Interesting Augusta National Drawing

[Sven Nilsen]

The image below was posted on another forum recently as a teaser for an upcoming auction.  It was described as signed by Mackenzie and originating out of the estate of Wendell Miller. 


It's hard to make out the text on the image.  Best I can make out is that it describes the 3rd (today's 12th) as a 145-165 yard par 3 and the 4th (today's 13th) as a 430-??? par 4.  The signature block is indecipherable in the version of the image I've seen.


Has anyone seen anything like this in the past, namely an individual hole drawing of Augusta like this?


How much do we know about the original plans for 12 and 13?  Every yardage listing for 12 I've seen from the early days caps the yardage at 150.  And although I believe I've heard the idea that 13 was being considered as a par 4, I don't think I've ever seen anything affirmatively stating this to be true.

[Tom_Doak]

Where's IST when you need him?   


I have not seen any individual hole drawings like that before, for Augusta or for any other MacKenzie course I can think of -- usually he stuck to the overall routing plans, plus the green drawings.  So that's quite interesting.


The listed par and yardage of the holes is not as interesting, to me.  The 13th looks like exactly the same hole it always was, just measures it shorter and therefore calls it a par-4.  Same for the 12th, it's only the caption that makes it interesting, and even that is not that interesting.

[Sven Nilsen]

Realized I've seen this image before.  It was included in the 1932 Annual Golf Review along with a similar image of the 5th hole. 

[Tom_Doak]

Sven:


Hard to see from your first photo, but is it possible that the handwritten stuff underneath are the captions printed in the second post you made?  They look to be about the right length, and divided into titles for the Third Hole and Fourth Hole.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven:


Hard to see from your first photo, but is it possible that the handwritten stuff underneath are the captions printed in the second post you made?  They look to be about the right length, and divided into titles for the Third Hole and Fourth Hole.

Tom:


Nice catch, certainly looks like it could be the case.


Unfortunately, the copy I have doesn't let me zoom in clearly enough to tell.


Sven

[Tommy Naccarato]

The late, great Tom MacWood had contacted Wendell Miller’s son who lived here in LA and had told him of these drawings as well as other things he kept of his father’s.  Tom was, at the time going to either fly out here to meet up with him…. Sadly…..

[Sven Nilsen]

The late, great Tom MacWood had contacted Wendell Miller’s son who lived here in LA and had told him of these drawings as well as other things he kept of his father’s.  Tom was, at the time going to either fly out here to meet up with him…. Sadly…..

Tommy:


Looks like WM's entire collection is getting sold piecemeal through thegolfauction.com.  A number of very cool photos and plans have already been sold off, and it seems like there's more coming out.


On the two 1932 Annual Golf Review article images there look to be initials in the lower right corner of the image that probably denote who did the drawings.  By the style, it seems unlikely that they were done by Mackenzie.


My guess is that these drawing were put together sometime late in the year in 1932, prior to the course opening but well after initial plans had been put together for the course.  The interesting part to me is how in flux those plans were, with 5 being considered as a par 5 and 13 as a par 4 at that point, among other discrepancies from the final form.


Sven

[Tom_Doak]

With MacKenzie unable to travel east, and not getting paid, it's a reasonable assumption that Bobby Jones had someone else playing around with detailed designs for various holes.  Did Wendell Miller draw?  I don't know who else was on site that would be a candidate.


The drawing for #14 [today's 5th] shows a couple of bunkers that were never built, AFAIK.  So these drawings were pretty early in the process, whoever drew them.

[BCrosby]

Is it possible the drawings were by the Olmsted Bros.? Given the detail of the vegetation and the careful shading, the illustrator was reasonably talented.


Good catch on the 5th (current). It had no greenside bunkers when the course opened.


There is also something off about the scale of the drawing of the 13th (current). Is the distance from the LZ to the green foreshortened in the drawing?


Bob







 

[Tommy Naccarato]

The late, great Tom MacWood had contacted Wendell Miller’s son who lived here in LA and had told him of these drawings as well as other things he kept of his father’s.  Tom was, at the time going to either fly out here to meet up with him…. Sadly…..

Tommy:


Looks like WM's entire collection is getting sold piecemeal through thegolfauction.com.  A number of very cool photos and plans have already been sold off, and it seems like there's more coming out.


On the two 1932 Annual Golf Review article images there look to be initials in the lower right corner of the image that probably denote who did the drawings.  By the style, it seems unlikely that they were done by Mackenzie.


My guess is that these drawing were put together sometime late in the year in 1932, prior to the course opening but well after initial plans had been put together for the course.  The interesting part to me is how in flux those plans were, with 5 being considered as a par 5 and 13 as a par 4 at that point, among other discrepancies from the final form.


Sven

Possibly Ian Scott-Taylor?!? Lol!🤣😂🤣😂🤣


Joking aside, the hole features, the greens, bunkers, creeks, tees, even some of the lettering, etc. look very much the MacKenzie hand-drawn style, but the trees, plan symbols and plan lettering looks more draftsman-style.  Miller had at least two offices in various parts of the country.  It would be speculation that he had staff that could do this, but Bob’s idea that possibly the Olmstead’s were involved surely likely.