Land, i believe looking east across Peconic Bay shoreline from sandy bluff, onto the waters in front of NGLA

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  I didn't intend to take shots at you. As we've long debated you and I have slightly different epistemological approaches in these discussions. In my opinion this current issues expose cracks in  your approach.  That's it.

[DMoriarty]

Steve, you asked earlier if anyone knew the boundaries of the 450ac parcel, I don't but I assume it was the bulk of the neck land,  hard to know how they treated cold spring inlet in their measures so it is difficult to reconstruct.

[MCirba]

David,

Do you think HJ Whigham spotted the large hillside for the Alps hole on one of those first 2 or 3 horseback rides around the property?

I think he probably did the very first time they were out there checking out the landforms.  It would be very difficult to miss for a layman much less a trained eye.  What was it that CBM was quoted as saying, something to the effect of "when Whigham first spotted that Hill he said we'd have a grander Alps than Prestwick!"

Sorry, I'm on my phone but going from memory...I'm sure we can find the exact quote.

[MCirba]

Steve,

Any idea what Sabin paid for the 319? Acres he purchased in around 1917?  Great stuff you're supplying and thanks for advancing the discussion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Go to bed.  Wake up in the morning and reread the previous posts so you know what we're talking about. As a starting point, it NOT what I "would have us believe" NOR is it my "theory".  Think about who you are really calling morons here.

Bryan,

I know what you're talking about and I know what I'm talking about.

You've put forth the premise that when CBM bought his 205 acres it did NOT include the donut hole where the clubhouse is currently sited.

You've put forth the premise that a real estate company would sell 205 acres to CBM, and leave a useless, inaccessible  2.5 acre parcel in the middle of the land sold to CBM, a parcel that couldn't be accessed by anyone else in the entire world, other than CBM,  making that 2.5 acres totally useless and worthless.

You would have us believe that the real estate company selling the land was so stupid that they would give the land to CBM free of charge.
Since CBM/NGLA owned the surrounding land they were the only ones who could gain access to the land, making it useless to the rest of the entire world.

That's beyond moronic and since you're the one presenting that premise, you're a colossal moron.

And you're telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about ?

But, like many other things you've written about NGLA, you failed to think before you typed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve, you asked earlier if anyone knew the boundaries of the 450ac parcel, I don't but I assume it was the bulk of the neck land,  hard to know how they treated cold spring inlet in their measures so it is difficult to reconstruct.


David,

I believe that parts of the golf course (playing corridors, rough) might have extended onto Sabin's/IEU's property.

If you go to historicaerials.com and focus on the western border of # 5 I think you'll see the difference

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Those are not my premises.  Do you know whose they are?

I wouldn't "have us believe" that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Those are not my premises.  Do you know whose they are?

I wouldn't "have us believe" that.


Bryan,

You introduced, promoted and defended the premise, ergo, you own it.

You've also been reluctant to name your source/s and now want to throw them under the bus.

So who are your sources ?

[DMoriarty]

David, Do you think HJ Whigham spotted the large hillside for the Alps hole on one of those first 2 or 3 horseback rides around the property?

I think he probably did the very first time they were out there checking out the landforms.  It would be very difficult to miss for a layman much less a trained eye.  What was it that CBM was quoted as saying, something to the effect of "when Whigham first spotted that Hill he said we'd have a grander Alps than Prestwick!"

Mike, for years you have been working hard to create the impression that the Sebonac property was some remote, worthless, untamed and impenetrable wilderness; swamp-filled, mosquito infested, and so overgrown with dense foliage and bramble that not much of any planning could have even occured before the land was cleared.  You've even gone so far as to wonder if it was even possible to roughly stake out the property, as if the brush was so thick and overgrown that they could not even locate the ground beneath them: "I have to ask exactly how that staking would take place on such a property, because almost assuredly it hadn’t been cleared prior…"

Yet now that you are trying to spin things in a different direction you speculate that they "probably" found the Alps Hole on their very first day on the 450 acre property, and that it "It would be very difficult to miss [even] for a layman . . ."

Pretty funny, don't you think?

I don't recall anything in the factual record suggesting that Whigham found the Alps on the first day, and so I am not inclined to join you in your speculation.  While frankly I don't think it matters, if something turns up indicating otherwise I'll be glad to consider it. In the meantime might I suggest that these conversations would be a lot more productive if you would let the facts lead you to your conclusions, rather than trying to drag the facts kicking and screaming to serve whatever preconceived point you happen to be trying to make.

[Steve Lang]

Steve,

Any idea what Sabin paid for the 319? Acres he purchased in around 1917?  Great stuff you're supplying and thanks for advancing the discussion.

make that 314 acres.. and I believe I read that CH began acquiring land in 1910 which stretched out to after completion of the cottage, which wasn't started till 1916 with marriage #2 for CH.  

Size Reference: Bayberry Land Brochure, Prepared by Institute for Long Island Archaeology Stony Brook University


Perhaps the land issues should start from the beginning, or lets try the 1653 Division of the Shinnecock Hills area… from when Long Island was ruled (taxed) by Hartford versus Albany…









Plate E, Page 65, from “The Woodruffs of New Jersey, By Francis E. Woodruff, of Morristown, N. J. The Grafton Press, Publishers, 70 Fifth Ave., N. Y., ”

Excerpt From: Francis Eben Woodruff. “The Woodruffs of New Jersey who Came from Fordwich, Kent, England, by Way of Lynn, Massachusetts, and Southampton, Long Island.” iBooks.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Go back to page #25 and read the posts.  The answer to your last question is on that page, and not in a post of mine.  I kind of figured your were blustering without being up to date on the background to this question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I'm preserving your post by quoting it.

Please reread your words, in blue type.

Why were you so willing to accept your source's absurd, moronic premise ?  ?  ?


Sven,  we are in agreement on the 2.4 acre parcel.  By the description of the exchange in the book, I have even less doubt that the were talking about the proshop location.  As you mentioned the timing is off for the clubhouse.  And CBM's description of his need for the land (location of the first tee impinging, need for a caddyshack, balls sailing off property) fits the proshop site. And the physical description of the property is of the pro shop property, even the water frontage one acre wide desc fits. And the negotiation, dollar amounts, and timing match CBM's description of the purchase of the pro shop land.  Even the developer's stated desire to accommodate the club tracks.

You are dispensing with the information that the source says that the site was for the clubhouse and was not owned and that the developer apparently made its use as a club house a condition of sale.

My takeaway is that developer wanted CBM to build his clubhouse adjacent to the developer's land for obvious reasons, but that isn't what CBM wanted and it isn't what he did.  Maybe he did, but I'll wait and see.  If you want to declare game over, that's fine for you.

The logical conclusion to your argument is that CBM agreed to the site being the clubhouse site and then built the pro shop on it instead - breaching the condition. 
______________________________________

Bryan,  this is a great example of why your insistence on (and application of) your absolute certainty standard is flawed.  There is no reasonable debate to be had here.

I think your use of the word "flawed" is flawed.  You want to draw a final conclusion based on the balance of probabilities.  IF there is the possibility of more definitive factual information coming forward I'd prefer to wait to draw a firm conclusion.  Neither approach is flawed.  This is not a competition to see who got the right answer first.  On most of the things we talk about on here we will never know for sure what the right answer is.  There is the "fog of war" - well I think there is the fog of history too. 

We have a credible source, with access to club records, saying they didn't own the clubhouse land.  I've said that it could have been the pro shop land based on the information you've stated above.  It could also be that the source was correct. You want to draw a conclusion on the balance of probabilities.  Where there is factual information, either that the club has, or that we can glean from the deeds, I'd prefer to wait and see before drawing a conclusion.  Why the rush to judgement - this happened more than 100 years ago.  I can wait for the deed information for more certainty.  I don't need to draw a final conclusion today or even tomorrow.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

For the record, could you please tell us who the source of this "moronic premise" is.  Or, have you still not figured it out.  Do we need to spoon feed you.

Also for the record, maybe you didn't  comprehend the following from my post.  Seems I  was sitting firmly on the fence.

I've said that it could have been the pro shop land based on the information you've stated above.  It could also be that the source was correct. 

[DMoriarty]

In fairness, Bryan, you have also said that you are going with the version in the draft until proven otherwise.  So not exactly on the fence.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

For the record, could you please tell us who the source of this "moronic premise" is.  Or, have you still not figured it out.  Do we need to spoon feed you.

YES

Also for the record, maybe you didn't  comprehend the following from my post.  Seems I  was sitting firmly on the fence.

No, I'm pretty sure that you had leaned over the fence and accepted the premise that CBM/NGLA did NOT own the clubhouse site through your referencing your unimpeachable source.

I've said that it could have been the pro shop land based on the information you've stated above.  It could also be that the source was correct. 

[MCirba]

David, Do you think HJ Whigham spotted the large hillside for the Alps hole on one of those first 2 or 3 horseback rides around the property?

I think he probably did the very first time they were out there checking out the landforms.  It would be very difficult to miss for a layman much less a trained eye.  What was it that CBM was quoted as saying, something to the effect of "when Whigham first spotted that Hill he said we'd have a grander Alps than Prestwick!"

Mike, for years you have been working hard to create the impression that the Sebonac property was some remote, worthless, untamed and impenetrable wilderness; swamp-filled, mosquito infested, and so overgrown with dense foliage and bramble that not much of any planning could have even occured before the land was cleared.  You've even gone so far as to wonder if it was even possible to roughly stake out the property, as if the brush was so thick and overgrown that they could not even locate the ground beneath them: "I have to ask exactly how that staking would take place on such a property, because almost assuredly it hadn’t been cleared prior…"

Yet now that you are trying to spin things in a different direction you speculate that they "probably" found the Alps Hole on their very first day on the 450 acre property, and that it "It would be very difficult to miss [even] for a layman . . ."

Pretty funny, don't you think?

I don't recall anything in the factual record suggesting that Whigham found the Alps on the first day, and so I am not inclined to join you in your speculation.  While frankly I don't think it matters, if something turns up indicating otherwise I'll be glad to consider it. In the meantime might I suggest that these conversations would be a lot more productive if you would let the facts lead you to your conclusions, rather than trying to drag the facts kicking and screaming to serve whatever preconceived point you happen to be trying to make.

David,

Should I take that as "yes"? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

On page 17 in reply # 409 I asked you to name your "reliable" source, and you refused to do so.

Now, 9 pages and 238 posts later you have the nerve to ask me the moronic questions above ?

I also asked you again, on page 20, post# 491, and you refused to answer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Since you memory seems to be failing, I thought I'd quote one of your previous posts.

You've clearly jumped on the bandwagon of your "very reliable" source.

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.  

The above is the "smoking gun" clearly evidencing your position that CBM/NGLA did NOT own the clubhouse site when they bought the 205 acres.

YOU claimed that it was a "fact" that CBM did NOT own the clubhouse site.  

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?


The above are also YOUR words.

YOU INTRODUCED, PROMOTED AND DEFENDED THIS MORONIC PREMISE.

You were no "fence sitter", YOU were a proactive advocate for this moronic premise and it's about time that you admit that you're guilty of introducing, promoting and defending that moronic premise, instead of denying your role. .

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.

Only if you're stupid enough to attach any credibility to the moronic premise you introduced from your "very reliable" source, a source you've refused to identify despite being asked 9 pages and 239 posts ago.

Thank goodness for the quote feature !

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()