[Robert Emmons]

Thought Dev Emmet, but tamed use of bunkers...RHE

[Joe Bausch]

My vote is Findlay as well.

Alex or Fred?   

[MCirba]

Fred's quicker brother.

[Sven Nilsen]

The short answer has to be yes.  There is way too much detail work around the greens to suggest an unexperienced hand was involved.  If the contours around the bunkers continued onto the green surfaces, there most certainly would have been a good deal of undulation.  In the close ups of a few of the greens, you can pick out what look like ridges running across the surfaces. 


As for the lack of fairway bunkering, on a tight site it doesn't surprise me that the architect worked with the creek and the boundary lines to create the major hazards, while allowing room for a bit of strategy off of the tee (there's a bit of Talking Stick North in a few of these holes).  We don't know the limitations given the architect, so it is hard to determine how much free reign or how large a budget they had to work with (or even how long they intended to maintain a course at this site).  Strangely, the work is very reminiscent of Langford's work on similar flat sites for club's with a restrained checking account.



I know the course and the architect that is claimed to have done the layout.  At first blush, the name associated doesn't make much sense.    There are some of his fingerprints on this course, but it could also have been one of a number of other guys who are known to have worked in the area around that time. 


Sven

[Joe Bausch]

The short answer has to be yes.  There is way too much detail work around the greens to suggest an unexperienced hand was involved.  If the contours around the bunkers continued onto the green surfaces, there most certainly would have been a good deal of undulation.  In the close ups of a few of the greens, you can pick out what look like ridges running across the surfaces. 


As for the lack of fairway bunkering, on a tight site it doesn't surprise me that the architect worked with the creek and the boundary lines to create the major hazards, while allowing room for a bit of strategy off of the tee (there's a bit of Talking Stick North in a few of these holes).  We don't know the limitations given the architect, so it is hard to determine how much free reign or how large a budget they had to work with (or even how long they intended to maintain a course at this site).  Strangely, the work is very reminiscent of Langford's work on similar flat sites for club's with a restrained checking account.



I know the course and the architect that is claimed to have done the layout.  At first blush, the name associated doesn't make much sense.    There are some of his fingerprints on this course, but it could also have been one of a number of other guys who are known to have worked in the area around that time. 


Sven

Sven, is your evidence for knowing the architect solely from the info in the Cornish and Whitten book? 


I don't want to reveal that possible architect's name right now in the hopes of more good analysis like yours above!

[Sven Nilsen]

Joe:


Probably C&W and all of the associated online discussion and articles that discussed it and other related courses later on (there's a former frequent poster hereabouts (not the lurker) who had no qualms regarding the veracity of this claim).


Can't say I've researched this particular course in any detail, but I haven't come across anything definitive one way or the other.


Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

There are some interesting similarities to another local course that was a collaboration between two "prominent" architects, including a dearth of fairway bunkers, similar greenside bunkering patterns, the use of a creek and placement of holes in relation thereto and holes running hard against a boundary line.


Dispositive, certainly not.  But highly suggestive.


My gut on this is that later activity and the confusion that surrounded it along with the transfers of club names from one property to another resulted in one or both of the courses in question getting wrongly attributed.  Beyond that, until we find something clearly denoting who did what where, this remains a mystery.


Sven

[Dave Doxey]

Alexander Findlay

[Joe Bausch]

There are some interesting similarities to another local course that was a collaboration between two "prominent" architects, including a dearth of fairway bunkers, similar greenside bunkering patterns, the use of a creek and placement of holes in relation thereto and holes running hard against a boundary line.


Dispositive, certainly not.  But highly suggestive.


My gut on this is that later activity and the confusion that surrounded it along with the transfers of club names from one property to another resulted in one or both of the courses in question getting wrongly attributed.  Beyond that, until we find something clearly denoting who did what where, this remains a mystery.


Sven

I'm right with you, Sven.   

[Jaeger Kovich]

I don't want to name the course nor do I want any GCAers to say "I know that course"! 

This is an exercise in seeing if this fairly detailed oblique aerial might suggest a possible prominent golden age architect. 

This course was built in 1924 and is located on or near the East coast.  This picture was taken in 1934.  Note:  it is clickable to yield a much larger size.



The hole-sequencing from an old scorecard:



Thanks for your cooperation and perhaps participation.   

Joe - Are you trying to help name/discover the architect based on the picture/routing?


Some things I notice in the aerial if you were trying to suggest an architect based on style:


A lot of holes have bunker behind the green, and completely surrounding a green.
The bunkers are very shallow, probably not more than 3ft is about the steepest face I see.
There is very little earth moving at all it looks like, but extremely sharp where it is done.


Some things I notice from the routing:
Yes, its the "Muirfield" routing. (Tilly used a reverse Muirfield at Quaker Ridge, but this does not look like him at all)
Lots of parallel holes
Only crosses the creek straight on, which is pretty uninteresting


What is your definition of prominent?! You can clearly rule out the CBM crowd, and Tilly. I can't imagine its a highly regarded architect unless it is their first effort as it looks rather bland.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Joe,


How about someone not from Philadelphia who may have done some other work in the area?

[Neil Regan]

Joe,

  My first impression from that aerial was similar to some other responses here: Perhaps not much to see.


But I figured you had good reason to look closer at this course.
So I did.
Yikes.
Look at some of those greens!
Oblique aerials can certainly distort, but I think it's safe to say there were some pretty big rolls on those greens.
And the perimeters were definitely each considered and well-conceived.

As Pat said, "I suspect that "angles" were critical to scoring, especially in 1924 when lush conditions referred to party guests."
Look at the 11th green. Imagine trying to get to the back left over that ridge. Especially if you went for the green in 2 and ended up anywhere left of the green.

The green side bunkering is pretty serious too.
Look at the feed-in slopes from the bunker to the putting surface on the 15th hole, both right and left.
And look at that right side bunker on 16! Maybe the aerial is deceptive, but that sure looks like a see-it-once, never-forget approach.
If it is as uphill as it seems to me, and if the green has rolls like the others (and that I can almost convince myself that I see in the aerial),
I'd bet there were a lot of golfers de-greening even back in the day.

Whoever built this put a lot of thought, creativity, and energy into those greens, at least the ones that I can see pretty well.
If I had to guess, I'd say, well, the best I could guess would be someone known for his greens.

[Joe Bausch]

You done good, Neil!

[Joe Bausch]

My first like Mayday is Findlay.  The bunkers behind greens is something he did quite often.  The emphasis on greenside bunkers vs. fairway bunkers is also something he was noted for.  The use of the stream within the routing seems somewhat Flynn like, but does not discount others.  The fairway bunkers which are present are mundane in their shapes and mounding, also a Findlay trait.  Great image.  Thanks for posting

Thanks for the input, Jim.

[DMoriarty]

Can someone explain what is happening in the lower corner? It looks like there are two greens, with one no longer in use. 

Is it possible there were two iterations of this course?

[Joe Bausch]

Is it possible there were two iterations of this course?

It is always possible that there were two iterations of this course at this particular site.  I'm not entirely sure if when the club moved to another site in 1930 if this original site immediately became public or if that took some time.  So maybe it did get modified.


But my gut feeling says only one iteration.

[Matt Frey, PGA]

Is it possible there were two iterations of this course?

It is always possible that there were two iterations of this course at this particular site.  I'm not entirely sure if when the club moved to another site in 1930 if this original site immediately became public or if that took some time.  So maybe it did get modified.


But my gut feeling says only one iteration.

Or could it be that the green was moved slightly due to the "original" green's proximity to the road? Even if the road saw little traffic I could see that setup presenting problems.

[DMoriarty]

Or could it be that the green was moved slightly due to the "original" green's proximity to the road? Even if the road saw little traffic I could see that setup presenting problems.

There are trees and bushes between the two greens along the line of play, so I don't think it was just a matter of shifting the green.

[Craig Disher]

It is always possible that there were two iterations of this course at this particular site.  I'm not entirely sure if when the club moved to another site in 1930 if this original site immediately became public or if that took some time.  So maybe it did get modified. b


But my gut feeling says only one iteration.

Many of the original members started a new club shortly after the course opened. If the photo is from 1934 the course had been around for less than 10 years so it's possible minor changes could have been made from the original iteration. But from 1934 until the course disappeared, it remained the same.

There seems to be a lot of repetition with some of the greensites - bunker left, bunker right, bunker rear. The site is so tiny and flat that routing options are limited if 18 holes are planned. The greens do appear to be interesting - is it possible that a golf construction company with local experience was responsible for their design? However, the Findlay suggestion seems reasonable.

[Jason Walker]

Joe--
did that 'Frank' guy (same as my club) build it?

[Joe Bausch]

Joe--
did that 'Frank' guy (same as my club) build it?

I've not seen that fellow mentioned in the construction of this course.  Frank James, that is.

[Lester George]

If it is an ODG, and I am not convinced, I would like to tender Park, Stiles, Tull or Meehan.  For various reasons and comparisons to some other photos.

Lester

[Kalen Braley]

Is this one of those how do you keep an idiot in suspense threads or will this get a resolution?
 
Joe I'm assuming there will be an answer sooner or later as to prominent ODG or not?

[jeffwarne]

I guess my only question would be is it a lesser course if the ODG wasn't prominent?
Rest assured Lester, it WAS designed by an ODG, regardless of whether we've heard of him or not



Conversely,if the course was prominent, wouldn't that make the architect prominent?

[Joe Bausch]

Is this one of those how do you keep an idiot in suspense threads or will this get a resolution?
 
Joe I'm assuming there will be an answer sooner or later as to prominent ODG or not?

Here's where it stands now, which is really far from resolved IMHO.

This course is the Pennsylvania Golf Club, started by people associated with the Pennsylvania Railroad.  The Cornish and Whitten book says the architect was Perry Maxwell.  A number of months ago Ed Oden found a blurb in a 1927 Harrisburg newspaper indicating the course was designed by their club pro named Dan McHenry.

In the late 20's the club was prospering but that land in Llanerch was very valuable (and rented from the PRR) so they started looking for a new site.  The found a site near Frazer/Malvern.  That site opened in 1930. 

Contemporaneous newspaper articles indicated this site had the help of a "New York expert".

Not too many months ago I found a Philly Inquirer article from 1935 by a golf writer (Ted Hoyt) that talked extensively of plans to take the course from 18 to 27 holes.  And it mentions the current course was designed by said Dan McHenry and "blue pencilled in a couple of places by the great and only Donald Ross".

So, the 2nd site appears to be a McHenry/Ross design.  Later this course changed its name (around 1950, I think) to Chester Valley Golf Club.  I've been working with CV to better understand their early history.  They may even have some old documentation around that I'm hoping to get a look at this off-season.

To further muddle things up, if you go to AlexanderFindlay.com, you'll see the original Pennsylvania Golf Club site at Llanerch as being attributed to Alex Findlay.  This web site is run by Richard Findlay, a great grandson of Alex.  I've had email contact with Richard through the years and asked him about the attribution.  This is what he wrote me the other day:

"As far as the information on my web site regarding the PRRGC is concerned, I copied it directly from Alex's notes. I have put that information in storage for the present time."

I hope one day to see these 'Alex notes'.


What do I think we will eventually find out?  That this original PRR at Llanerch site was a Maxwell design with help from McHenry (perhaps McHenry built it).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()