April Fools: LINKS & Phil Young Help Con Artist Peddle Sketchy Augusta Drawings.

[Kalen Braley]

Two things to add here:

1) Cognitive Dissonance can be a bitch, especially for someone like Phil right about now...

2) I've been around this site long enough to see comments of every type.  And one thing I really appreciate is when John Mayhugh chimes in. He doesn't post much,  but when he does he's almost always sharply on point and says it perfectly.  Couldn't agree more with his last post on why it should matter to everyone.


P.S.  In the spirit of disclosure, I should mention I played one round of golf with him and he was a true gentleman and hits his 3w higher than anyone I've even seen. 

[john_stiles]

I received my LINKS magazine the other day.

Was reading the article while watching the PBS Antiques Roadshow. 

I like the Antiques Roadshow as it is a collection of 5 minute stories and history.

A key part to almost every review of art, furniture, memorabilia, etc. is provenance.

The next show was the documentary of "The Amazing Randi" about James Randi.

It was odd to be reading LINKS, knowing of the GCA threads, and watch these shows back to back.

Agree with the GCA side thinking the items need vetting.

Will be interesting to see how it ends.

[PCCraig]

See, this stuff works. Words are cheaper than gates.

Or in your case, Morse code.

[Joe Hancock]

Can we all at least agree that it doesn't take much of a marksman arriving after the battle to shoot the wounded?

Which conjures up the image of Monty Python's "Twit of the Year" sketch, in which one of the contests is shooting a rabbit who's feet have been tied to 4 corner stakes....and they miss.

[Marty Bonnar]

"The par 3 being a detraction from my normal philosophy of short hole design".

Detraction? Detraction? Sometimes, Ian's, whoops, sorry!, Alister's commend of the English language leafs quiet a bit to be devoured, doesent it?

F.

[Marty Bonnar]

I guess Ally MacK liked Alby T's flag drawing so much that he decided he would choose to emulate it exactly...

Alby T:


Ally MacK:

Please.

F.

[DMoriarty]

I started this thread to discuss LINKS Magazine's complicity in Ian Scott-Taylor's probable fraud and forgery. So far as I know, there is no thread which has focused on LINK's complicity. You might disagree, but IMO this issue is worth its own thread, especially given that LINKS and Phil Young seem to think that this material significantly alters the prevailing gca wisdom. Moreover, whether unwittingly or not, LINKS and Phil are aiding Ian in what seems to be the commission of a felony.  If nothing else, perhaps the thread might help lead a prospective buyer as far away from these guys as possible.

In the year and an half this has been ongoing, I've started a grand total of two threads concerning this controversy, including this current thread.  This is the other one: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and The Problematic Scott Taylor Collection. Both threads provided comprehensive treatments of aspects of this controversy, and in that regard I view them both as important.  (There is more to come with this latest thread, and the first thread is worth a look if you have any inclination to believe this material is legit.)

Here is an idea: If you aren't interested in the thread, don't click on it.  If Ran doesn't approve of the thread, he knows how to reach me.
__________________________________________________________


Michael H.  I don't relish in going through all this again, nor do I want to kick Phil when he is down.  But Phil has to stop with this nonsense.  So long as he and Ian are trying to pass off documents which are very likely forgeries, I'll continue to point out the problems with their claims.  It is a bit like Monty Python's black night sketch, only now we have LINKS Magazine trying to prop them up.

[John Kavanaugh]

David,

Saying that you don't relish beating this and other subjects to death lacks a certain element of honesty.

[Tim_Cronin]

David Moriarty in reply 31: "Here is an idea: If you aren't interested in the thread, don't click on it. If Ran doesn't approve of the thread, he knows how to reach me."
Sorry, but the "don't click" canard doesn't work here. GCA types are going to click on this to see if they're interested, and will voice their disagreement if they're so inclined. And you know it. This is a lively group.

Having read these threads thoroughly, it's clear to be that there is significant doubt as to the authenticity of the documents. There are enough red flags to populate Red Square. I wouldn't spent a penny on them whether they were at a flea market or an white-tablecloth auction. As a publisher / editor, had I been approached, and if I had no knowledge, I would have wanted to see the documents myself and put them in the hands of an expert on old documents – paper, ink, etc., and likely a handwriting expert as well.

However, before you go on bashing Links (sorry, no all-caps for me without an acronym), rather than contact the writer, you should contact the editor. That would be, as you know, George Peper. He gets the final call on whether this runs.

If you have done so, please let us know what George told you about the vetting of the materials – has he seen them, touched them, allowed examination by outsiders? – and of the article itself.

If you have not do so, that's a major omission in your argument, and you should get on the case. (Though good luck reaching him next week.) Remember, Newsweek was once hoodwinked by the "Hitler diaries."

Let us know what you find.

[DMoriarty]

GCA types are going to click on this to see if they're interested, and will voice their disagreement if they're so inclined.

I welcome posts voicing disagreement with the post, but I'd guess that those who came here to complain hadn't even bothered to read the post.

However, before you go on bashing Links (sorry, no all-caps for me without an acronym), rather than contact the writer, you should contact the editor. That would be, as you know, George Peper. He gets the final call on whether this runs.

I included George Peper in my correspondence with LINKS.  My guess is that Mr. Peper put his trust in Mr. Frank, while Mr. Frank put is trust in Phil Young, and Phil put his trust in Ian Scott-Taylor.  And here we are.

[David_Elvins]

I included George Peper in my correspondence with LINKS.  My guess is that Mr. Peper put his trust in Mr. Frank, while Mr. Frank put is trust in Phil Young, and Phil put his trust in Ian Scott-Taylor.  And here we are.

But golf is a game of honour and trust, how dare you suggest that these people did something wrong by trusting someone.  I have met these people and they were nice to me and this personal attack is disgusting.  You would want a lot more proof than that befor throwing around these accusations and slurring their good names.  These people have families, amd children, and golf buddies.  Stop it now!  End of argument.  Checkmate.

[Mark Pearce]

David,


I can't work out if your last post is a sophisticated parody or if it is serious.  If the latter it is extraordinary.  Each of the people in that chain, particularly Phil Young' should have known better than to simply trust the person before them in this sad chain.  The reality is that either Phil Young is a fool or he is complicit in Scott-Taylor's fraud, even if only because he desperately wants something to be true so much that he has failed to consider, let alone examine, the evidence.

[Sean_A]

I started this thread to discuss LINKS Magazine's complicity in Ian Scott-Taylor's probable fraud and forgery. So far as I know, there is no thread which has focused on LINK's complicity. You might disagree, but IMO this issue is worth its own thread, especially given that LINKS and Phil Young seem to think that this material significantly alters the prevailing gca wisdom. Moreover, whether unwittingly or not, LINKS and Phil are aiding Ian in what seems to be the commission of a felony.  If nothing else, perhaps the thread might help lead a prospective buyer as far away from these guys as possible.

In the year and an half this has been ongoing, I've started a grand total of two threads concerning this controversy, including this current thread.  This is the other one: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and The Problematic Scott Taylor Collection. Both threads provided comprehensive treatments of aspects of this controversy, and in that regard I view them both as important.  (There is more to come with this latest thread, and the first thread is worth a look if you have any inclination to believe this material is legit.)

Here is an idea: If you aren't interested in the thread, don't click on it.  If Ran doesn't approve of the thread, he knows how to reach me.
__________________________________________________________


Michael H.  I don't relish in going through all this again, nor do I want to kick Phil when he is down.  But Phil has to stop with this nonsense.  So long as he and Ian are trying to pass off documents which are very likely forgeries, I'll continue to point out the problems with their claims.  It is a bit like Monty Python's black night sketch, only now we have LINKS Magazine trying to prop them up.

Sure, you want to discuss complicity     How bout proving complicity first.  Jeepers, this stuff has gone on long enough David...give it a rest.  But I spose being the bulldog you are that no stone can go unturned and no person unaccussed until you get some measure of satisfaction.  This site is becoming sadder by the day and its a shame Ran doesn't exercise better control.


Ciao

[Marty Bonnar]

Sean, my friend, no.
David didn't bring this back to the table. Phil Young resurrected the whole thing with the 'A Promise Kept' thread. Which, incidentally, still remains quite demonstrably, unkept.
It's also very interesting that you mention Ran, who, rather disappointingly, has yet to wade into this recent discussion.

Best,
F.

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,


I have to agree with Marty.  This whole sad debacle was resurrected by Phil.  David may be like a dog with a bone but only because Phil threw him that bone.  There's a possible criminal offence going on here and If Phil is not a guilty party he should be here, explaining how and why, for a second time and with forewarning, he allowed himself to be sucked into it.  At the very least, he should explain how, having been tarred by the first fraud, he could possibly have thought it appropriate that he, rather than a suitable third party, should seek  authentication of these documents.


Mark

[Richard Hetzel]

Two things to add here:

1) Cognitive Dissonance can be a bitch, especially for someone like Phil right about now...

2) I've been around this site long enough to see comments of every type.  And one thing I really appreciate is when John Mayhugh chimes in. He doesn't post much,  but when he does he's almost always sharply on point and says it perfectly.  Couldn't agree more with his last post on why it should matter to everyone.


P.S.  In the spirit of disclosure, I should mention I played one round of golf with him and he was a true gentleman and hits his 3w higher than anyone I've even seen. 

Well stated, and I have also played a few rounds with John. Great guy.

[Sean_A]

Sean,


I have to agree with Marty.  This whole sad debacle was resurrected by Phil.  David may be like a dog with a bone but only because Phil threw him that bone.  There's a possible criminal offence going on here and If Phil is not a guilty party he should be here, explaining how and why, for a second time and with forewarning, he allowed himself to be sucked into it.  At the very least, he should explain how, having been tarred by the first fraud, he could possibly have thought it appropriate that he, rather than a suitable third party, should seek  authentication of these documents.


Mark

We can agree to disagree about GolfClubAtlas trials...this is not the place to throw around criminal accusations so far as I am concerned. This entire ankle biting scene is about something far more than this site can resolve. If folks want to sit on jury find a court room.

Phil did explain himself.  Folks may not like the explanation, but there it is.  Another thread isn't going to alter things except perhaps enable someone to get the last word in. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

For what it's worth, I disagree with you as well, Sean.

I understand your point of view, and in fact on Bogey's thread I said so, i.e. said that I was saddened to see so many posters seemingly doing nothing more than mocking and piling on and kicking Phil when he was down, even though they appeared to have, at best, only a passing interest in/understanding of the issue.

But I wouldn't put David in that camp. I think David has handled himself quite admirably here. While this is not a topic/issue that interests everyone, it does -- and legitimately so -- interest some. I think David, unlike many of us, has qualified himself to meaningfully comment on this topic/issue, if only because he has clearly taken the time to wade through all the material and to think about the issue seriously. And, for the most part, his interest has taken the form not of pot shots at Phil but of very specific questions and comments, most of which seem to me to be central to the topic/issue at hand.

As Marty noted, it was Phil himself who resurrected this topic/issue. (I sincerely wished he hadn't.) And, as David noted, the issue/topic has taken a significant new turn -- the decision by Links to make the apparent discovery of this historic material "the story" while not referencing what appears to me a crucial element of that story, i.e. the "back story".

Yes, I agree that a public forum is not the place to denigrate a person's character or question his/her motives (and, yes, I agree that tossing out the word "criminal" is unnecessary and ill-advised at best). But then, it seems right not to harshly question David's motives either. If we start doing that, we might as well suspiciously start questioning why anyone starts any thread around here -- e.g. why Tom D or Mark F or Jeff B start threads about their course work, or why a member of a private course starts a thread asking why that course is not a "10", or why people who love photography start threads featuring that photography prominently in their course tours. If we all did that kind of questioning of motives, what would be the point of participating here?

That a golf magazine has an article about historically important (possibly) and very valuable (potentially) gca-related drawings and writings is certainly reason enough to start a thread about it on gca.com, IMO.

Peter
   

[David_Elvins]

David,


I can't work out if your last post is a sophisticated parody or if it is serious. 

I was aiming for unsophisticated parody.

[John Kavanaugh]

I would caution those who hitch their star to a wagon whose coachman doesn't use a bun-bag.

[Sean_A]

Pietro


I have no issue with folks thinking Phil was foolish not once, but twice...I would agree and that perception is wholly independent of the validity of the materials at hand.  However, throwing around criminal accusations with scant proof is a different kettle of fish and something nobody on this site should be supporting unless they can back up the talk.  We are not on this site to discuss criminal complicity...especially without proper evidence.  To me, that is perhaps worse than Phil's foolishness. But this is the internet age where anything seems to go...even discussing alleged complicity.  But I do notice that none in the roasting camp have actually added any evidence of complicity...sad that...just some back slapping and high fiving...very sad that.


Ciao

[Jon Cavalier]

...or why people who love photography start threads featuring that photography prominently in their course tours. If we all did that kind of questioning of motives, what would be the point of participating here?
   

I can't imagine that ever happening here.

[Ronald Montesano]

Back in the day when I was doing my Ph.D. coursework in the literature of a random Iberian country, I was indoctrinated with the what and what-nots of scholarly research and publication.


The vast, vast majority of whatis posted on these pages is not scholarly research and not scholarly publication. It is experiential and opinion. If I note a course and post images of it, and connect those images with patterns found at other courses, I'm not doing anything scholarly; I'm simply providing a coffee table book about my vacation. That's what we do on GCA, except for the rarest of instances.


When one attempts to put something on a historic record, when one endeavors to etch evidence in a permanent manner into the tablets of accepted knowledge, one is responsible for documenting beyond any doubt the proof of that hypothesis. From the very beginning of this matter, the historic record and the permanent etching were the clear goal, and it was the responsibility of the true defenders of the GCA brethren to support or take issue with the method and proof. In this instance, there was blood and most of us recoil at the site of blood.


I equate the pursuit of this matter with the notion that calling a penalty on a golfer in a medal tournament is done to protect the field. In this instance, the pursuers seek to protect a field that includes recorded golf architecture history over the past century. I expect them to come with dogged intent, as they have.

[Jon Cavalier]

The vast, vast majority of twat is posted on these pages is not scholarly research and not scholarly publication.

Exceptional shade there, Ron.

[Mike_Young]

Back in the day when I was doing my Ph.D. coursework in the literature of a random Iberian country, I was indoctrinated with the what and what-nots of scholarly research and publication.


The vast, vast majority of twat is posted on these pages is not scholarly research and not scholarly publication. It is experiential and opinion. If I note a course and post images of it, and connect those images with patterns found at other courses, I'm not doing anything scholarly; I'm simply providing a coffee table book about my vacation. That's what we do on GCA, except for the rarest of instances.


When one attempts to put something on a historic record, when one endeavors to etch evidence in a permanent manner into the tablets of accepted knowledge, one is responsible for documenting beyond any doubt the proof of that hypothesis. From the very beginning of this matter, the historic record and the permanent etching were the clear goal, and it was the responsibility of the true defenders of the GCA brethren to support or take issue with the method and proof. In this instance, there was blood and most of us recoil at the site of blood.


I equate the pursuit of this matter with the notion that calling a penalty on a golfer in a medal tournament is done to protect the field. In this instance, the pursuers seek to protect a field that includes recorded golf architecture history over the past century. I expect them to come with dogged intent, as they have.

RM,
What scares me about so much of the Golf architecture history over the last 25 years is just what you explain.  I am amazed at how many people in the golf business take themselves much more seriously than they should, from supts, to archies to golf professionals etc....and then you have the raters and hobbyist....I think if we were to know all of the things just like this that have transpired since the early 1900's we woud not believe....