Harry Colt

[TEPaul]

Paul:

In an obituary, even in a golf magazine I would expect the obituary to say "founder" and "financier" rather than architect or designer if he was those things which of course he was. To be honest those two descriptions would be more impressive to most anyone reading about him even in a golf magazine, particularly in those days (1918) when a golf architect or designer was not that very well understood, or even respected, as it is now.

But you keep throwing these little implications in here about Crump. Why don't you address the more comprehensive issue of what all those who were in the business said about him when he died and what his contribution was to PVGC? Tillinghast, Hunter, Thomas, Travis, Travers, the Wilsons et al and all the others. Do you still really think they were glorifying his architectural contribution at PVGC at the expense of Colt?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I've got to give you credit...you appear willing to give Colt his due when historically he has been religated to more or less a bit player...in fact I think you had some doubts about his influence at one time. IMO you can't seperate the two at PVGC...they both deserve credit.

From Colt's visit in mid 1913 to April of 1914 14 holes were either cleared or in play, with remaining four holes in the process of being cleared--a very good pace (I believe you said Merion took about 17 months all together). The Carr article was Decemeber 1914 and the project looks to be full steam ahead. It appears agronomic difficulties stalled the project. (The WWI theory could explain a delay between April 1917 and Crumps death, 8 months, but doesn't explain the delay between April 1914 and April 1917, 3 years)

I suspect Colt saw more courses than Baker listed. For example he seems to be smitten with Mid-Surrey. Other logical high profile courses--Swinley Forest, Stoke Poges, Delamere Forest, Worplesdon, Wimbledon, Coombe Hill and Huntercombe.

The British Am of 1910 was at Hoylake (won by Ball). Although he was not competitor I wonder if Crump was a specatator. Macdonald was there and competed, as did Colt, Fowler, Alison, Horace Hutchinson, CK Hutchison and Guy Campbell--a who's who of architects.

Who drew the Red lines...do we have any idea?

What is the source of Crump's design prescription?

Did Crump articulate the famous "islands" of land found at PV--was this his expressed idea or a practical result of the sandy site (and difficulty growing grass)?

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Well, the Travers quote above is just as much Colt as Crump.  

The only Travis quotes I've seen are from the article I gave you, where he credits Colt as the designer.

Tillinghast's recollections in the 1930s do come across as nostalgic and favouring Crump; they are not wholly consistent with what he actually wrote 20 years earlier.  Notably, he doesn't credit himself for Hell's Half Acre or the 13th, which he did do in the earlier articles.  No mention of the change of the 5th and Colt.  Although he does give some unspecific credit to Colt.

Thomas gives equal credit and calls Crump the "builder" in Tommy's quote above.

Hunter splits hole credit in photo lables.  But I don't know why and he doesn't write much about design credit as far as I'm aware.

[TEPaul]

Well, that's about it for me guys. If you want to fixate on just things that were happening at PVGC in 1914 as the real story of PVGC then be my guest but I guarantee you that's far from the final story on PVGC, George Crump and Harry Colt. I guess you both still think, for some reason, Crump was just watching the grass grow as Colt's plan was being constructed. Just not the way it happened fellows.

Tom MacW:

Again;

1. 11 holes opened for play on November 7, 1914
2. During first half of 1916 another three holes opened for play making 14 holes in play.
3. The final four holes opened for play in the summer of 1920.

The red lines on the routing map are Crump's. That may not have been known or much understood until a mere two or so years ago but now that fact is pretty fundamental to understanding the evolution of the design of PVGC, who did what and who was responsible for what by the time Crump died in Jan 1918. The completion of the course under the 1921 Advisory Committee is another story and a most interesting one basically executed in the spirit of what were known to be Crump's wishes. Tom, it appears to me that the way you evaluate things is if you don't have some document in front of you explaining events in specific detail you tend to presume that everything else not specifically explained in a document is fictional. I wish, for your sake, all those people kept those kinds of comprehensive records but unfortunately they didn't always do that. Sometimes some good old fashioned deductive reasoning is very helpful and elucidating.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I think you might have missed a few dates:

February 1914 11 holes in play and the last 3 holes cleared.
April 1914 the remaining 6 holes being cleared.
June 1914 the remaining 6 holes ready for fall seeding.
July 1914 Reginald Beale visits
Novemeber 1914 11 holes formally opened.

It is obvious work was proceeding along at a good pace...unfortunately that pace was about to grind to a hault.

March 1915 New holes will be completed as rapidly as possible.
A gap of 9 months between reports.
Janaury 1916 Bender (grass expert) brought in. The greens of the last remaining holes are not constructed.
April 1916 the course (the holes already constructed) is begining to recover--humus and wet muck blaimed for severe problems. 14 holes will be ready in the Spring of 1917 (Obviously they incured a major set back).
A gap in 13 month between reports.
May 1917 Work being pushed on the four new greens the course should be ready in the Fall.
January 1918 Crump dead.

I'm not sure what to make of all the different attributions, for every Thomas and Hunter, there is a Traverse...or Travis, Carr, Darwin or Alison.

Travis: "Laid out some two years ago by Mr. HS Colt, the eminent British authority on golf course architecture, sufficient progress has been made to justify anticipation of a most brilliant future."

Carr: "In order to procure the very best design for the golf course, Mr.Crump secured the services of that brilliant master of golf architecture, Mr. HS Colt, of international fame."

Darwin ( a good friend of WP Smith): "...Pine Valley, one of Mr. Harry Colt's creations, said by some to be one of the hardest courses in the world."

Alison: "Pine Valley was inspired by Mr George Crump, and its framework was planned by Mr. HS Colt"

How do we know the Red lines are Crump's?

"Tom, it appears to me that the way you evaluate things is if you don't have some document in front of you explaining events in specific detail you tend to presume that everything else not specifically explained in a document is fictional. I wish, for your sake, all those people kept those kinds of comprehensive records but unfortunately they didn't always do that. Sometimes some good old fashioned deductive reasoning is very helpful and elucidating."

Not at all...what I try to do is gather as much documentation as possible...try to detremine what is fact and what is theory...weigh the info that goes toward the theory to see if it is plausible....keep an open mind...identify what I know and especially what I don't know...and keep searching. There is more information out there than one might think....but it is often difficult to find.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Do you feel there're any dates that have to do with the opening of various sections of holes at PVGC that we don't agree on?

Again, it looks like the dates and the source of them come from Tillinghast's chronicles of PVGC. The dates he mentions when holes actually did open for play are accurate. A few times he mentions when he thinks holes should open for play that aren't, though.

But Tillie was there from the very beginning, was a great friend of Crump's and his relationship with and knowledge of PVGC and Crump apparently goes all the way back to the very beginning--- in 1912!! That's mabe nine months before Crump bought PV in October of 1912.

You might want to carefully consider this date, also part of Tillinghast's PVGC chronicle.

"April 1913

The new Pine Valley Golf Club at Clementon, New Jersey, which promises to offer the most notable course in the vicinity of Philadelphia, has a force of workmen removing trees and underbrush and gradually the tract is being opened to view. As the work progresses the first favorable impressions become deep rooted convictions, for the land is remarkable indeed. Everything indicates that the fond hopes of the builders will be realized.

Already seven of the holes are opened up and rapidly cleared fairways are being prepared for spring seeding. Several of the greens are ready for preparation.”
Albert Tillinghast, April 1913

In case you aren't aware of the significance of that date--it's a month or perhaps two before Colt first arrived at PVGC for that one week he spent there.

[T_MacWood]

TE

"Do you feel there're any dates that have to do with the opening of various sections of holes at PVGC that we don't agree on?"

I don't think so, although there are one or two articles that Tillie left out of his review (for whatever reason) and there are one or two other miscellaneous articles, but yes we agree with dates. I do think this chronology is a little misleading:

1. 11 holes opened for play on November 7, 1914
2. During first half of 1916 another three holes opened for play making 14 holes in play.
3. The final four holes opened for play in the summer of 1920.

Because it doesn't portray the early steady progress and the numerous set backs in between.

"A few times he mentions when he thinks holes should open for play that aren't, though." You are correct (it was well documented that the project suffered agronomic difficulties).

One of the most insightful articles is the one written by Dr. Carr and published in the January 1915 Golf Illustrated (ironically Tillie quoted from it in the December 1914 American Golfer, which had to thrill GI).

In the article Carr explains the early chronology. Crump spent an entire month walking and studying the property before purchasing it in October 1912. During the following winter and early spring, enough land was cleared to reveal the main features of the property. No mention of those holes, but we know he had laid out seven holes from Tillie's article of April 1913 (he also fixed the clubhouse site). There was actually an article also in March 1913 talking about a new course being cleared in Clementon and construction will start when plans fixed. There does appear to be a crude stick plan that matches Tillie's description. Evidently Crump wasn't totally satisfied and Colt was called in June 1913, he submitted a plan for 18 holes and work began shortly afterward. Carr said in the January article: "Nature made the golf holes. Mr.Colt discovered them."

I can't speak for Paul T, but this where I believe you and I agree and disagree at this moment.

Agree: The brainchild of the project was Crump. It was his idea that the course be a super severe test of golf.. The first four holes and 18th green are pretty much where Crump planned them prior to Colt. (Colt subsequently altered the 3rd, I'm not sure if we agree on that) . The course was not completed until 1920.  That Crump and Govan hit test shots to help in placement of some bunkers (seems reasonable and very plausible). Alison's contribution in polishing up the course is under appreciated. The Wilsons, along with Flynn, were responsible for the completion of those last few holes, their contribution is under appreciated. The project suffered agronomic difficulties.

Disagree: That WWI was a major reason for the delays during Crump's lifetime (US involvement began just 8 months prior to Crump's death, the project had been in progess for 4 years). That Crump had designed himself into a box. IMO the main reason for the delays was agronomic. That Crump and Govan were involved in experimental clearing and shot testing in an attempt to discover new holes and alternative routings after Colt set out a plan. That the islands in the sand was a Crump idea and Colt never envisioned this (used as evidence that the design is Crump's and not Colt's)--there doesn't appear to be any evidence to support that theory. (Colt's plans do not show the islands, but neither does Crump's sketch of the 17th in The American Golfer). Based on the circumstances and the site, I don't think they had a choice. The evidence points to the routing of the golf course being Colt's.

[T_MacWood]

I think both men deserve immense credit and trying to undercut the involvement of one over the other, I believe does both a disservice.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

It really doesn't matter that much to me what you agree or disagree with as I certainly am comfortable in a number of assumptions you don't seem to appreciate, that I reiterate are only assumptions, not conclusions, albeit very strong assumptions on my part at this point . Part of the reason you probably don't appreciate much of this is obviously you're dealing with incomplete information--you don't seem to have enough information to appreciate the full story of Crump and his years there and what he did during them, particularly following the earlier time frame you seem to assume most everything was done. To understand that better you should probably read Jim Finegan's history book on the evolution of PVGC. It's basically ALL there! And then you might understand better what went on in those last years and why! The only thing I can see where Jim makes what turns out to be a glaring error in assumption is when he mistook the surveyor's date on the routing map and assumed Crump routed the whole course the way it is now before Colt arrived.

But that we know now not to be true. But by comparing what Crump apparently did routing-wise prior to Colt's arrival and how he altered parts of Colt's routing plan (the second routing plan that hangs in the clubhouse) as well as how he altered Colt's actual detailed design plan (the hole by hole booklet) basically tells the full story.

To try to compare in a routing sense what Crump accomplished before Colt arrived one needs to compare the first routing plan which appears to be Crump before Colt arrived with what Colt produced on the second routing plan when he was there with Crump.

And to compare what Crump did to the routed holes in a "design" sense to Colt's plan (the hole by hole booklet) one needs to have a pretty detailed knowledge and understanding of the golf course--both from those early days and now. PVGC has not changed much at all from those early days (the 1921 Advisory Committee) and what has changed since then one needs to be familiar with too.

So for you to get a true understanding of PVGC, how it evolved in construction into finality you very much need to do about three things.

1. Read Finegan's book
2. Review all the material, not just parts of it
3. See the golf course

I've never seen the entire archive, probably only a large part of it, and I've never seen Colt's hole by hole booklet which will be very important and indicative to see. But the second routing plan which I'm completely familiar with shows a good deal of divergence on Crump's part, particularly on what I call the "designing of the routed holes" phase. That's the part that Crump spent a number of years working on, experimenting with, changing any way he wanted to etc. That seems to be the part you're struggling to understand.

Afterall he owned the place was there daily and could and did whatever he pleased!

[Paul_Turner]

Crump may have been experimenting with the hole hazards and hole features.  But I've seen little concrete evidence to show this; all the very oldest photos show holes that look very similar to the current holes.  One notable exception was the addition of cross bunkers on the 4th.  I haven't seen any evidence that he went through iterations of green contours, for instance.  Once the first 14 holes were open, didn't the members want to play some uninterupted gof?

My feeling is that the red pen is Crump's.  And that it's a sketched copy of an aerial photo.  Would love to find this aerial if it exists.

[TEPaul]

"I think both men deserve immense credit and trying to undercut the involvement of one over the other, I believe does both a disservice."

Despite whether or not you or Paul or I think that both men deserve immense credit the thing to do is to ultimately determine who in the final analysis and with the finished product of PVGC was responsible for what.

That's basically all that is important. This recent notion that appears to be yours and Paul's that someone or almost everyone ever involved with PVGC--members, other architects particularly back then, Jim Finegan, Warner Shelley, John Arthur Brown who wrote histories, and anyone else is somehow trying to glorify Crump to minimize Colt is frankly patently ridiculous. The only possible reason I can see that minimizes Colt's contribution is the almost complete misunderstanding of the significance of various things on that second routing map.

I would not say the same of the hole by hole booklet. Those few who have seen it who knew and know PVGC best--particularly Finegan, Shelley and Brown who wrote its history basically came to the same conclusions on the similarities and differences of that booklet and the golf course and they have a collective experience with that course that is well over 140 years!  

You can read documents and look at aerials and such but to really understand that construction evolution, in my opinion, you need to do and see a lot more than just that.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I have reviewed a great deal of info from numerous sources--perhaps some info even Finegan did not see or consider. I have read some of Finegan's conclusions--some I agree with, some I don't. He is a little vague in drawing any conclusions himself (as to who he believes did what), preferring to quote Hunter, Thomas, Tillinghast and Colt himself to be fair (no mention of quotes from Carr, Travis, Traverse, Alison or Darwin).

Some of the strongest evidence he presents is the fact that there is no Colt routing and no forced carries on 1, 2 and 17. As you acknowledged he was mistaken on the routing plan. As far 17 is concerned I have compared Colt's drawing found in Finegan's book with Crump's drawing found in G.I. -- there are very minor differences and neither drawing has the islands of turf in the sand.

I have studied and compared the Blue and Red routing plans.

Have you been able to identify who did the Red and Blue...and how did you draw your conclusions?

What approximate or estimated date do you (or does Finegan) put on the two plans?

[TEPaul]

Paul;

For God sakes stop this nonsense. I should go through every single hole and explain to you how things such as cross bunkering and many other bunkers from Crump on practically ever single hole diverges from what at least we see from Colt on that second routing map and according to those who have seen it, from the Colt’s individual hole drawing booklet too. As for how the greens of Pine Valley diverge from anything Colt might have left you’ll probably be shocked when that becomes better known! Many of the greens at Pine Valley were altered anyway by both Crump and others between those early days and the finished product of the 1921 Advisory committee.

And what is this notion that the red lines are on a sketched copy of the routing from an aerial? Are you referring to the second routing map that hangs on the wall at PVGC? That’s the actual routing map that Crump and Colt used. The thing says right on it “The personal property of George Arthur Crump March 1913”. That couldn’t possibly be from an aerial. Do you think someone was flying around over Pine Valley taking an aerial photo of the course in 1913? What do you think they were up there in---a balloon? The oldest known aerials that I’m aware of in this district begin about 1924!

[T_MacWood]

I've read Shelley and Brown's history, I've read HW Wind's ten page article from 1950, I've read the late Pam Emory's 12 page more recent piece. I've read shorter articles written by Cal Brown, Charles Price, Dan Jenkins, Bernard Darwin, Thomas Uzzell, and others.

I have no idea if Brown or Shelley had an agenda. I have no idea if Darwin or Alison had an agenda. All I can do is take all the facts at my disposal and draw intelligent conclusions based on what they reveal.

Regarding the hole by hole Colt drawings, based on the one picture in Finegan's book of #17, it appears exactly the same as the blue line drawing on the routing. Based on that perhaps we can guess what the other 17 holes look like in the book--no?

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

I've shown you an aerial of part of PV that dates from before 1920!!  You have the memory of a molusc.

I think possibly Crump (or someone else) added the red lines much later and possibly from an aerial pic.   How are you so sure that the red lines are a working plan?

Which greens were altered BEFORE Crump died. I know which ones Alison altered!
 

[T_MacWood]

TE
Do you have any idea as to who did the Red and Blue...are there hints that gives away who might have drawn what?

What approximate or estimated date do you (or does Finegan) put on the two plans?

[TEPaul]

"TE
I have reviewed a great deal of info from numerous sources--perhaps some info even Finegan did not see or consider. I have read some of Finegan's conclusions--some I agree with, some I don't. He is a little vague in drawing any conclusions himself (as to who he believes did what), preferring to quote Hunter, Thomas, Tillinghast and Colt himself to be fair (no mention of quotes from Carr, Travis, Traverse, Alison or Darwin)."

Tom:

Just answer me one thing? Have you read Jim Finegan's book? Have you even seen it?

You said:

"As far (as) 17 is concerned I have compared Colt's drawing found in Finegan's book with Crump's drawing found in G.I. -- there are very minor differences and neither drawing has the islands of turf in the sand.

Tom:

This is just more of the thing I'm talking about with the way you're going about this. This is exactly why you've just got to forget about this partial material you're looking at and get to know both the history book and more importantly the golf course itself. Pat Mucci is absolutely right. This shows how you reach incorrect conclusions about things because you don't know various courses well enough probably solely because you haven't seen them.

Forget comparing Colt's booklet hole drawing to Crump's hole drawing from a 1917 article. That's not the way the hole is anyway. That's not the way it was finalized under the 1921 Advisory Committee. I've been looking at that Colt #17 hole drawing for three years. The hole is in the same place only shorter but the only bunker that's the same in both Colt and Crump's drawing and the way it is today is the big carry bunker on the right. From about 90 yards in, including the green itself the hole was redesigned by Alison. Crump's green did not work at all well--it was way too radical in contour and had to be changed. That was done by the 1921 Advisory Committee and Alison. I've looked at those two hole drawings and I've played and studied that hole as it is and has been since 1921 (minus the alternate fairway) hundreds of times and I guarantee you it's not the same in design!

You asked:

"Have you been able to identify who did the Red and Blue...and how did you draw your conclusions?
What approximate or estimated date do you (or does Finegan) put on the two plans?"

Tom:

I went through all that in minute detail on this thread and all for your benefit. You obviously didn't even read it. Go back and reread it--it's all there!


 

[T_MacWood]

Paul has sent me exerpts from Finegan's book--including the Colt drawing of the 17th.

I've read the Advisory Committee Report and seen Alison's drawings of the 17th.

I read what you wrote. You did not explain why you thought the Red was Crump. What is your estimated or aproximate date for the Red and Blue plans.

[T_MacWood]

TE
You've got some strange logic. Finegan makes a point about the Colt's 17th being different than the course as built--no carry bunkers--proof that Crump designed it. I explain that neither Crump's nor Colt's drawings of the 17th have the islands of grass, as proof that his conclusion in this case may be mistaken.

And you tell me that I had better play the course and look at the Advisory Committee Report (which I've read)--please explain how either would alter the fact that Finegan's conclusion regarding Colt and Crump in this case may be off the mark.

Do you have similar advice for Finegan?

[TEPaul]

"Paul has sent me exerpts from Finegan's book--"

Tom:

Excerpts just aren't going to cut it to really understand this stuff fully.

"I've read the Advisory Committee Report and seen Alison's drawing of the 17th."

Then you should've known that the way the hole is now and the way its basically been (other than natural evolution) since 1921 is not much in design like the drawings of the hole from either Colt or Crump. The hole is in the same place other than shorter now but that is certainly never the whole story or even remotely so of a golf hole.

"I read what you wrote. You did not explain why you thought the Red was Crump. What is your estimated or aproximate date for the Red and Blue plans."

Why I think the red lines are Crump is basically to do with deductive reasoning. Basically the same reasoning I think the blue lines and thinner lines are Colt's. Probably the most indicative being what we know from other sources and from Crump's own words that have to do with the 2nd green. This comes from a number of sources and it all corroborates both as to why the blue lines are Colt's and the red ones Crumps. You do know the significance of the 2nd green don't you?

Plus, it seems almost certain that in that early time it was the two of them that were out there together (during that week) and probably staying together out there in a glorified tent! I considered for a time that the red lines might be Ted Robinson, Rees or Tom Fazio or even Damon Passcuzzo but for a number of reasons that didn't seem that logical.

I would assume that the dates of the blue lines are probably that week Colt spent there. As for the red lines Crump probably just kept working with that routing map for years which could mean the dates of the red lines are from a very wide time spectrum, perhaps even June of 1913 until nearly the time he died. The first routing map, the real stick routing which I assume might have been Crump before Colt arrived is from March 1913 to maybe June 1913. And when Colt arrived Crump showed that to him and then they broke out a fresh duplicate copy of the surveyor's topo map---they are the same topos--just duplicates.

Have you ever tried to do a routing on a topo map Tom?

[T_MacWood]

"Then you should've known that the way the hole is now and the way its basically been (other than natural evolution) since 1921 is not much in design like the drawings of the hole from either Colt or Crump." I am very much aware of that...the point I was trying to make was in reference to Finegan's theory....perhaps you should tell him that both Crump and Colt's drawing of the 17th do not have the island's of turf, and perhaps he should check the 1921 Committee Report.  

"Why I think the red lines are Crump is basically to do with deductive reasoning. Basically the same reasoning I think the blue lines and thinner lines are Colt's. Probably the most indicative being what we know from other sources and from Crump's own words that have to do with the 2nd green. This comes from a number of sources and it all corroborates both as to why the blue lines are Colt's and the red ones Crumps. You do know the significance of the 2nd green don't you?" That makes perfect sense to me...I agree.

"I would assume that the dates of the blue lines are probably that week Colt spent there. As for the red lines Crump probably just kept working with that routing map for years which could mean the dates of the red lines are from a very wide time spectrum, perhaps even June of 1913 until nearly the time he died. The first routing map, the real stick routing which I assume might have been Crump before Colt arrived is from March 1913 to maybe June 1913. And when Colt arrived Crump showed that to him and then they broke out a fresh duplicate copy of the surveyor's topo map---they are the same topos--just duplicates." The blue looks to be fairly detailed and matches the 17th hole in the Colt booklet...my guess is they were created together and sent from the UK at the same time (a few months after Colt's visit). If the Red drawing was an evolving drawing over a period of June 1913 to January 1920, wouldn't there be numerous alterations to it? There only appears to be one change to the Red--the 13th--I believe that change occurred in 1914 or perhaps earlier.

I've never tried to do a routing on a topo map (unless you count my work with topo maps as a LArch student), but I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express.

[George Pazin]

While I am enjoying this debate, I wonder if things might go more smoothly if the participants were to lay out what would convince them one way or the other. It seems to me there is quite a bit missing (that may be missing forever) that almost precludes any sort of resolution.

For instance, even if the Colt hole drawing booklet appears similar to the final holes, does that mean definitively that the holes were routed or designed by Colt? Could they not have been refinements of ideas proposed by Crump, or ideas generated together during the week?

Similarly, if a routing were found dated prior to the week visit, would this lessen Colt's contributions? Perhaps he saw a topo in advance and laid out some ideas in advance for Crump.

It seems like some sort of criteria would need to be set. I'd also suggest some sort of working definition of "similar" golf holes - would similar lengths and general direction suffice? Do they need to feature similar locations of hazards? Etc.

[TEPaul]

"How are you so sure that the red lines are a working plan?"

Paul:

Have you seen face to face what we've been calling the second routing map that hangs in a frame in the front room of the clubhouse? One of the reasons I might refer to it as a "working plan" is because there's so much on it that appears to have possibly spanned a number of years--maybe two years, maybe even more. What all is on it certainly wasn't arrived at in May or June of 1913, in my opinion. The written and chronological record would indicate that to me.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP:

What you proposed is exactly the type of process I've been trying to follow on this thread and have written about and mentioned in my posts. It's the same process I've been following on this PVGC creation information discovery project for about the last three years. Basically I'm trying to follow known timelines using information that is solid and knowable and to plug any additonal information of any kind into it and its timelines. That type of process almost demands that one look at the entire PVGC time spectrum from maybe 1912 to 1921 or 1922 when the course was known to have been completely finalized. It doesn't matter to me who ends up getting credit for what or when--I just want to find out what happened and who did what!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW said:

"I am very much aware of that...the point I was trying to make was in reference to Finegan's theory....perhaps you should tell him that both Crump and Colt's drawing of the 17th do not have the island's of turf, and perhaps he should check the 1921 Committee Report."

Tom:

Perhaps you're right about that. I've been aware of that on #17 for about three years now. Jim Finegan is a great reseacher but we know even great researchers can make errors and overlook some things of apparent significance. #17 is probably one of them.

First of all, in fairness to Jim Finegan, his project, his history book of 2000 was intended to be total history of PVGC and not solely an architectural history. Jim has done a number of these, certainly the greatest of all the Centennial Book for the Golf Association of Philadelphia. That is some tome that tracks the history of all the clubs in this area- their total histories--members, notable competitors, tournaments, some architecture, and anything else of note. His latest book on PVGC is the same thing--there's everything about the history of the club and all those who were around it from the beginning and all the things they did--all of it--tournaments, competitors, notable events and other facts including some architectural facts and conclusions.

In fairness to Jim he did not write a book strictly about the evolution of the architecture of the club as I did about my club. That sort of thing is unusual. Basically club histories just aren't that way or haven't been until relatively recently.

The 1921 advisory committee Jim did go over but not in minute detail, just in some detail. After I got what I got from that time (some of which you and Paul have come across) I went through it very carefully and the specific detailed work of Alison and the 1921 Advisory committee may not have been covered or even analyzed in complete detail. My feeling is in recent times no one has been very aware of that intersting time. They may have looked at it but not with a global purpose or a specific purpose.

I called Jim just after the history book came out to tell him about that now semi-famous alternate fairway on #17 and basically he said, "God, you're telling me that now and my book is just done and out."

That's the way it goes in research sometimes, obviously. There seems like there's always things to know and reanalyze. But I think we're getting a far clearer picture in the last couple of years than has ever really been known. The reason for that, in my opinion, is all that info has always been there but no one has really bothered to analyze it all in minute detail and with specific purposes. The general purpose of determining who did what has always been there but it does get complicated to analyze sometimes.

The things we're doing now, no one has probably really cared to do before--there was never that sort of intense detailed interest before--that fact just takes understanding the way the world changes. In 1948 Ross's family, immediately following his death, took many of his records and dumped them in a oil barrel and burned them. Many years later when I asked someone who knows why or how that could have happened, she said because back then no one really thought anyone would ever care about those records. It was the truth!