David,
Briefly back from my well deserved and self imposed time out for bad behavior, if only briefly.
I generally agree with your timeline, but put some elements further back. Also, nice work on comparing property lines. A few notes on my slightly differing perspective:
If you go to page 202-3, CBM answers a question I asked a while back - it was he who paid for the summer 1906 survey can contour maps, and it was Seth Raynor he paid to do it. Somehow, I had not noticed that before. Just a new fact to point out (I think).
If CBM returns in June (or late May), takes a bit to search, finds the SB land, rides it, gets agreement from SHPB to survey the property, hire Raynor to survey it, then add the contour map, etc. I believe that analysis takes them further in the summer.
BTW, my reading of page 202-3 seems to indicate that he hired Raynor to first survey (probably initial/potential boundaries) and then a bit later, make the contour map. I doubt CBM would order a topo map and then charge ahead before having it, placing the second ride and earnest contour study (which in part could be having Raynor make the maps) later in summer or early fall, giving some time to negotiate the option by October. I see little possibility of CBM having a full routing in mid summer or spring. I think he would put in more work after formally had option to the property. It would be sort of a waste until he was sure, right?
Second, your synopsis of both the October and December articles conveniently leaves out the contemporary report and quotes putting design in the future. Only Whigham had seen the property by October 16, and Travis had been invited. Later, they had all seen it. I see Mike points it out, too, but you dismiss it as making no difference. And, you don't seem to feel the need to address the points brought up with any facts, other than your analysis means it makes no difference.
In Dec. 1906, CBM is quoted as saying “the exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans. He also says, “Distances and holes to be reproduced will be decided in the next five month.”
I see Mike points it out, too, but you again dismiss it as making no difference, yet don't say why. I think most historians would consider that contemporary quote a more reliable source than a book published in 1928 (and written God Knows when, it did stretch out, but was not contemporary) Again, I have a hard time putting any other interpretation to it other than to read it for exactly what CBM says.
Those quotes lead me to believe that only a few holes had been picked out (the same 5-6 always mentioned, and oddly all near the center of the property, not near the coast or Inn) and the general land between the Bay and the Inn selected and probably at least initially staked, considering the 205 Ac target, those features, the Inn, etc. Every time I read them, ALL it says is those holes have been found. Nowhere does it specifically say a routing has been attempted, started, much less completed.
Certainly the entire routing cannot have been finalized before October 1906. CBM says so. I think we probably have agreement that the early stages of land selection, some routing or hole selection was accomplished by October 1906. And, it doesn't make sense (although it could be possible) that 80% of the routing was done in a month, and what you call details takes 7 more. Or that he would order a contour map, and not wait for it until starting the routing, or that he would invest energy in final routing until he had a legal agreement that the land was his (i.e. the option)
It probably isn’t worth arguing the difference of opinion, but they do exist in how complete the routing was. I am with Mike, I doubt any of us will change our minds, no matter how many times we type our respective positions.
I guess all I would ask from you, if you would be so inclined is a specific fact based rebuttal as to why the October and December CBM quotes both say design is generally in the future? I could be wrong, but I don't think I have seen you do this, but my apologies if I am wrong on that point. It has been a long thread for all of us. (BTW, I don't consider your constant dismissal of me not understanding the design process circa early 1900's as a fact........)
Like you, I don’t think the roads, bramble height, setting sun, better land on what is now Sebonac GC, donut hole, etc. are all that relevant. We have nuanced differences on the surplus land issue, from never to diminished in scope.
I do think we have learned some things about the property and process. In some posts on this thread, golfclubatlas.com was working just as its founder intended. Maybe we should give him a lot?
Believe it or not, edited for brevity shortly after posting........