Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Bryan Izatt on December 20, 2011, 05:50:16 PM
-
The purpose of this post is to document the various sources, over the years, of the discovery by George A. Crump of the Pine Valley property. If you’re interested in Pine Valley, I've gathered as many of the stories about the discovery as I can find. It’s a small piece of the PV puzzle, but I found it interesting.[/size]
Some months ago Tom MacWood was espousing his conclusion that George A. Crump’s discovery of the Pine Valley property as an ideal spot for a golf course was the result of “hunting” the property. Concurrently he was calling Tillinghast’s “train” story a myth. In support of his conclusion that Crump discovered the property while hunting, he cited eight people who he claimed espoused the hunting story. To support his claim that the Tillinghast train story was a myth he produced five facts/questions that he felt proved that the train story wasn’t possible, that it was a myth.
My curiosity was piqued, so I decided to track down the 8 “hunting” stories that were antithetical to the “train” story. I was curious as to what was actually written on both sides and how there could be two such distinct stories regarding the discovery and why the outcome had to be an either/or conclusion.
Tom was not very helpful in citing the source and date of the 8 hunting stories, admonishing me to go find them. Well, eventually I found all of them.
Following are the 8 “hunting” stories, as proposed by Tom MacWood, in chronological order.
1914 Joe Bunker
"George A. Crump a few years ago while taking a horseback trip near Clementon, New Jersey, was so impressed with a sandy tract that he invited a number of Philadelphians to go on an exploring trip with him. They found a tract of virgin forest made up chiefly of scrub oak and pine and then and there decided that it contained a splendid golf course."
There is no mention of Crump hunting. Or, that he knew the land from his youth. The horseback ride may well have been on the Virginia Ireland estate across the RR tracks from Pine Valley’s site. Or, it could have been anywhere else “near” Clementon. Only when he took a number of Philadelphians to explore it with him did he decide it would be a splendid golf course, not from the train and not while hunting.
1915 Simon Carr
“They desired a course where there would be
practically no closed season throughout the year. In
discussing the problem, they had the seaside in mind,
chiefly the region about Atlantic City; but the great
distance from Philadelphia, and the extreme difficulty
of securing a suitable location, caused the
project of a seashore course to be dropped.
The region outside of Camden was searched in all
directions, until, finally, Mr. George A. Crump discovered
a perfectly wonderful bit of golf land at
Sumner Station, on the Atlantic City Division of the
Reading Railroad, thirteen miles outside of Camden.
"I think we have happened on something pretty
fine," he reported to his friends in Philadelphia. His
friends hastened down to have a look at the discovery.
The tract was heavily wooded with pine and oak, and
had an undergrowth as dense as a jungle. For a
month it was gone over carefully on foot; every detail
of conformation was noted; the soil carefully examined
in all parts, and, finally, in October, 1912, a
tract of 184 acres was purchased.”
Carr, who was certainly contemporaneous with Crump and directly involved with Pine Valley, does not say anything about how Crump originally “discovered” the site other than he was searching in all directions. Certainly, nothing definitive here about discovery through “hunting”.
June 1921 Alan Wilson
"Pine Valley, to be entirely Irish, is made up of hills-big, bold, sandy
hills which some freak of nature has pushed up from the level Jersey plain
by which it is surrounded. Small lakes lie among them, and when George
Crump, while on a shooting trip, first discovered the country, it was covered
with a dense growth of pine and oak."
This is the first one that definitively says the property was discovered while on a hunting (shooting) trip. It is written a decade after the “discovery” and 3 years after Crump’s death. There is no indication of how Wilson heard the story, direct or indirect.
November 1921 Ellsworth Giles
“THE romance of the Pine Valley Golf,
Club of Philadelphia clusters about the
life and charming personality of the
lamented George W. Crump, a Philadelphian
whose memory his former golfing confreres
delight to honor. Could a Fenimore Cooper
unfold the fascinating story of the conception
and inception of Pine Valley, with Crump the
Pathfinder, it would grip us like a chapter
from the Leather Stocking Tales laid around
Otsego Lake, on whose picturesque shores
now nestle two nine-hole golf courses, where
In place of a wigwam stands the Colonial
club house, and where once flew the poisoned
arrow now flies the "glory dimple," while
only a mashie shot away and on the blue
lake’s bosom rides majestically the immortal
"Natty Bumpo.”
The story goes, and it is not fiction, that
George Crump with dog and gun roamed the
wild uninhabited wastes and explored the
sand hills sheltered by the spreading pine
forests of Jersey. This practical dreamer,
while still a hotel proprietor in the Quaker
City, had set for himself the million-dollar
goal which, when reached, should entitle him
to retire from active business and devote the
remaining days of his life to fulfilling his
dream of helping to give to Philadelphia the
ideal golf links.”
I included the lead in paragraph simply because I was taken by its grandiloquent style.
Giles gets more specific in describing a “dog and gun”. Although he doesn’t say “hunting”, I guess it’s implicit that he was hunting while roaming and exploring.
Giles and Wilson published their one line comments pretty close to each other and well after Crump’s death. Perhaps there was some kind of event at Pine Valley in 1921 that they both attended. Both one-liners sound to me like they were derived from the same source.
1925 J.E. Ford
"His only interests then were golf and hunting." "His rambles afield with his gun and dogs often took Crump thru the fastness of pine and oak below Clementon." Ford later states that Perrin and Crump "journeyed one morning late in the summer of 1912 to Sumner station on the Atlantic City division of the Reading Railroad. They plunged into the wilderness west of the railroad tracks"
The article was written 13 years after the fact. Again, there is a mention of gun and dogs with the hunting implicit, but no specific references to discovering the tract while hunting. The article goes on to describe Crump’s and Perrin’s thoughts and conversations and actions while exploring the property that summer day in 1912. Although Ford quotes the conversation of Crump and Perrin it seems unlikely that he was there since at no time does he insert himself into the scene. Since Crump was long dead, perhaps he got it from Perrin.
1926 Jerry Travers
"Over this rarely picturesque spot in the lowlands of Southern Jersey hovers the memory of the man who conceived it and to whose broad vision and unstinted energy Pine Valley now stands as a monument I met him some years ago George Crump, a splendid, whole-souled chap then in the fullness of his life. To him Pine Valley was the dream of a lifetime come true. As a boy he had traversed every foot of the sandy soil with a shotgun slung over his shoulder as he and his comrades spent days in the woods bagging quail, which were to be found in abundance there. It was the place of his dreams. In his later years, when he had prospered and found his notch in the world of business as a hotel owner of wealth and affluence, his eyes and heart turned again toward the wooden spot in which he found so much joy in his youth. George Crump told me of it himself. The vision of Pine Valley transformed into a masterpiece of golf architecture came to him on one of those exhilarating expeditions he was again making over its white-grained expanses and through its quail-inhabited thickets"
The quote comes from a book entitled "The Fifth Estate" that Travers co-wrote with James R. Crowell. Travers claims to have heard about Pine Valley directly from George Crump. James Crowell appears to have been a professional writer on many subjects. It is likely that he wrote the book based on Travers' remembrances.
Travers was the best amateur golfer of his time who had met Crump in competition, including a 14 &13 thrashing that was the then largest margin of victory ever. Travers describes in the book when he first saw Pine Valley:
"The first time I saw Pine Valley was in the late
afternoon of a fine summer day some years ago,
when only fourteen holes had been completed.
That same day I had won an invitation tournament
at the Huntington Valley Country Club, in
the suburbs of Philadelphia, and was at the top of
my form.
This was likely in 1915.
The story says that Crump hunted quail "as a boy" with a shotgun and in the company of "his comrades". Seems a little romantic to me to envisage "boys" hunting with shotguns and knowing that they are on land that would become Pine Valley 15 or 20 years later. The Pine Valley tract was private property with Bowman the owner when Crump was a boy. There is no mention of hunting it in 1909 as Shelley later describes based on photographs. I question how he could have been hunting on it both as a boy and when he rediscovered it as a potential golf course.
1927 Thomas Uzzell
“Mr. Crump was the son of a British Consul to
this country who was a great huntsman and who
purchased the present property near the village of
Clementon, New Jersey, as a hunting preserve.
The son, inheriting the property, became interested
in golf and sensing the matchless appropriateness
of the land for a golf course devoted himself
wholeheartedly to producing the finest layout
money, devotion, and human ingenuity could
devise. He began the work in 1910 from his home
at Merchantsville near Philadelphia."
Uzzell’s basic premise that Crump’s father bought the property as a hunting preserve and that Crump inherited it and became interested in golf is factually incorrect. The deeds prove that Crump purchased the land from Lumberton sand company who in turn had purchased it from Kratz.
This part of the article provides no credible support for the hunting story. Uzzell just plain got it wrong for reasons unknown to me.
1927 Jack Nunneville
"Mr. Crump bought over 300 acres of ground years
ago for a hunting preserve and tramped it time and
again with his dogs, for he was a great huntsman."
Nunneville statement that Crump bought the property “years ago” as a “hunting preserve” is also factually incorrect. Given that he and Uzzell published in the same year suggests that one was derivative of the other’s error or they both got the same erroneous story from some other source who was in error.
This article also provides no credible support for the hunting story.
1948 Herbert Warren Wind
“One of the great courses of the world, Pine Valley, was the work of a non-professional architect, George Crump. One day when Crump was out hunting in the harsh stretches of sand and pine in western New Jersey, the idea came to him that this was the perfect land for building a golf course that would be fundamentally fair and yet would be a course that would stand up to the wizards who were making scores in the 60’s seem as prosaic as brushing your teeth.”
This one comes well after the fact, so must have been derivative of some other source. Wind was certainly not there at the time.
One wonders where all the “wizards” making scores in the 60’s came from in the Crump era. Travers was reportedly the only scratch amateur in the 1900’s and medal scores in tournaments at the time seemed to be more in the mid to high 70’s to low 80’s. Perhaps Wind was embellishing a bit.
There was also a picture accompanying the story in Wind’s book, Golf in America, from which this quote comes. I can’t say with certainty whether this picture was in the 1948 edition or was added in later editions. It is the “hunting” photo that has been posted here a number of times. I would guess that Wind would have got a copy of it from the Pine Valley archives. Perhaps Wilson, Giles and Ford had seen the picture at Pine Valley before they wrote about hunting. The picture, of course, doesn’t show a gun or dog(s).
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Crumprestingamidthepines.jpg)
1982 Warner Shelley
"Some reporting by the press at the time mentioned Crump had seen the property from the train. But there is proof that in fact he knew the grounds by tramping through them with his gun and dogs while hunting for small game with which the property was well blessed. A photo of Crump resting amid the pines in 1909 is testimony of that fact. It could be that, in tramping through the grounds, he saw more of the trees and shrubs than the forest and perhaps only realized the rolling nature and the possibilities when he saw it at a greater distance from the train. In any case, he found a great location for the building of a golf course, no matter how."
This piece was certainly written well after the fact. Clearly Shelley had access to the photo that is published in Wind’s book. The picture does indeed show Crump “resting amid the pines”. The quality of the “proof” rests squarely on the date of 1909 and the supposition that it was taken somewhere on what became Pine Valley property 3 to 4 years later. The proof would be more compelling if we could vet how the timing and location of the photo was arrived at. Hence, Pat’s pursuit of the supposed caption on the back of the photo.
Shelley does allow that Crump may have only realized the rolling nature and possibilities of the site when he saw it at a greater distance from the train.
Recently, another hunting picture has come to my attention. This one is purportedly of Crump hunting, but this time with both gun and dogs visible. Perhaps the writers in the 1920’s had seen this picture in addition to or in place of the other “resting amid the pines” picture. Again, this picture would be compelling that Crump hunted the property, if the location and date of the picture could be vetted.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Crumpwithgunanddogs.jpg)
2000 Jim Finegan
"What is obvious is that George Crump, a search committee of one, took his obligation seriously. For years, Pine Valley lore had it that Crump spotted the land from a train window one wintry Saturday on his way to Atlantic City and said to himself, "What a place for a golf course!" But as Warner Shelley points out in his invaluable Pine Valley Golf Club: A Chronicle, published in 1982, "... he [Crump] knew the grounds by tramping through them with his gun and dogs. A photo of Crump resting amid the pines in 1909 is a testimony of that fact..."
"For years Pine Valley lore had it that Crump spotted the land from a train window one wintry Saturday on his way to the seashore and said to himself, "What a place for a golf course!" More recently, however, evidence has surfaced that he had come to know the ground by virtue of hunting for small game there. In any event, as 1912 was drawing to a close, he wrote to his friends: "I think I have landed on something pretty fine."
This one is also clearly written well after the fact and is derivative of other sources. The evidence that Finegan mentions seems likely to have been the hunting picture that Shelley offers as “proof”.
2005 Thomas MacWood
“There are a number of legends surrounding how Crump found the site. The two most common: Crump discovered the site gazing out the window of a train on his way to or from Atlantic City or Crump knew of the site from hunting trips, perhaps even as a boy. Another tale claimed he inherited the land from his father. An erroneous variation of the train story had British golf architect Colt on board with him.
The two most popular stories come from very reliable sources: the train window story comes from AW Tillinghast and John Arthur Brown, the hunting story from Jerome Travers and Alan Wilson. I suspect they are both true. He discovered the wild site from a train with perhaps an eye for shooting rather than golf, but once he began wandering the site gun in hand, he found the most perfect land for golf, land not unlike the rugged heathland outside London.”
This article was also written well after the fact and derived from other sources. In 2005, Tom was apparently of the opinion that Crump discovered the site, for hunting, from the train and recognized it as perfect ground for golf while hunting.
(to be continued)
-
(continued)
___________________________________________________________________
The train story was contemporaneous with the actual events and was started in the Philadelphia Record and by “Hazard” in American Golfer. The Phildelphia Record columnist is thought to be Tillinghast and "Hazard" is also thought to be A. W. Tillinghast’s pen name in American Golfer. Both stories are written as giving a first person account. Most of the subsequent articles, if not all, seem to be derivative of Tillinghast’s initial stories with more or less detail.
1913 Philadelphia Record
This section is to have still another golf course, one which may eclipse any of the others. Although I have known of the plans for over a year, I had promised secrecy and only recently have I absolved from that promise; consequently the announcement appears in print today for the first time. Every one is aware of the superiority of South Jersey courses during the winter months, and golfers from Philadelphia spend many week-ends on the links at Atlantic City during the cold weather. The sandy soil quickly melts snow and drains very quickly, and is altogether admirable for the purposes of golf. Nearly three years ago George A. Crump, the well known player, was on one of the Reading Railway trains, bound for the seaside links. Glancing out of the window, he saw a tract of land which rivetted (sic) his attention instantly, for, unlike the usual flat Jersey landscape, this was beautifully rolling and hilly. Immediately it occurred to him that the land would be ideal for a golf course. It is situated close by the railroad tracks about 15 miles from Camden, near Clementon.
1913 Hazard
"To come quickly to the point this
district is to have another course and
I anticipate that it will be one of which
we will be proud. To Mr. George A.
Crump we must give the credit of the
discovery for he found it as he chanced
to glance through the window of a
rapidly moving train. This particular
tract was different from the rather
monotonous south Jersey flat country,
yet there it was with beautiful undulations
and hillocks. Mr. Crump's first
thought was the connection of this
tract with golf. None but an old
golfer would have done so for as it is
it looks very unlike a golf course.
Scrub trees and underbrush cover it
and the white sand shows everywhere.
It is just as it was three years ago
when Mr. Crump first saw it, but since
then it has been purchased and plans
are being made to convert it into what
I believe will be the best course in this
district."
1913 American Cricketer
“Three years ago George A. Crump, who frequently travelled down to Atlantic City for his winter golf, one day looked out from the window of the train and his eye fell on a tract of scrub-wooded land, but it was different from the usual Jersey territory which stretched in monotonous flatness in every direction. This land was hilly and rolling . “What a place for a golf course!” he said to himself, and he began a quiet investigation. Later a few of the leading players of Philadelphia visited the place with Mr. Crump, and they were quite as enthusiastic as he. Now the property has been purchased and a club is being organized.”
Philadelphia Inquirer 1914
"Just about ten years ago, according to their own estimates, a coterie of Philadelphia's deepest dyed-in-the-wool golfers began a search for an ideal links. Their quest antedated the similar attempts of New Yorkers by a year at least. By 1904 it was evident that golf had come to stay in America, but the subclay soils among Philadelphia suburbs made it impossible to play with any degree of comfort more than seven months each year, despite extensive drainage systems, put in at larger clubs like Merion. But a sandy soil that would serve as a filter was not the only thing demanded. The old guard and some of the new guard, too, for that matter, wished an up-to-date links scientifically trapped and requiring thinking golf, which is more than can be said for some clubs where pink teas and ham bites seem to be the chief end of man and woman.
At first the search was in a desultory way from hearsay and railroad car windows. Years sped by without definite results, until it became apparent that a closer canvas must be begun, so many an automobile trip was made half with that end in view.
About two years ago, after locations as far away as Northfield and Somers Point had been exhausted, the choice narrowed to Pine Valley, close to the Reading Railway, sixteen miles below Philadelphia, on the direct line to Atlantic City. It is also close to the White Horse pike, an automobile route.
* * * *
"The land there, comprising 184 rolling acres, is, or was, the highest ground in Southern New Jersey, 200 feet at points above sea level, being 100 years ago the home of the Delaware Indians. It is the watershed between the Tuckahoe and Delaware Rivers.
"The first blow of the ax was struck there last February; ........................."
Hazard Feb 1918
“He discovered this wonderful
tract of land when it was covered with
trees and to many it seemed like folly
to attempt transforming it to a golf
course.
Hazard Apr 1919
"Everyone realized the great possi-
bilities of the Northfield course and
it seemed a great chance to develop a
real championship course, such as
Philadelphia could not offer at that
time. Proposals were made to the
owners of the course at Atlantic City,
but they, possibly fearing that the
course would be reconstructed until
it would be too difficult for average
players, declined to make any material
changes. It was soon after this that
Mr. George Crump discovered the
Pine Valley tract, as he looked from
a train window en route to Atlantic
City.”
1933 Hazard
"I have told of our winter habit of taking train from Camden
for the hour's run to North-field. George Crump invariably
was of the party and on several occasions
I observed him looking intently
from the train window as we
passed through a section about
twenty miles out. As a matter of
fact his attention had been attracted
by a freakish bit of country in South
Jersey, freakish because it was so
totally different from the monotonous
flat lands of those parts. At first
he said nothing to anyone, but
quietly, as was his wont in everything
he did. He visited the tract and
took option on one hundred and
eighty acres of gently-hilled, pine-covered,
sandy land—the tract which
he had so intently studied from the
passing trains.”
1963 John Arthur Brown
"Pine Valley had a rather unusual beginning.
In the early 1900 a group of enthusiastic golfers from the Philadelphia Country Club at Bala, Pennsylvania, occasionally journeyed to Atlantic City on the Reading Railroad to play the Atlantic City Country Club. George Crump was the leader of the group.
Our old record indicate that on one trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which apparently was suitable for a golf course. This raised is curiosity and later he and Howard Perrin, the first President of the Pine Valley Golf Club, spent several days tramping over the grounds which now comprise the Club.
The property at the time was owned by Sumner Ireland who had a residence nearby. The railroad station at that point was then called Sumner.
Crump's old records indicate his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of a most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property had one time had been covered by the ocean.
Crump formed a syndicate and in 1912 bought 184 acres from Mr. Ireland. Some of the old newspaper articles are interesting in this connection. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1914, is worth quoting in full. It gives an excellent description.
"The land there, comprising 184 rolling acres, is, or was, the highest ground in Southern New Jersey, 200 feet at points above sea level, being 100 years ago the home of the Delaware Indians. It is the watershed between the Tuckahoe and Delaware Rivers.
"The first blow of the ax was struck there last February; ........................."
This version of the "train" story is also after the fact. Brown was President of the Club for many years, starting in 1929, but was not there in the beginning. His version of the story is likely derivative of a newspaper article. The story also includes some erroneous information - the property was bought from Mr. Ireland.
My conclusion from all this is that both stories are still in play until there is some vetting of the photo “proof”. If the photos are vetted and reliably shown to have been taken in 1909, and the location was shown to be known as the 194 acre Pine Valley property, then the “hunting” discovery story would surely be how Crump first “discovered” the Pine Valley tract. But, even Shelley who provides the photo proof is not confident enough in his proof to categorically support the “hunting” story and throw away the “train” story. He even provides a possible rationalization of the “train” story.
Even if the “hunting” story proves out true, I would still have to believe that Crump pointed the tract out to Tillinghast as they passed on the train.
Now, to address Tom’s assertions about why the train story must be a myth:
1. Crump was not playing golf in 1910.
Crump may well have not been playing competitive golf in 1910, but the articles cited do not prove that Crump did not occasionally play his weekend matches in Atlantic City with friends.
2. Tilly was playing little or no golf in 1910 because of his involvement at Shawnee.
See above.
3. Crump considered two other sites prior to settling on the current site in 1912.
Crump was searching on behalf of a group. Would it have been prudent to just tell them that he already had decided on a site without considering their preferred option of a property closer to the shores? Whether he “discovered” it by hunting, or by train, or some combination of both, it would have been prudent to consider alternatives before taking them to Pine Valley. Perhaps initially even he wanted to be closer to the shore.
4. Crump's 1912 letter stating he just found the site.
Is this the one where he said "I think I have landed on something pretty fine.”? It could easily mean that he had decided on the ideal place after considering the options. Nowhere does it say he “just” found it. Regardless of whether he discovered the property from the train in 1910 or while hunting in 1909, he could have written the same thing.
5. The majority claim the site was found hunting.
History by majority seems a very weak argument to me. Tillinghast gave a first person account in 1913. The story was published at least 5 times. The “hunting” story didn’t surface until the 1920’s (unless Travers predated that). The multiple hunting stories, some of which are provably erroneous and some of which don’t mention hunting at all, also seem derivative of one another. Perhaps they are all based on various people seeing the photos in the Pine Valley archive, after the fact. In any event, relying on whatever numerical majority there is of source people is really bad historical analysis.
-
Bryan,
Good post(s). I don't know that this is the subject for much of a thread other than to divert the whole argument onto this thread as opposed to the other, but it was a worthwhile effort to put the "stores" up next to one another for the sake of comparison. It will likely be the first time Pat gets to read any of them...other then Shelly's.
I can slightly ammend your responses to Tom's first two reasons why the train story is a myth.
1 - Crump spent three months abroad exclusively for golf at the end of 1910. To say unequivocably that he wasn't playing golf is completely mistaken although there are reports saying he was not playing in tournaments that year due to business. He sold the family hotel during the year. Tom has used as proof that he wasn't playing that his rounds (in Atlantic City and Philadelphia) were frequently reported about and that none were reported that year. He provided about 6 reports over a 5-10 year period mentioning his presence in a golf outing of one sort or another but I doubt that's all the golf he played so there is no reason at all to think he didn't play a single round prior to his Europe trip.
2 - AWT finished 25th in the US Open. That should be enough on that...
On further thought...and in support of your explanations in #4 - considering a closing date on October 31, 1912 I'd say his letter was an announcement...more like a businss update telling his colleagues what was going on. In conjunction with all the reports of Crump going there multiple times to explore (after his initial "discovery"; however that occurred) it's self explanatory that he didn't just see the site and shoot off a letter to the guys...
-
Silly question: What difference does it make whether Crump first discovered the property while hunting or riding on a train?
-
Silly question: What difference does it make whether Crump first discovered the property while hunting or riding on a train?
Perhaps it would offer insight into whether he conceived the course to be strategically penal or penally strategic?
-
Silly answer: I guess it depends for whomever is interested as to what difference it makes. That's probably true of most everything posted here on gca.com.
-
Bryan,
I don't think that any AWT's various accounts of the discovery ought to be considered "first person accounts." Crump is the one who reportedly discovered the property. Crump's account would be a first person account, but not AWT's.
AWT finally injected himself into the story by putting himself on the train, but this wasn't until 1933, was it? Even if AWT was right there with him on the train (a big if considering AWT's delay in bringing forward this portion of the story), his account is still not first person. Even according to AWT, Crump didn't say anything to anyone until later.
AWT may have gotten his his information from Crump himself, but Travers also claims to have gotten his information for Crump. And Carr, Wilson, and "Joe Bunker" were all contemporaries of Crump and in at least as good as position to have gotten information directly from Crump. Can you think of any reason to give AWT's story greater weight than any of theirs? I cannot.
____________________________________
Jim and Bryan, I don't know whether Crump golfed in 1910 or not, and I don't really care one way or another. But neither of you give Tom MacWood's theory a fair shake on this point. I looked into it myself, and Crump's golfing activities were well reported throughout various golf seasons when he was golfing. Such reports are non-existent during 1910. I provided an accounting of this on a previous thread, but the search function is broken so I cannot access it. But Jim, there were many more that "6 reports over a 5-10 year period" and I specifically provided you with that information in another thread.
_____________________________________________
I really don't care about all this RR vs. hunting controversy. I have no idea why people care about it, except that it is another reason to argue.
What is most interesting to me is the timing. More specifically, I am curious as to whether Crump was already considering this plot before he traveled abroad in late 1910.
-
Not only was he not playing golf in 1910, Crump wrote to his friends in 1912 and told them he had just found the perfect site. Also we know Crump considered two other sites (circa 1912) before discovering and settling on the current site. If he discovered this site in 1910, on the train with Tilly, and the others who are also AC regulars, why did he consider two sites prior to?
Tilly also tells us he observed Crump looking out the train window, but he also says Crump at the time never told him or anyone else what he was looking at. How did Tilly recall this event so vividly? Was Crump breathing heavily as he neared Sumner? The story is bogus.
I agree with David I don't really care how he found it, its more important when he found it and when he purchased it. As I have said many times before, as Philly myths go, this is a minor one.
-
TMac, if he had hunted it previously, as a kid, whatever, wouldn't we have to ask why he would say he had just found the perfect site? I will presume he didn't just start hunting it in 1912 while under active mining by Lumberton. It seems like he knew it a long time according to most of the contemporary hunting accounts.
It seems as if the same logic would apply - even moreseo - if he had known of the site for years. And, not to word parse, but as Bryan pointed out, his exact words weren't that he had just found it, but that he had landed on something pretty fine.
As to the relative worth of the stories, frankly, both sound bogus or lengendary to me. It doesn't suprise me, as everyone wanted to relay their role in the great creation. Deciding whether Tillie's or the others are more bogus is a bit much, even if fun. That said, I have always felt that Tillies three consistent tellings, and level of detail work in his favor, not against. I simply don't agree that he would tell the same stories, and go into the detail of witholding info at Crump's request, him going out on his own before taking his group out, etc.
Carr is also contemporary, involved and doesn't really discount a train siting. He just says Crump looked over near Camden after the seaside idea was dropped and that they all went out in summer 1912 for a few months before buying the property later.
I am also of the opinion that Pat should drop his over reliance on Shelly, since its not a contemporaneous source. It appears he was struggling with the credit much like we are. He says there is evidence that Crump knew of the land, but its the same evidence we have - a photo and some contemporaneous accounts. We are just as able to parse that as he was in 1982. And, we know from other club histories, that they often just reviewed past material and rehashed it rather than do the extensive searching for more than many of you do here. After all, he probably had a deadline, this site doesn't!
I basically agree with Bryan, if you take Tillie and Carr, there is probably an explanation that fits both of their accounts. Carr doesn't say he found it first on horseback, hunting or whatever. Tillie would just have to be making up a lot of details, which I doubt he would do. Did he exagerate the drama a bit to tell the story? Sure. He may have turned a passing mention of that site looking interesting for golf into a legend all its own, but with a grain of truth.
-
David and Tom,
Since you seem to agree with each other that you don't really care about the discovery story, I won't waste your time or my time by responding to your specific points. I stand by the quotes I posted and my observations on them. I think they address both your points anyway.
All that I'd observe is, that between 1913 and 1915, the reports by Tillinghast multiple times, Joe Bunker and Carr don't even hint at "hunting". These were the guys who were most contemporaneous and closest in time.
Tom,
its more important when he found it and when he purchased it.
As to when he found it, based on the evidence we have now, you have a choice between 1909 from the hunting picture or 1910 from the train story. Of course, both conflict with your interpretation of his supposed letter that said he'd just "landed" on it in 1912.
Tell me again why, if it's important when he purchased the property, that the Deeds thread was such a waste of your time? You did read the deed where he purchased the land, didn't you? It did answer that important question of when he purchased it, didn't it?
-
Does anyone here know the actual date of the letter in which Crump said he "landed on something pretty fine"?
-
Fake, just like the lunar landing.
-
Bryan,
I don't know if it's important, but it sure is interesting!
But, given its the world's top golf course, and its a unique one at that, understanding the thought process of how they selected the site is important to know. Just like I was fascinated that Merion came about as a "real estate course" it almost dumbfounds me how close they came to just remodeling or building a course on the Jersey shore, because location was at first more important than quality.
The debate here might have been more productive to explore the late 1910 GBI golf trip and letter back for maps of Camden County. Obviously (to me) the great courses over their influenced his thinking away quickly and in a big way from a more mundane site at Atlantic City. He couldn't even wait to get home to start looking at Camden Co, he wanted those maps ready when he got there!
I think the goal was always to build a tough, top notch course and GAC seemed to realize on that trip that his committee had it all wrong in selecting locale over site for the course. Another question to flesh out is why he did work in secret, as Tillie wrote, for a few years? Did he know his group well enough to presume the idea of moving away from AC would take a while to percolate and be agreed to by them? He does seem to have kept up the ruse of looking at AC long after he became convinced of the desireability of the PV area. Negotiation ploy to keep price low? Took that long to figure out what parcels might be available?
So, that does suggest that he was generally aware of the golfing potential there, and the chance that the sandy areas near Clementon would best replicate the sandy links conditions he saw in GBI, no? I would guess that might support the hunting story a bit more strongly than the train story, given he would know that a relatively large area had the sand barrens and needed to know which tract within that area might be available. He couldn't know how far those barrens extended from the window of a train, but MIGHT know how big the area was from hunting or other familiarity with the land.
In any event, the debate over it is silly, IMHO, and the real takeaway would be to know how and when his thought process morphed from AC to Clementon, and why. No contemporary seems to address that to the degree we would like.
-
The Jerome Travers quote comes from his book, and Brian has excluded the portion about Crump being familiar with the site through hunting.
The Crump letter to his friends must have been August or September 1912. Carr tells us that it was sent in 1912, and then said they went over the property thoroughly for one month before purchasing it in October.
Regarding Finegan's new evidence...Bryan's speculation, is just that, speculation.
-
Bryan,
To answer your question about the date of Travers book, he wrote or co-wrote three, but the PV comments must have appeared in his third book, “The Fifth Estate: Thirty Years of Golf,” published in 1926. The book is co-authored by James R. Crowell. It includes several black and white photographs including early photos of Pine Valley. A review says Travers had no shortage of strong opinions and states in the book that Pine Valley was the finest course he had ever played.
So, this source is 14 years past the fact, and is a book focused on many things, not the least of which is Travers meteoric career. We can only surmise how much contact he had at PV, and how hard he researched the historic part of his comments, although, he obviously was fond of PV.
I think I would stick mostly with Carr and Tillie for contemporaneous sources. I say Tillie, because while he wrote under his own name in 1933, if we presume he was the author of the Philadephia Record article in 1913, and Hazard and/or Joe Bunker, as most do, then his accounts were both contemporaneous and consistent over many years. I guess that is an unknown for sure.
BTW, Carr mentions the train station as a point of reference, not hunting grounds! His account seems consistent with most of what we know, other than why it took from January 1911 (return from GBI) until Summer 1912 for Crump to take his buds out to this site. It doesn't really say when the AC sites were dropped from consideration, either.
-
Bryan,
I care about the "discovery story," just not this silliness of train versus hunting.
I am very surprised you stand by your observation that AWT's was a "first person account" of the discovery of the property. It wasn't. You must realize this.
AWT's 1933 account is questionable at best. Whenever key details are added 20 years later, one has to wonder.
I am also surprised that you don't give any credence to Travers' account. Whenever he wrote the book, Travers claims to have gotten his information straight from Crump.
As to when he found it, based on the evidence we have now, you have a choice between 1909 from the hunting picture or 1910 from the train story. Of course, both conflict with your interpretation of his supposed letter that said he'd just "landed" on it in 1912.
This is a false choice, but then you know this. Or at least I hope you do.
__________________________________
The second hunting photo you posted was from one of the books. I don't remember which one.
The Shelly book makes mention of Joe Barker as a source of information relating to the purchase. Barker was a good friend and involved with Crump throughout the process.
One of the above accounts mentions that Crumps father was a British Consul. I believe he was referring to Crump's uncle and namesake.
-
Often times first person accounts can be beyond suspect....
Exhibit A
(http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/ojsimpson.jpg)
-
In 1950 Joseph Baker wrote down his recollections:
"The recollections of Joseph H. Baker of the PVGC and of George A. Crump, the founder - good friend of many years and hunting companion on more than fifty trips over the United States.
GAC started to play golf in Merchantville, NJ - his home - St. Davids, and Torresdale with Howard Perrin, Andy Carty, Wister Harvey, Jack Edwards, WW Atterbury, William P. Smith, Dick Hanson, Arnold Dawson, Frank Hayes and Cameron Buxton.
In 1910 we made a three months trip to Europe, playing on various golf courses - Walton Heath, Sunningdale, Turnberry, Prestwick, Hoylake (where he played with John Ball, champion of England - who best him two in one) and St. Andrews (where I bought my first golf clubs). I bought a corduroy bag and five clubs for about $15.00 and then we went down to Cirgere in Dover, where there are three golf courses, and he played fifty-four holes in one day. From there we went to Carlsbad, Luzerne, Nice and the Cagnes Club. Rome and Paris completed our trip to Europe and returned home.
Once home Crump paid a visit to Brown Mills, where he thought of building a golf course. Then with the same object in view he went to Absecon, where the present country club is located. In Absecon he found the mosquitos so many and vicious that he decided it would not do. He came back to Merchantville and started to buy the ground at Sumner station, which was later changed to Pine Valley. He paid $50.00 for most of it, and for some ground paid $100 per acre. He secured the right-of-way from the Ireland property for a road one hundred feet wide for about ninety-nine years and in the old days that is the way we came to Pine Valley - by way of Watsontown.
At one of the luncheons at my house I had Andrew T. Dice, President of the Reading Company, and he said since we had no station at PV he would have one built, which was done. in those days we had lots of trains stopping at PV - express trains to and from.
After buying the property Mr. Crump sent for Mr. Colt, who laid out the Sunningdale course in England...."
Baker is the primary source for a lot of info. The 1910 trip to the UK, the consideration of two sites prior to, and the train station. I suspect is also the primary source for Crump's familiarity with the site from hunting.
Baker's home at PV was the first house, after Crump's, built on the property in 1916. He lived there for about forty years, and I believe Shelly later lived in that same home. Shelly became a member in 1928. I believe both men served many years as mayor of the town of PV. Baker was a major source, and is quoted often, in Wind's extensive article on PV written in 1950. I suspect he was an important source for Shelly as well.
Baker's mention of the three courses at Dover is most likely the three courses at Sandwich.
Although Crump and Tilly no doubt were acquaintances, being among the better players in Philadelphia, I wonder if Tilly didn't over play their relationship. All of Crump's closest friends were among the original founders of the club; Tilly was never even a member of the club. Based on what I have read I get the impression Tilly was sort of a lose canon, socially, financially and professionally, where as Crump's friends and founders were all very successful men in their respective fields...including Dr. Carr, the Catholic priest.
-
TMac,
Thanks for the full post. As to Tillie, Crump did choose him to write about PV and announce it to the world, and probably because of that, Tillie was in the first group to play PV, not Baker, not Carr (Perrin, Crump and Mott were the others) So, Crump did rely on him and was close to him in some ways.
Baker is sure a good source, even if his recollections are 38 years later. He and Tillie both wrote in great detail, making both more credible than the others, at least to me.
I think we know Crump considered PV in late 1910, both from his personal map request, and Tillie telling us he first saw it 3 years ago, while writing in early 1913. That he asked for a map from the whole county tells me that he wasn't just considering what he saw from the train, but rather the whole general area. That in turn suggests that he probably knew of the area from living there, whether hunting or not. Maybe the view from the train supplemented his ideas, in speaking with Tillie, etc.
To me, the biggest mystery is why others in the group didn't seem to know of his knowledge of PV area, and if he kept it secret until he was sure, etc. until he took them out in summer/fall of 1912. Or, did they know and it was simply a methodical process? Tillie tells us he made inspections before taking anyone out there, and no one really contradicts that.
-
Does anyone here know the actual date of the letter in which Crump said he "landed on something pretty fine"?
And, does anyone actually have a copy or transcript of the letter, or is there only the third party reference to the "landed on something pretty fine" comment in the letter?
-
The Jerome Travers quote comes from his book, and Brian has excluded the portion about Crump being familiar with the site through hunting.
The Crump letter to his friends must have been August or September 1912. Carr tells us that it was sent in 1912, and then said they went over the property thoroughly for one month before purchasing it in October.
Regarding Finegan's new evidence...Bryan's speculation, is just that, speculation.
Tom,
Which book? Travers wrote at least three. Jeff has inferred that it was "The Fifth Estate: Thirty Years of Golf,” published in 1926. Why did you withold this source for so long (assuming it is the source)?
I was clear above that the Travers quote that I put in the list was sourced from your Opinion piece and that I couldn't confirm the source. The quote in your Opinion piece was:
In his later years, when he had prospered and found his notch in the world of business as a hotel owner of wealth and affluence, his eyes and heart turned again toward the wooden spot in which he found so much joy in his youth. George Crump told me of it himself.
Are you now saying that there is another part of Travers writing that is more explicit about hunting? If so, what is it?
_____________________________________
Re Finegan, what is it that's speculation? Another source tells me that Finegan wrote:
What is obvious is that George Crump, a search committee of one, took his obligation seriously. For years, Pine Valley lore had it that Crump spotted the land from a train window one wintry day on his way to Atlantic City and said to himself, "What a place for a golf course!" But as Warner Shelly points out in is invaluable "Pine Valley Golf Club - A Chronicle", published in 1982, "...he [Crump] knew the grounds by tramping through them with his gun and dogs. A photo of Crump resting amid the pines in 1909 is testimony of that fact..."
Is this not what Finegan wrote? Is it not derivative of Shelley? Does it add something new that adds clarity?
-
Bryan,
I care about the "discovery story," just not this silliness of train versus hunting. Are the two not inextricably linked. How can you care about one but not the other
I am very surprised you stand by your observation that AWT's was a "first person account" of the discovery of the property. It wasn't. You must realize this. Tillinhast was reporting what he saw and discussed with Crump. How is that not first hand. If your definition of first hand can only be Crump in this case then carry on with the nitpicking.
AWT's 1933 account is questionable at best. Whenever key details are added 20 years later, one has to wonder.
I am also surprised that you don't give any credence to Travers' account. Whenever he wrote the book, Travers claims to have gotten his information straight from Crump.
I am truly puzzled at this one. Your tortuous logic escapes me. Tillinghast is "questionable at best" despite that he wrote about it both in 1913 and 1933, 20 years later, and multiple times in between, and that he was there on the train while on the other hand, Travers is to be given credence because he heard it "straight from Crump" despite the fact that he wrote it in 1926, 13 years later, and he wasn't there. You can do better than that David.
As to when he found it, based on the evidence we have now, you have a choice between 1909 from the hunting picture or 1910 from the train story. Of course, both conflict with your interpretation of his supposed letter that said he'd just "landed" on it in 1912.
This is a false choice, but then you know this. Or at least I hope you do.
There are many things I don't know. Please clarify the false choice.
__________________________________
The second hunting photo you posted was from one of the books. I don't remember which one. That's helpful. Do you mean one of Traver's books?
The Shelly book makes mention of Joe Barker as a source of information relating to the purchase. Barker was a good friend and involved with Crump throughout the process. That's Baker, not Barker. Barker was the architect wasn't he? I see Tom has provided more information about what Baker wrote. Can you vet it?
One of the above accounts mentions that Crumps father was a British Consul. I believe he was referring to Crump's uncle and namesake.
Reread Tom's Opinion piece. I believe you are wrong, at least according to Tom.
-
Are the two not inextricably linked. How can you care about one but not the other?
Since you asked . . . The train vs. hunting debate seems nothing but a petty sideshow kept alive by some grudge you apparently have against MacWood and Mucci, and by the hysterics of a certain dimwit who has fortunately taken his tired act to the perpetual email circle jerk, and by a few others. It really has little or nothing to do with the development of the course, at least not that I can see. I've said this from the very beginning of this discussion, and before.
A number of other questions relating to the discovery of the property are interesting to me, though. For example I have already mentioned that the timing interests me. You guys keep acting as if he most definitely had found the land in 1910, based on the always reliable AWT. I am not so sure, but if it turns out to be the case, then it opens up all sorts of questions in my mind about the initial design. I won't bore you with my questions as you seem to have blinders on lately. I will say though that I think we ought to be distinguishing between when he was first aware of the nature of the land, and when he first came to the realization that it would be suitable for a golf course, as these are two very different things.
Tillinhast was reporting what he saw and discussed with Crump. How is that not first hand. If your definition of first hand can only be Crump in this case then carry on with the nitpicking.
Really Bryan? It pains me to say it, but this is almost Cirbaesque in it illogic and absurdity. "First hand" means directly from the original source, with no middleman; the account of the person who who actually experienced the event. the description of the person actually doing the doing. And it is not my definition, it is the definition. According to Merriam-Webster, firsthand means obtained by, coming from, or being direct personal observation or experience <a firsthand account of the war>.
AWT was not the person who discovered the property. If we are to believe his revised story from 20 years later, then at best AWT was on the same train as Crump when Crump discovered the property, but AWT had no actual knowledge at that time of Crump having done anything but look out a window. AWT cannot give a first hand account of what was going through Crump's mind! At best he can give a second-hand account of what he claims Crump told him,but AWT admits that Crump said nothing at the time, and only told him about the course later. Only a dimwit (and I think we all know who I mean) would try to bootstrap this into "first hand knowledge" of the discovery of Pine Valley! You are no dimwit, so stop this nonsense. You only hurt your own credibility when you stand by such unsupportable and downright ridiculous proclamations.
Whatever AWT "knew," the information came from Crump or some other source. Same goes for Travers, and very likely the same goes for Carr, Wilson, "Joe Bunker," etc.
And this is far from nitpicking. Were it nitpicking, you wouldn't be trying erroneously transform and elevate AWT's second-hand (at best) account into a "first hand" account in order to give it more credence.
I am truly puzzled at this one. Your tortuous logic escapes me. Tillinghast is "questionable at best" despite that he wrote about it both in 1913 and 1933, 20 years later, and multiple times in between, and that he was there on the train while on the other hand, Travers is to be given credence because he heard it "straight from Crump" despite the fact that he wrote it in 1926, 13 years later, and he wasn't there. You can do better than that David.
Tillinghast's later story is "questionable at best" because his version of what happened not only changed, it changed in a self-aggrandizing direction. Tillinghast inserted himself into a story where he had never been before, and added questionable details he never before bothered to mention. So far as I know, Travers' version wasn't evolving and becoming more detailed and self-aggrandizing over time.
On what basis do you discount Travers version? Merely the passage of time? Can you honestly say that you would see it the same way if Travers was corroborating AWT's story?
__________________________________
That's helpful. Do you mean one of Traver's books?
I mean one of the Pine Valley books.
_____________________________
Yes it is Baker. And yes it looks as if it was Crump's father who was the British Consul. (Strangely Crump's father was reportedly born in PA, yet was British Vice Consul.) I stand corrected on both counts. Thanks.
-
OK, I now have found the Travers story in his book "The Fifth Estate: Thirty Years of Golf", co-written with James R. Crowell in 1926.
I will edit the first post accordingly, and when I have time, post more of Travers story.
-
Herewith the story from Travers and Crowell's book:
"Pine Valley, in my judgment, is the finest golf
course in the United States and equaled by few in
any part of the world. As a test of the game, it
is supreme. Neither flat nor hilly, the undulating
land resembles a desert into which have been
dropped clusters of beautiful trees. White sand
is everywhere, great stretches of it reaching along
the fairways and circling the putting greens. Nature's
color combination is entrancing. The grayish
white of the desert blends softly into the green
of the woodland; and where these sandy rivulets
wind in and out through the meadow or flow gracefully
over the grass-covered parapets, it reminds
you of snowdrifts resting on the countryside.
Over this rarely picturesque spot in the lowlands
of Southern Jersey hovers the memory of the man
who conceived it and to whose broad vision and
unstinted energy Pine Valley now stands as a
monument I met him some years ago George
Crump, a splendid, whole-souled chap then in the
fullness of his life. To him Pine Valley was the
dream of a lifetime come true. As a boy he had
traversed every foot of the sandy soil with a shotgun
slung over his shoulder as he and his comrades
spent days in the woods bagging quail, which were
to be found in abundance there. It was the place
of his dreams. In later years, when he had prospered
and found his notch in the world of business
as a hotel owner of wealth and affluence, his eyes
and heart turned again toward the wooded spot
in which he had found so much joy in his youth.
George Crump told me of it himself. The vision
of Pine Valley transformed into a masterpiece
of golf architecture came to him on one of those
exhilarating expeditions he was again making over
its white-grained expanses and through its quailinhabited
thickets, all so reminiscent of similar
journeys he had made many years ago. And yet
it was different now. He was middle-aged, a fair
measure of his life behind him. Then he had
stood at the threshold of his life, free of responsibility,
unburdened with the cares of the world and
conscious only of the great fun which could be
found in roaming such a paradise as this. There
is nothing to equal youth. Again Crump was free
from the cares of the world released from the
burly of business life that had filled in the span
from those early days and that he had weathered
better than most men, to retire from the strife before
it was too late to enjoy the fruits of his independence.
And he understood perfectly why he
responded more to the charm of this tree-hedged
desert than did any other living man; he knew
that this later-day thrill gathered its chief luster
in the echoes rumbling down from the past and in
a sentiment which time had made mellow and rich.
I know that these were the thoughts that George
Crump had of Pine Valley. He told me of them
himself.
Crump's vision began assuming concrete form
when he engaged the famous English golf architect,
Colt, to come to this country to plan a course
of surpassing merit and extraordinary beauty.
Colt, deeply impressed with the scenic splendor,
pitched his tent in the woods and camped there
for a week or more. He emerged from his hibernation
enthralled. The same potential qualities
for a wonderful links which Crump had visioned
became even magnified under the critical analysis
of the expert. He reported that it would be possible
to mold one of the finest courses in the world
from the ground so treasured in the memories of
George Crump.
"Good ! I thought so. I see it all as you do
the sand, the trees, the turf and the rolling ground.
Good! Let's make it what you say one of the
best courses in the world." Crump was jubilant.
Colt's verdict was music to his ears; he told me
of the happiness it brought him.
From Colt's blue-printed diagram was reared
this magnificent golf course you will find in a
quaint old section of New Jersey not far from the
Delaware River. But the man in whose brain the
image was born passed on before it had reached the
perfected state you now see. It had been his ambition
to finish it and present it to the club. But
it was ordained that Crump was not to visualize
in finished form the great creature of his fancy.
That is the historical and sentimental side of
Pine Valley. The purely practical side is that
few courses have been constructed in this country
with the same premium for good playing and penalty
for poor playing. It is not a course for the
duffer. Every bad shot is punished. To wander
away from the fairway is to play in heavy white
sand such as you will find in the traps of other
courses. Here there is a bunker, there a trap, scientifically
placed to catch the errant shot and to
exact no penalty from the good one. Inferior golf
cannot survive for more than a lucky shot or two,
while good golf finds its just reward. This quality
is a distinctive characteristic of Pine Valley. It
offers encouragement to the golfer playing in good
form and endless trouble to the man off his game.
The first time I saw Pine Valley was in the late
afternoon of a fine summer day some years ago,
when only fourteen holes had been completed.
That same day I had won an invitation tournament
at the Huntington Valley Country Club, in
the suburbs of Philadelphia, and was at the top of
my form. George Crump made the round of the
unfinished course with us, explaining each of the
fine points of the links as we went, notably that par
had been worked out on such scientific principles
that the question of distance on many of the holes
had been scaled down almost to inches.
When I managed to make every one of the holes
in par that afternoon he actually found more pleasure
in the accomplishment than I did. And when
I told him frankly that I believed he would soon
have on his hands the best golf course in America,
he concurred so heartily that I gained my first insight
into the depth of the pride he felt in this development.
My enthusiasm was genuine. Pine
Valley has been my favorite links from the first
day I played it."
-
It seems likely that Travers first played Pine Valley (with Crump accompanying) on June 24, 1915. Earlier that day he had reportedly beaten Max Marston in the finals for Lynnewood Hall Cup at Huntingdon Valley, 2 and 1. His victory was widely publicized, as was his record breaking medal score in the medal play round a few days earlier. He had just recently won the 1915 U.S. Open Championship at Baltusrol, and was at the height of popularity.
From the "Clubs and Clubmen" column of the Philadelphia Inquirer, June 27, 1924: "Travers, after he had beaten Marston in the finals of the Lynnewood Hall Cup, was motored down to Pine Valley by George C. Thomas, Jr., and played high class golf there. He said that the course had wonderful possibilities."
My question remains.
Travers made it abundantly clear (and repeatedly so) that his information came from Crump himself. On what basis are we to doubt or discount his version?
-
Bryan, I just reread your Travis section in your original post and your changes. I am nearly (but not quite) speechless. You've really allowed this hunting story vs. train story battle take hold of you Bryan. You should really step back, clear your head, and try to get your bearings.
The story says that Crump hunted quail "as a boy" with a shotgun and in the company of "his comrades". Seems a little romantic to me to envisage "boys" hunting with shotguns and knowing that they are on land that would become Pine Valley 15 or 20 years later. The Pine Valley tract was private property with Bowman the owner when Crump was a boy. There is no mention of hunting it in 1909 as Shelley later describes based on photographs. I question how he could have been hunting on it both as a boy and when he rediscovered it as a potential golf course.
You aren't seriously discounting Travers version because it sounds too "romantic" for boys to have been hunting quail with shotguns the 1800's, are you? The first time I (legally) hunted quail with a shotgun I was 12 years old. That was a while a go, but not the 1800's! I cannot confirm it personally, but reportedly to this day New Jersey law authorizes the issuance of youth hunting licenses to children aged 10 to 16, provided they have passed a hunter safety course. (N.J. Stat. Ann. §23:3-3) And while I haven't hunted in years, I know for certain that friends and members of my family with whom I hunted as a boy are still hunting some of the same exact parcels of land I hunted as a 12 year old, and some of them had been hunting that land for decades prior to that. And it is someone else's private land.
And of course Travers does NOT say that Crump actually knew the land on which he was hunting would eventually become Pine Valley Golf Club. That doesn't even make sense, does it? So why pretend that Travers made such a claim?
And your suggestion that the 1909 hunting photo must somehow represent the moment (or even the year) they discovered the land is preposterous. You have long been acting as if the 1909 photograph was Shelley's only support for the hunting version of the story, but this has been a far fetched assumption on your part.
Where does any source say that Crump only began hunting the land in 1909? I recall no such source. If Crump was hunting there in 1909, then there is a good chance he and his family had long been hunting there. Was travers supposed to document every year Crump hunted the land? Preposterous.
Seriously, is this really your grounds for discounting Travers' version?
_______________________________
As an aside, Travers and Crump also met in the first round of matchplay of the 1915 US Amateur on August 31 in Detroit. Travers won handily 14 and 13 (36 hole match.)
-
Tom,
Thanks for posting the Baker stuff. Do you have his complete remembrances?
Is the quoted part contiguous or are there missing pieces. It seems a little disjointed. For instance, he mentions the other people he played with in the early years and then segues in the next paragraph to "we" went to Europe. I assume that didn't mean the 9 people in the preceding paragraph.
There are a couple of things that don't seem to match other sources. See below. My guess is that some of the details were a little fuzzy after 38 years. They would be for me.
In 1950 Joseph Baker wrote down his recollections:
"The recollections of Joseph H. Baker of the PVGC and of George A. Crump, the founder - good friend of many years and hunting companion on more than fifty trips over the United States.
GAC started to play golf in Merchantville, NJ - his home - St. Davids, and Torresdale with Howard Perrin, Andy Carty, Wister Harvey, Jack Edwards, WW Atterbury, William P. Smith, Dick Hanson, Arnold Dawson, Frank Hayes and Cameron Buxton.
In 1910 we made a three months trip to Europe, playing on various golf courses - Walton Heath, Sunningdale, Turnberry, Prestwick, Hoylake (where he played with John Ball, champion of England - who best him two in one) and St. Andrews (where I bought my first golf clubs). I bought a corduroy bag and five clubs for about $15.00 and then we went down to Cirgere in Dover, where there are three golf courses, and he played fifty-four holes in one day. From there we went to Carlsbad, Luzerne, Nice and the Cagnes Club. Rome and Paris completed our trip to Europe and returned home.
Once home Crump paid a visit to Brown Mills, where he thought of building a golf course. Then with the same object in view he went to Absecon, where the present country club is located. In Absecon he found the mosquitos so many and vicious that he decided it would not do. He came back to Merchantville and started to buy the ground at Sumner station, which was later changed to Pine Valley. He paid $50.00 for most of it, and for some ground paid $100 per acre. There is a discontinuity between this and the deeds. In the deeds Crump paid $8,750 for 184.31 acres. That's $47.47 an acre, not some for $50.00 and some for $100.00. He secured the right-of-way from the Ireland property for a road one hundred feet wide for about ninety-nine years and in the old days that is the way we came to Pine Valley - by way of Watsontown. In 1914 Virginia Ireland granted Pine Valley free and unhindered access from the Clementon - New Freedom Road to Pine Valley across her property on an existing 30 foot wide (not 100) road - what is now called Old Mill Road. It was forever, not 99 years.
At one of the luncheons at my house I had Andrew T. Dice, President of the Reading Company, and he said since we had no station at PV he would have one built, which was done. in those days we had lots of trains stopping at PV - express trains to and from. I wonder where? All the other sources only mention Sumner Station. One wonders how many trains there were to serve 200 members and their guests?
After buying the property Mr. Crump sent for Mr. Colt, who laid out the Sunningdale course in England...."
Baker is the primary source for a lot of info. The 1910 trip to the UK, the consideration of two sites prior to, and the train station. I suspect is also the primary source for Crump's familiarity with the site from hunting. Is there a mention of hunting in Baker's recollections? I don't see it in what you quote above. Or, is it just your suspicion? Do you suppose that Baker was the source for Uzzell's and Nunneville's discredited claims in 1927 that Crump inherited or purchased a 300 acre hunting preserve years earlier?
Baker's home at PV was the first house, after Crump's, built on the property in 1916. He lived there for about forty years, and I believe Shelly later lived in that same home. Shelly became a member in 1928. I believe both men served many years as mayor of the town of PV. Baker was a major source, and is quoted often, in Wind's extensive article on PV written in 1950. I suspect he was an important source for Shelly as well.
Baker's mention of the three courses at Dover is most likely the three courses at Sandwich. Apparently Finegan, quoting Baker, says they were Royal St. George's, Royal Cinque Ports, and Princes.
Although Crump and Tilly no doubt were acquaintances, being among the better players in Philadelphia, I wonder if Tilly didn't over play their relationship. All of Crump's closest friends were among the original founders of the club; Tilly was never even a member of the club. Based on what I have read I get the impression Tilly was sort of a lose canon, socially, financially and professionally, where as Crump's friends and founders were all very successful men in their respective fields...including Dr. Carr, the Catholic priest. I'm happy to see that you edited out one of your other derogatory remarks about AWT. There is really no need to try to posthumously tear down the man's reputation and credibility. Just because men are successful or priests doesn't mean they are either credible or reliable witnesses to history.
-
In 1950 Joseph Baker wrote down his recollections:
"The recollections of Joseph H. Baker of the PVGC and of George A. Crump, the founder - good friend of many years and hunting companion on more than fifty trips over the United States....."
Bryan
Baker and Crump travelled together. Anyone who has read any of the three PV histories, or my essay, would know that. The fact that you do not illustrates how much interest you have in golf architecture history and the history of PV. It is a little frustrating dealing with someone like you - a historically blind person. God only knows why you have interjected yourself in to this historical discussion, but hopefully you will soon realize your total lack of understanding and knowledge of history has led you to wasting a lot of time trying to prove a bogus story...a story, that in the greater scheme of things, is not all that important. Why is it important for you to prove Tilly's train story?
Regarding matching the source info exactly, I'm sure after several decades some of Baker's numbers are off. For example he thought Colt was paid $10,000, which is probably off by a magnitude of ten. But the numbers are just a trivial detail IMO, and not that important when trying to figure out who did what and when, and what exactly happened regarding the development of the project, and above all how the architecture evolved. I know the history of the architecture is not important to you, but you should know this site is devoted to golf architecture, and the history of golf architecture.
What did I edit regarding Tilly?
-
Tom,
How do you feel about Crump telling Travers that he's known of this spot since his childhood? How do you think that plays into the Absecon and Browns Mills site searches? Baker condensed nearly two years into these four sentences but he does not eliminate consideration for the current site before the others...in fact, the words "he came back to Merchantville..." indicates to it could easily have been on his mind previously.
"Once home Crump paid a visit to Brown Mills, where he thought of building a golf course. Then with the same object in view he went to Absecon, where the present country club is located. In Absecon he found the mosquitos so many and vicious that he decided it would not do. He came back to Merchantville and started to buy the ground at Sumner station, which was later changed to Pine Valley"
Also, you speculated that the letter to his friends telling them about "landing on something pretty fine" must have been in August or September because they spent a month going over the land and then bought it in October. Do you know for a fact when he sent it?
-
I'm happy to see that you edited out one of your other derogatory remarks about AWT. There is really no need to try to posthumously tear down the man's reputation and credibility. Just because men are successful or priests doesn't mean they are either credible or reliable witnesses to history.
This sort of petty and underhanded cheap shot really ought to be beneath you, Bryan. Look at the timestamps on MacWood's post --two minutes elapsed from the time he posted until his edit. So if there was another comment it was gone almost immediately. More likely you are wrong about there having even been a previous derogatory remark, and are just trying to stir shit up. Either way, you owe MacWood an apology.
-
Tom and David,
So, the indignation and personal attacks continue to intensify.
I have posted the deeds and the transcripts of the discovery stories. Interpret them how you wish.
-
Bryan, You started this thread as yet another shot at MacWood and as a continuation of your grudge against him. You went back and edited out some of the nastiness in your original post last night (after it became apparent that your thesis had crumbled) but in its prior form you didn't even make it out of the first paragraph before you were taking gratuitous shots at him. And in your last post you falsely accused him of making nasty comments and then editing those comments out of his posts. And yet now you lecture us about "indignation and personal attacks." Give us all a break!
_________________________________________________________
Let's stick to the subject-matter.
I fail to understand your basis for discounting Travers' version of what you call the discovery story. Travers tells us explicitly that his source was Crump himself. His version is consistent with a number of other versions. So on what basis do you discount his story?
Thanks.
-
David,
Travers story is not consistent with any of the others. While he does say Crump was his source, his is th eonly account which dates the "discovery" to childhood. This is pretty significant in my opinion.
-
Jim,
Some of the other sources mention he was familiar with the land from hunting the land. I've never taken this to mean that he first hunted this land in the 1909-1910 timeframe and have never understood why others took it this way.
What do you mean by "pretty significant?"
Do you think Travers made up his version?
-
I think it's significant that Travers' is the only one to say he'd been familiar with the place since he was a child.
How likely do you think it is that Crump told Travers, and Travers alone, that he hunted on this specific parcel of land all the time when he was a child? I think it's much more likely that Crump spoke of spending countless hours hunting through the pine and scrub which would have been everywhere in those days and Travers romanticized it a bit by saying he "traversed every foot of the sandy soil"...do you think he actually traversed every foot?
Pat,
As Bryan asked previously...how is it that Crump would have pointed out the land to AWT if it were completely obstructed to someone on the train? It's an interesting dilemna isn't it...
-
I think it's significant that Travers' is the only one to say he'd been familiar with the place since he was a child.
How likely do you think it is that Crump told Travers, and Travers alone, that he hunted on this specific parcel of land all the time when he was a child? I think it's much more likely that Crump spoke of spending countless hours hunting through the pine and scrub which would have been everywhere in those days and Travers romanticized it a bit by saying he "traversed every foot of the sandy soil"...do you think he actually traversed every foot?
Maybe we are reading different reports but I don't read the Travers statement as being entirely inconsistent with the various accounts him becoming familiar with the land while hunting, shooting, riding, etc. The Travers description is more specific and goes further back in time, but I don't understand where you guys get this idea that he definitely just started hunting on the land in 1909? The Travers description is much more detailed, and I don't think it reasonable to knock it because it contains details the others don't go into. If anything the detailed and personal nature of the story lends credence to the account, and I find it very strange that you guys read it as distracting from the veracity.
I think this notion that Travers was romanticizing the story is just wishful thinking. I don't understand the basis for it, other than you guys apparently don't want what Travers is saying to be true. If he were corroborating AWT's account you would read it differently I am sure. I think the Travers version pretty much settles the issue; or at the very least if it were a close call without the Travers passage, it isn't a close call now. I still don't care one way or another, but if the best you guys can do is portray the Travers account as too romanticized then you don't have much of a leg to stand on, especially when we compare it to the evolving accounts of AWT.
You ask how likely it was that he told Travers alone about hunting there as a kid. This is a loaded question and contains an unsupportable assumption on your part. Crump may have told many people about hunting the land as a child, and it just may not have made it into every history in its unabridged form. The story may be at the root of every one of them except for AWT's. It fits with what we know of Crump, it provides an avenue to make some sense out of stories with mistaken elements, such as the one about how it was his family's hunting grounds-- in may well have been his family's hunting grounds in the sense that it is where they hunted. It would explain why so many accounts seem to evolve around hunting or shooting or riding. It even puts the apparently the far fetched references to the Leatherstocking Tales into perspective.
And Travers apparently ran in the same crowd as Crump. According to the Clubs and Clubmen column in the Inquirer he was close friends with Cameron Buxton, a founder and board member of Pine Valley. (Buxton was also an important member of Huntingdon Valley and was the club president or something.) As Tom mentioned Crump's closest friends were the founders of Pine Valley, and judging from the social pages, Buxton and Crump golfed and socialized together often. While Travers was not a founder of the club, he was apparently in the same social group, and apparently quite fond of not only Pine Valley, but also Crump.
So, with all of this, it is a hell of a lot easier for me to believe he conveyed that he hunted over the land than it is for me to believe that he had no idea there were giant sand hills a dozen miles from where he grew up until he "chanced to glance through the window of a rapidly moving train." The guy was a outdoorsman and a hunter for goodness sake, yet we are supposed to believe he had no awareness of what was probably the closest really interesting land to his home?
As for your question of whether I believe he "traversed every foot of the sandy soil," I think the question itself is pretty telling of the weakness of your position. It is a figure of speech meant to convey a close familiarity with the land, and if Crump had been hunting the land for his entire life then no doubt he felt a close familiarity with the land the same way a golfer might feel about a course he had walked several hundred times. So whether he and actually "traversed every foot" it probably felt like he did.
______________________________
All that said, I again think it important that at some point we distinguish between Crump being familiar with the nature of the land and Crump realizing that such could be turned into a premier golfing spot. Given the state of golf in and around Philadelphia before 1910 it is entirely possible that Crump was very familiar with the nature land but didn't realize its full potential for golf until he traveled abroad and saw some of the courses over there, particularly heathland courses which might have required major clearing to fully expose the potential for great golf. Even then it is possible that he first searched for land which required less start up effort to bring the courses into fruition, for PV had some major obstacles to remove.
-
TMac, if he had hunted it previously, as a kid, whatever, wouldn't we have to ask why he would say he had just found the perfect site? I will presume he didn't just start hunting it in 1912 while under active mining by Lumberton. It seems like he knew it a long time according to most of the contemporary hunting accounts.
Jeff, I may have missed it, but where did Crump say he "JUST" found the perfect site "
Didn't you insert the word "just" to serve your purpose.
Bryan, you list a number of independent sources confirming the finding of the land vis a vis hunting, but repeat the same source over and over again stating that he found the site on the train, when infact, it's but one source, AWT, not several. The body of evidence supports that Crump was familiar with the land vis a vis hunting.
I've asked Jim Sullivan, you and Bryan to point out, on that 1931 photo, just where Crump was when he spotted those rollling hills and valleys.
To date, NO ONE has identified that position, or any position for that matter.
It seems as if the same logic would apply - even moreseo - if he had known of the site for years. And, not to word parse, but as Bryan pointed out, his exact words weren't that he had just found it, but that he had landed on something pretty fine.
As to the relative worth of the stories, frankly, both sound bogus or lengendary to me. It doesn't suprise me, as everyone wanted to relay their role in the great creation. Deciding whether Tillie's or the others are more bogus is a bit much, even if fun. That said, I have always felt that Tillies three consistent tellings, and level of detail work in his favor, not against. I simply don't agree that he would tell the same stories, and go into the detail of witholding info at Crump's request, him going out on his own before taking his group out, etc.
Then show us, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, where Crump was when he made his chance glance and saw those rolling hills and valleys
Carr is also contemporary, involved and doesn't really discount a train siting. He just says Crump looked over near Camden after the seaside idea was dropped and that they all went out in summer 1912 for a few months before buying the property later.
Yes, but Carr describes the site as dense forest and jungle like undergrowth, hardly the land that would lend itself to a panoramic view from a speeding train.
I am also of the opinion that Pat should drop his over reliance on Shelly, since its not a contemporaneous source. It appears he was struggling with the credit much like we are. He says there is evidence that Crump knew of the land, but its the same evidence we have - a photo and some contemporaneous accounts.
Tha's absolutely not true, that's conjecture on your part.
You DON'T KNOW the extent of Shelly's evidence.
You're only assuming that the photo is the ONLY evidence at his disposal
We are just as able to parse that as he was in 1982.
Again, not true.
You don't know the extent or scope of the evidence at Shelly's disposal
And, we know from other club histories, that they often just reviewed past material and rehashed it rather than do the extensive searching for more than many of you do here. After all, he probably had a deadline, this site doesn't!
Again, that's conjecture on your part.
TEPaul told me that he met with Shelly and that he was a serious, competent , highly respected individual, and you don't know if he had a deadline.
Chances are he was charged with creating PV's history and worked on HIS time frame, not anyone elses, that's just your attempt to discredit his efforts and undermine his position
I basically agree with Bryan, if you take Tillie and Carr, there is probably an explanation that fits both of their accounts. Carr doesn't say he found it first on horseback, hunting or whatever. Tillie would just have to be making up a lot of details, which I doubt he would do. Did he exagerate the drama a bit to tell the story? Sure. He may have turned a passing mention of that site looking interesting for golf into a legend all its own, but with a grain of truth.
Did AWT accurately report Crumps Death.... ever ?
Did he ever correct his misreprorting of Crumps death ?
5,10 15 or 20 years later ?
-
But David...the majority of the others attribute Crumps familiarity with the land to his hunting trip(s) as grown man, not as having known it since childhood. This is a huge distinction. If Travers is correct, which he may well be, the other are all incorrect. There is no debating that. Read through them again, the ones that actually mention anything about when he might have first hunted on the ground speak about him as a grown man. Travers account stands alone...which doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it unique.
-
Patrick,
When you jump back in, do you ever actually go back and read what has been written by others? I know, and accept, that you are a busy man, but .......................
-
I'm happy to see that you edited out one of your other derogatory remarks about AWT. There is really no need to try to posthumously tear down the man's reputation and credibility. Just because men are successful or priests doesn't mean they are either credible or reliable witnesses to history.
Bryan
What did I edit out?
-
Tom,
How do you feel about Crump telling Travers that he's known of this spot since his childhood? How do you think that plays into the Absecon and Browns Mills site searches? Baker condensed nearly two years into these four sentences but he does not eliminate consideration for the current site before the others...in fact, the words "he came back to Merchantville..." indicates to it could easily have been on his mind previously.
"Once home Crump paid a visit to Brown Mills, where he thought of building a golf course. Then with the same object in view he went to Absecon, where the present country club is located. In Absecon he found the mosquitos so many and vicious that he decided it would not do. He came back to Merchantville and started to buy the ground at Sumner station, which was later changed to Pine Valley"
Also, you speculated that the letter to his friends telling them about "landing on something pretty fine" must have been in August or September because they spent a month going over the land and then bought it in October. Do you know for a fact when he sent it?
Jim
Have you read the Carr article? How else would you interpret his timeline of events?
JE Ford said that Crump and Perrin first began going over the site late in the summer of 1912. Wind said it took place in the autumn of 1912. Finegan said the letter went out in the early Autumn 1912. Shelly said it went in the Fall of 1912. Based on those accounts I think it reasonable to conclude the letter went out August or September. When do you think it went out?
Regarding Travers' account, he is not the only one who said he knew the site as a boy. I think he may have also hunted there as a young man and later, which is consistent with other accounts. They are not mutually exclusive. Carr also tells us he looked at other sites prior to Clementon, including Absecon. I think it is very possible knew of the site from hunting, but did not consider its suitability for golf until later, which is probably why it took them a month to study it before purchasing.
What is obvious to any objective person, from the seven or eight independent accounts, is that Crump knew the site through hunting, not from a train trip. The 1910 train story is obviously bogus, but as you know when it comes to Philly legends objectivity and logic are replaced by emotion and sentiment. Even minor legends go down hard.
-
TMac,
good morning and Merry Xmas Eve. While coming around to the hunting as first knowledge way of thinking, I prefer to think that the train is simply the first time Tillie heard it, and thus he reported that way. Not totally bogus, in other words, just not quite the full story, as Pat says.
As to deciding on the site, and not knowing it was suitalbe for golf until the summer of 1912 (if that is what you imply above) I think we have to consider the 1910 cable from GBI asking for maps around Clementon, and Tillie's account that Crump mentioned the site on a train trip around the same time, no? (says "some 3 years ago" writing in 1913)
To me the mystery is why he had considered that site, and then went ahead looking at other sites as directed by his less powerful (than he, as major investor) committee and looking at the AC sites. The only thing we know is we are glad he did decide based on golf quality over weather quality or other activities at Atlantic City!
Am I right that a tough golf course was part of the original idea back in 1910?
-
Jim, Like TomM I don't see the stories as mutually exclusive for reasons I have tried to explain.
But suppose there are many different versions of Crump having hunted the land but they all mention him having done so at different stages of life. Where do we go from here? Throw them all out and go with a story where Crump, the hunter and outdoorsman, has never noticed the large tree covered sand hills a dozen miles from his home until a chance glance from a fast moving train?
-
1915 Simon Carr
“They desired a course where there would be
practically no closed season throughout the year. In
discussing the problem, they had the seaside in mind,
chiefly the region about Atlantic City; but the great
distance from Philadelphia, and the extreme difficulty
of securing a suitable location, caused the
project of a seashore course to be dropped.
The region outside of Camden was searched in all
directions, until, finally, Mr. George A. Crump discovered
a perfectly wonderful bit of golf land at
Sumner Station, on the Atlantic City Division of the
Reading Railroad, thirteen miles outside of Camden.
"I think we have happened on something pretty
fine," he reported to his friends in Philadelphia. His
friends hastened down to have a look at the discovery.
The tract was heavily wooded with pine and oak, and
had an undergrowth as dense as a jungle. For a
month it was gone over carefully on foot; every detail
of conformation was noted; the soil carefully examined
in all parts, and, finally, in October, 1912, a
tract of 184 acres was purchased.”
Carr, who was certainly contemporaneous with Crump and directly involved with Pine Valley, does not say anything about how Crump originally “discovered” the site other than he was searching in all directions. Certainly, nothing definitive here about discovery through “hunting”.
Tom,
This timeline is also a stand alone as Carr makes it clear that when Crump discovered the site he was "searching in all direction" for a location for the golf course. How can you tie this to Travers' account? Or is there more to the Carr account which I have not seen? If so, can you post it?
-
Patrick,
When you jump back in, do you ever actually go back and read what has been written by others? I know, and accept, that you are a busy man, but .......................
Bryan,
I was specifically addressing Jeff's reply, not the others.
-
David,
When one guy says he's known the land very well his entire life and another guy says he discovered as a grown man they cannot both be correct. I don't care if we throw them out or not, but we cannot assume that, because a couple other people have contradictory stories that happen to have hunting as a common theme, AWT is a liar...and while you may not have taken that stance Tom and Pat have.
My perspective on this is as simple as...the view from the train tracks would have been dramatic and distinct from any view he had while hunting here. The land rises abruptly, and in different hills and ridges from the low points along the train tracks. It's this perspective that triggered his thoughts for the golf course. The 1909 - 1911 timeframe is also reasonable because this is when Crump really got thinking about building a golf course so land features are going to be more front of mind...like when you buy a black car and drive home all you see are black cars, I don't know why but it happens.
Discovery/recognition from the train is also wholly different than becoming intimately familiar with the land and a couple of the accounts are sympathetic to that process...but not Travers' due to the age of Crump at discovery.
-
I wonder about the hunting as a kid story from Travers, mainly because I think his co-author was really a ghost writer. I have no doubts that Travers, on his 1915 exhibition match heard from Crump that he hunted the land, but wonder if the "real author" blindly thought to add the words "as a kid" merely assuming that was the case. He is a wordsmith, and he is probably not a historian really fleshing out details for that kind of book.
To me, that is the most likely explanation for his being the only hunting as a kid account, but of course no one really knows. It would be a case of him being one of the sources of legend about what was already a legendary place, without any enhancement.
Carr's scenario doesn't exactly square with Crump asking for a map of the area in 1910 either. Somehow, Crump had PV in mind even as he was searching the AC region as per his committees request, IMHO.
Pat,
Merry Xmas to you, and as a gift to all of us, could you please stop speculating what or what not Crump saw from the train, just to keep us from being bored to tears? Even as I agree with you that Tillie was probably mistaken in saying he first saw it from a train (although it could have been Crump's first mention to Tillie of it) I just don't think any of us can know what was visible back then, despite you sending us pictures of other places, PV now vs. then, etc. You can talk all day, and call us names, etc. to try to shout us down, whatever, but really, none of us can know what he saw and its ridiculous to repeat yourself that way.
Thanks in advance, although I have no hopes you can really restrain yourself. IF you do, I will really enjoy the gift!
-
Jim,
I don't see hardline distinction you are trying to draw in the sources.
More importantly, I don't think anyone is calling anyone a liar. IMO, this type of overreaction represents the vestiges of the posts of dimwits past, and it is time we moved beyond this sort of overly emotional and incendiary reaction to attempts at frank conversation. AWT obviously got it in his head that the discovery occurred from a train. I don't know why or how, but my guess is that the train story hatched from early references (perhaps by Crump) to the location of the course in relation to the Sumner station, the RR, and the sudden change in topography. To conclude the story wasn't true is not to call him a liar. This exact immature rhetorical game has been tried again and again here and it is really time it stopped.
This timeline is also a stand alone as Carr makes it clear that when Crump discovered the site he was "searching in all direction" for a location for the golf course. How can you tie this to Travers' account? Or is there more to the Carr account which I have not seen? If so, can you post it?
Again Jim, I think we need to distinguish between Crump's familiarity with the nature of the land and his realization/decision to use the land as a golf course. Yes he was considering other sites, but this is understandable considering the challenges presented by the Pine Valley site. Remember the timing of this whole thing, at the dawn of truly excellent golf in America. It is easy for us to recognize the potential for golf now in hindsight but at the time Pine Valley was not the typical ideal site for golf. My guess is that is why so many articles emphasize the tree covered nature of the site and all the clearing, etc.
-
David,
Pat has used the word Liar and Tom has called the story a total myth and bogus. If I pulled a piece of your Merion essay out and called it bogus and a total myth without you here to defend/explain yourself I think you would have every right to assume I was calling you a liar...especially when in the next post someone else uses the word liar and I don't distinguish my comments from theirs. These are not emotional and incendiary reactions, these are responses to the words used.
-
David,
Pat has used the word Liar and Tom has called the story a total myth and bogus. If I pulled a piece of your Merion essay out and called it bogus and a total myth without you here to defend/explain yourself I think you would have every right to assume I was calling you a liar...especially when in the next post someone else uses the word liar and I don't distinguish my comments from theirs. These are not emotional and incendiary reactions, these are responses to the words used.
I agree the story is a very likely a myth, a legend, and bogus. But there is a big leap from there to calling AWT a liar. If Patrick called AWT a liar it was very likely in emotion and not all that productive, but come on, we are all adults here. What is the use of getting worked up over whether Patrick thinks that some guy got a little carried away with his creative license one hundred years ago? The righteous indignation defending some dead guy's honor is purely rhetorical.
I won't get into your analogy for a host of reasons, but surely you see the difference between calling me a liar when I am anything but and calling AWT's story false when it very likely is.
-
You should run for office because only politicians could justify away the accusation of lying as well as you just did. Why are the words liar and lying so much more incendiary than their synonyms? MacWood believes, and hasn't hid his belief, that AWT was lying yet his efforts at proof are hollow and he has you here defending his behavior...as well as Pat's. I'm sure it was in emotion although it wasn't out of character.
I don't see the problem with my analogy. I disagree with many of the assumptions you made in your essay but I discussed them with you.
-
I'm not condoning calling AWT a liar, but I honestly don't recall Tom M or even Patrick as having done so. Not saying they haven't. Just that I don't recall it if they did. No offense to Patrick but I don't pay a tremendous amount of attention to every single one of his posts, as we are often on very different tracks and I barely have time keep up with my own discussions.
As for Tom M, I think perhaps you are letting your opinion of TomM impact your reading of his posts and the supposed synonyms of lying. I don't recall calling AWT a liar or thinking him a liar, yet I am in general agreement with TomM's views on AWT's writing style, and might even go further than Tom on some regards. AWT was a writer of fact and fiction and he liked to entertain and weave a yarn, and sometimes in such situations the line between fact and fiction gets blurred. He was also very much a self-promoter, and self-promotion may well have been a necessity as he was trying to make a living as a designer. Like TomM, I sense that in this regard he sometimes took a bit of creative license with his stories and perhaps overplayed his relationships a bit. This is just my opinion, but even if accurate , it is not uncommon among writers or golf architects and it wouldn't make AWT a "liar" or a bad person. We have had lots of examples of outright dishonesty on these threads, and I don't think in comparison AWT comes close to qualifying.
But he does appear to have been wrong about the train story.
-
Jeff,
Did the landform and the juxtaposition of the RR tracks and the landform change over the last century, or have they remained the same ?
Jim,
Did AWT get his facts wrong or lie in initially reporting the cause of Crump's death ?
When he came to know the true cause of Crump's death, whether immediate or subsequent, did he ever correct his initial statements or did he allow his mistake or lie to remain uncorrected ?
Was AWT incapable of lying ?
Did he live his entire life without ever lying ?
Get over it, people lie all the time, including every one of us.
If it's your position that his initial reporting of the cause of Crump's death, despite being a close personal friend, was just a seriously flawed error, then, is it not possible or likely, that his reporting of the sighting from the train was also a seriously flawed error ?
You can't have it both ways.
-
Jeff,
You can determine what was physically visible.
I'll ask again.
Where was GAC when he FIRST saw the rolling hills and valleys, along with the sandy soils as his train was moving East at 88 feet per second, or more, for approximately 4,000 linear feet as the train sped by the unmarked property ?
Why has NO ONE answered that question with specificity ?
-
Ah ha, now I remember. Much of the discussion about lying revolved around the apparent cover-up of Crump's cause of death. I haven't really ever bothered with that discussion and have no desire to get into it now. It is a perfect example though of how emotion takes over these things and clouds all reason and judgment. Am I the only one who remembers the repulsive behavior on gca.com by TEPaul and his writing partner while Tom MacWood was trying to research and write his respectful piece on Crump? Emotion run amuck, and a really pathetic attempt on their part to disparage Tom MacWood any way they could and to distract from and demean what turned out to be some really solid research and writing. No one still here is as bad as they were, but there are still vestiges of their approach in this very discussion.
Why are you so focused on vilifying MacWood and Patrick rather than looking at the factual question at issue? It must be clear to you and Bryan by now, that, whether you come to agree with him or not, MacWood has ample reason for thinking that that train story is more myth than fact. So what exactly is his crime here? Why not just acknowledge that, whatever grudge you have against him, MacWood's opinions on this matter have a solid foundation in the various stories of the event, and he had already done his research?
Maybe if you showed me precisely where MacWood blasphemed AWT regarding this issue, I'd better understand. But even then I'd wonder why we can't just focus on the question at hand and leave the grudges out of it.
-
David,
You have to deeply discount or completely ignore Jim's statements as he rarely quotes or restates comments accurately.
He's more prone to state what he wants the reader to believe rather than the actual facts.
Rather than use quotes, he misrepresents what has been said.
I've clearly indicated, to Jeff Brauer, my position on the train episode, and I think Jeff and I are in agreement on those circumstances.
TEPaul continues to misrepresent my position on his ever expanding blast emails and Jim has done the same thing.
TEPaul's conclusions are flawed beyond belief.
Once again, he states what he wants the reader to believe rather than the facts.
He too, fails to present quotes, choosing instead to misrepresent your position, MacWood's position and my position.
Jeff Brauer, alone, recognizes and understands my position, while TEPaul chooses to distort and misrepresent my position.
AWT's failure to accurately report the cause of GAC's death is a matter of record, it is irrefutable, as is his failure to correct his initial misreporting of the cause of GAC's death in the years that followed.
Whether some choose to categorize it as a mistake, an intentional error, misrepresentation or lie is irrelevant, the fact is that AWT had years and years to correct his mistake/intentional error/misrepresentation/lie and chose NOT to do so. His ongoing failure to correct the record forever categorized his act, his erroneous initial report, whether intentional or unintentional, as a distortion of the truth, and the perpetuation of a lie.
For some strange reason, neither TEPaul or Jim understand that
-
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=5299&DMSCALE=10.91107&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%20Golf&REC=18&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
I'll ask again.
Where was GAC when he FIRST saw the rolling hills and valleys, along with the sandy soils as his train was moving East at 88 feet per second, or more, for approximately 4,000 linear feet as the train sped by the unmarked property ?
Why has NO ONE answered that question with specificity ?
-
Whether some choose to categorize it as a mistake, an intentional error, misrepresentation or lie is irrelevant, the fact is that AWT had years and years to correct his mistake/intentional error/misrepresentation/lie and chose NOT to do so. His ongoing failure to correct the record forever categorized his act, his erroneous initial report, whether intentional or unintentional, as a distortion of the truth, and the perpetuation of a lie.
From the peanut gallery,a belated Christmas/Chanukah present--an unlimited supply of the phrase "IN MY OPINION".You might think about using it.
You are an able rhetorician.Arguing that black is white/white is black is a fun exercise--in a college classroom.This back and forth will prove nothing--but then that's never been the goal.
The goal is to poison the water to such an extent that nobody will ever be able to ontologically prove anything.You (and others) have set yourselves up as judge and jury--and I'm amazed that some posters in this thread continue to allow it.They lose the minute they engage in the conversation.
Engendering ill will is,I guess,just an occupational hazard.Having interesting posters leave the discussion group,that's something the rest of us are poorer for.
When you've won this war of attrition,will you be satisfied with your prize?When no sane person will ever post any historical opinion on any golf course will this game finally be over?
-
JME,
What interesting posters voluntarily left the site ?
-
Patrick,
A history test for you; who wrote each of the following:
I don't buy the train ride story for a second.
Crump discovered the huge Pinelands region of NJ while traveling on the train to AC. As a boy Crump used to hunt in portions of the huge Pinelands region of NJ. That Crump discovered the specific site while on a shooting trip in 1912. Crump was on horseback on that hunting trip when he discovered the specific site.
this is what I think;
1) Crump hunted in south Jersey as a young boy, and throughout his life and was likely familiar with the land in question prior to the train ride.
2) Crump perhaps had the discovery, connecting the site to a potential golf and/or hunting site while riding the train and mentioned it to Tillinghast at the time, who was likely riding along with him.
3) When other possible sites for the course these guys were looking to build didn't pan out (in Absecon, etc), Crump went back to the site with Perrin at first, and then others, stopping at Sumner Station and then getting out to explore on foot.
Once Crump was satisfied in his mind, and perhaps had some discussions with the owner negotiating terms and feasibility, he went back to his group, sending a letter, and starting the club.
I don't understand the need here for some to try and prove the unprovable - that one story or another is a myth or made up. Why do we need to make out that either Tillie or Shelly were mistaken, or worse yet, purposely misleading.
The 1910 train story is bogus.
And, finally your current position:
Crump was familiar with the property due to his prior personal experience/s hunting/ horseback riding on the land and SUBSEQUENTLY, while riding on a train with AWT pointed out the approximate location of the land that he had already selected as his site for his golf course.
After 5 months and hundreds of posts you've finally come out of the jungle-like underbrush and stunted pines to state a clear position. Now, which other poster does your position most closely match (from 4 or 5 months ago).
______________________________________________
And, perhaps we should all follow the lead of this other poster, and not pay any attention to any of Pat's argumentative posts:
No offense to Patrick but I don't pay a tremendous amount of attention to every single one of his posts
-
Bryan
When you answer the question in reply # 57, I'll consider taking your test.
-
I'm happy to see that you edited out one of your other derogatory remarks about AWT. There is really no need to try to posthumously tear down the man's reputation and credibility. Just because men are successful or priests doesn't mean they are either credible or reliable witnesses to history.
Bryan
What did I edit out?
-
Pat,
I've already answered it twice. Please look in the back pages. Jim has answered it several times. Go look in the back pages. What does this debate have to do with anything now that you agree that Crump told Tillinghast about the site while on the train?
-
Bryan,
I don't appreciate you taking my words out of context above and using them to take another swipe at Patrick. You suggest that I said that do I "not pay any attention to any of Pat's argumentative posts." This is not true. I generally read Patrick's posts, but I may have missed some posts or missed some details in some others. That is all I meant.
If you want to continue to take shots at Patrick, use your own words, not mine.
Thanks.
-
Ah ha, now I remember. Much of the discussion about lying revolved around the apparent cover-up of Crump's cause of death. I haven't really ever bothered with that discussion and have no desire to get into it now.
I wasn't in that argument either. Maybe a single post if at all.
No, Macwood began th Pine Valley and Topos thread with the statement "the train story is bogus and a myth" and has repeated himself dozens of times since and for months refused to actually post any of his supporting source material. Bryan searched out the 8 sources he provided as proof because they all have identical stories about hunting. Well, unfortunately the stories are not only inconsistent but none are contemporaneous, most notably Travers.
-
Patrick,
I think Jim tries to present the material accurately and generally does, but in this case he may have let his emotion get the best of him. Happens to the best of us.
As for TEPaul, he has proven he is not capable of productively participating in these conversations. Let's not waste our time bothering with what he might have posted in his circle jerk emails. I've no time for him or his pathetic grabs at attention.
__________________________________
Jim, I too think that the train story is bogus and a myth. But doubting the accuracy of the description is a far cry from calling AWT a liar. I doubt TomM ever said every single story was exactly the same or that any or all of them were contemporaneous, so I fail to grasp your point. One thing all the various accounts have in common is they all contradict the train story, which leads me to believe that the train story is bogus and a myth.
But perhaps we should stop trying to make this about TomM or Patrick or even pompous posters from posts past? Aren't we supposedly trying to figure out what happened?
If that is the goal then perhaps we can all agree that the various versions all contradict the AWT train story, which even by itself waspretty unlikely on its face.
-
Tom,
Thanks for posting the Baker stuff. Do you have his complete remembrances?
Is the quoted part contiguous or are there missing pieces. It seems a little disjointed. For instance, he mentions the other people he played with in the early years and then segues in the next paragraph to "we" went to Europe. I assume that didn't mean the 9 people in the preceding paragraph.
There are a couple of things that don't seem to match other sources. See below. My guess is that some of the details were a little fuzzy after 38 years. They would be for me.
In 1950 Joseph Baker wrote down his recollections:
"The recollections of Joseph H. Baker of the PVGC and of George A. Crump, the founder - good friend of many years and hunting companion on more than fifty trips over the United States.
GAC started to play golf in Merchantville, NJ - his home - St. Davids, and Torresdale with Howard Perrin, Andy Carty, Wister Harvey, Jack Edwards, WW Atterbury, William P. Smith, Dick Hanson, Arnold Dawson, Frank Hayes and Cameron Buxton.
In 1910 we made a three months trip to Europe, playing on various golf courses - Walton Heath, Sunningdale, Turnberry, Prestwick, Hoylake (where he played with John Ball, champion of England - who best him two in one) and St. Andrews (where I bought my first golf clubs). I bought a corduroy bag and five clubs for about $15.00 and then we went down to Cirgere in Dover, where there are three golf courses, and he played fifty-four holes in one day. From there we went to Carlsbad, Luzerne, Nice and the Cagnes Club. Rome and Paris completed our trip to Europe and returned home.
Once home Crump paid a visit to Brown Mills, where he thought of building a golf course. Then with the same object in view he went to Absecon, where the present country club is located. In Absecon he found the mosquitos so many and vicious that he decided it would not do. He came back to Merchantville and started to buy the ground at Sumner station, which was later changed to Pine Valley. He paid $50.00 for most of it, and for some ground paid $100 per acre. There is a discontinuity between this and the deeds. In the deeds Crump paid $8,750 for 184.31 acres. That's $47.47 an acre, not some for $50.00 and some for $100.00. He secured the right-of-way from the Ireland property for a road one hundred feet wide for about ninety-nine years and in the old days that is the way we came to Pine Valley - by way of Watsontown. In 1914 Virginia Ireland granted Pine Valley free and unhindered access from the Clementon - New Freedom Road to Pine Valley across her property on an existing 30 foot wide (not 100) road - what is now called Old Mill Road. It was forever, not 99 years.
At one of the luncheons at my house I had Andrew T. Dice, President of the Reading Company, and he said since we had no station at PV he would have one built, which was done. in those days we had lots of trains stopping at PV - express trains to and from. I wonder where? All the other sources only mention Sumner Station. One wonders how many trains there were to serve 200 members and their guests?
After buying the property Mr. Crump sent for Mr. Colt, who laid out the Sunningdale course in England...."
Baker is the primary source for a lot of info. The 1910 trip to the UK, the consideration of two sites prior to, and the train station. I suspect is also the primary source for Crump's familiarity with the site from hunting. Is there a mention of hunting in Baker's recollections? I don't see it in what you quote above. Or, is it just your suspicion? Do you suppose that Baker was the source for Uzzell's and Nunneville's discredited claims in 1927 that Crump inherited or purchased a 300 acre hunting preserve years earlier?
Baker's home at PV was the first house, after Crump's, built on the property in 1916. He lived there for about forty years, and I believe Shelly later lived in that same home. Shelly became a member in 1928. I believe both men served many years as mayor of the town of PV. Baker was a major source, and is quoted often, in Wind's extensive article on PV written in 1950. I suspect he was an important source for Shelly as well.
Baker's mention of the three courses at Dover is most likely the three courses at Sandwich. Apparently Finegan, quoting Baker, says they were Royal St. George's, Royal Cinque Ports, and Princes.
Although Crump and Tilly no doubt were acquaintances, being among the better players in Philadelphia, I wonder if Tilly didn't over play their relationship. All of Crump's closest friends were among the original founders of the club; Tilly was never even a member of the club. Based on what I have read I get the impression Tilly was sort of a lose canon, socially, financially and professionally, where as Crump's friends and founders were all very successful men in their respective fields...including Dr. Carr, the Catholic priest. I'm happy to see that you edited out one of your other derogatory remarks about AWT. There is really no need to try to posthumously tear down the man's reputation and credibility. Just because men are successful or priests doesn't mean they are either credible or reliable witnesses to history.
Bryan
What the hell are you talk about...back pages? You just made this claim one page ago (see above), and you have ignored my question. Again, what derogatory remarks did I edit out of my of post #17?
-
David,
I haven't let emotion get the best of me. I stand by each comment I've made.
In th eopening post Bryan posted nine sources who mentioned Crump and some version of the discovery of the land that became Pine Valley. You suggested that they were all contradictory to the train story. I count four of the nine that preclude the train story. Of those, Travers precludes one or two of the others so I understand your desire for them to be complimentary they are a long ways from it.
The point of the stories being contemporaneous is my presumption that Crump would have had the opportunity to correct Tillinghast if the train story were a bogus myth and evidence suggests he never did...but he never had the chance to correct any of the others...
-
I don't know Jim . . . I doubt Crump had anything to prove about the discovery to AWT. He may not have been as vigilant about trying to put others in their place about such trivial details as some around here. After all, AWT was promoting the course and his version did a very good job of emphasizing that this was not run of the mill New Jersey flatland. He also give everyone something to look for on the passage to Atlantic City. Besides, we don't know if Crump bothered to set him straight or not. AWT told the story in 1913 and then next time was after Crump was dead, wasn't it?
I don't read the accounts as you do, but we've covered that.
-
Bryan,
I don't appreciate you taking my words out of context above and using them to take another swipe at Patrick. You suggest that I said that do I "not pay any attention to any of Pat's argumentative posts." This is not true. I generally read Patrick's posts, but I may have missed some posts or missed some details in some others. That is all I meant.
If you want to continue to take shots at Patrick, use your own words, not mine.
Thanks.
Sorry you feel the quote is out of context. At least you recognized it as your quote, even though I didn't name you. It is what you said, and it seemed to me to stand on its own, particularly since you've said it before.
Now, your second sentence is just wrong (even correcting the grammatical error). I did not say that YOU did not pay attention to any of Pat's argumentative posts, as you say above. I said that the rest of us should follow your lead in not paying attention to every single one of his posts, specifically the "argumentative" ones.
Thanks for the clarification in the next sentence of what you really meant.
I guess I'm left wondering how you managed to miss all of Pat's posts about the picture view over the 2nd green and 3rd tee. You've spent at least tens of posts arguing the point with me and others. Strangely, to me, on the point that you can't see hills beyond the 2nd green and 3rd tee, you and I have agreed, yet you have argued long and loud with others, but not Pat, who continues to this day to place the 2nd green and 3rd tee in the middle of the picture. Why did you not debate the physical impossibility of that with him? Months back you told me you missed it. I never understood how that was possible. Did you miss his many posts, or just some of the details in his many posts?
-
..................................
Bryan
What the hell are you talk about...back pages? You just made this claim one page ago (see above), and you have ignored my question. Again, what derogatory remarks did I edit out of my of post #17?
Tom,
What are you on about the "back pages". Did you not read closely enough to understand that that post was addressed to Pat, not to you and was on a different subject?
Re the derogatory remark, you need to understand the conundrum. If I tell you what you wrote, then I'll be posting the same derogatory remark under my name. You deleted it. I don't want it associated with my name, so I will not repeat it. I'm sure you know what it was; you've used it before in trying to undermine Tillinghast's character and reliability as a witness to history. Except for others who may have seen it, it will just have to go down as "he said - he said".
-
...........................
Besides, we don't know if Crump bothered to set him straight or not. AWT told the story in 1913 and then next time was after Crump was dead, wasn't it?
................................
There are many things we don't know. One thing we do know is that the train story was published three times in 1913, in one newspaper and two magazines. Of course we don't know if Crump read newspapers or magazines, so we don't know if he saw the three articles.
-
Just a couple of other minor points:
_________________________________
It has been reported on here since at least 2004 that Crump either told his friends or wrote to his friends that:
"I think I landed on something pretty fine"
What is the source of that quote? I assumed it was Carr in 1915. But, Carr quoted Crump as saying:
""I think we have happened on something pretty fine,"
Are there two conflicting sources, or have we here just modified it over time?
"Happen on" means "to find by chance" today. Do you suppose it meant the same thing in 1915? Did Crump find PV by chance looking out a train window?
__________________________________________
It seems to be part of the PV story that Crump sold the Colonnade Hotel in 1910 and then went on to discover the property and build PV, presumably with the money from selling the hotel.
The Hotel was built by Crump's Uncle John Crump. When he retired, he leased it to two of his sons Henry J. and George R. They had some financial difficulties with the hotel that they overcame, as Tom MacWood described in his Opinion piece. Does anyone know how George A. Crump came into ownership of the hotel, presumably from his cousins Henry J. and George R. Crump? And, when that might have occurred?
I came across the following quote in an article in the NY Times on January 31, 1909 about a horse show in Atlantic City: "Henry J. Crump, owner of the Colonnade Hotel, Philadelphia, is a visitor at the St. Charles." Did George A. buy it and sell it within a year? Or, inherit it? Did both cousins die? Other explanations?
-
..................................
Bryan
What the hell are you talk about...back pages? You just made this claim one page ago (see above), and you have ignored my question. Again, what derogatory remarks did I edit out of my of post #17?
Tom,
What are you on about the "back pages". Did you not read closely enough to understand that that post was addressed to Pat, not to you and was on a different subject?
Re the derogatory remark, you need to understand the conundrum. If I tell you what you wrote, then I'll be posting the same derogatory remark under my name. You deleted it. I don't want it associated with my name, so I will not repeat it. I'm sure you know what it was; you've used it before in trying to undermine Tillinghast's character and reliability as a witness to history. Except for others who may have seen it, it will just have to go down as "he said - he said".
Bryan
That is weak. Your conundrum is being called out on your bogus claim. I did not edit anything derogatory out of that post, and the fact you are claiming I did but not backing it up is one of the biggest acts of cowardice ever on this site. You obviously have no idea what I've said in the past about Tilly, and like the other claim this most recent one will go unsupported as well. In the future may I suggest you avoid making claims about others if you don't have the balls to back it up.
-
Bryan is a chap I must meet. If he can have the patience to "debate" for so long with the Three Stooges (Tommy MacIDontShareInfo, Pat ArgueTilGreen Mucci and David WannabeHolmes Moriarty) pulling the Abbot & Costello (this show should go on the road - its that comical) Who's On First routine he should be nominated for sainthood.
Ciao
-
Sorry you feel the quote is out of context. At least you recognized it as your quote, even though I didn't name you. It is what you said, and it seemed to me to stand on its own, particularly since you've said it before.
Now, your second sentence is just wrong (even correcting the grammatical error). I did not say that YOU did not pay attention to any of Pat's argumentative posts, as you say above. I said that the rest of us should follow your lead in not paying attention to every single one of his posts, specifically the "argumentative" ones.
Thanks for the clarification in the next sentence of what you really meant.
I guess I'm left wondering how you managed to miss all of Pat's posts about the picture view over the 2nd green and 3rd tee. You've spent at least tens of posts arguing the point with me and others. Strangely, to me, on the point that you can't see hills beyond the 2nd green and 3rd tee, you and I have agreed, yet you have argued long and loud with others, but not Pat, who continues to this day to place the 2nd green and 3rd tee in the middle of the picture. Why did you not debate the physical impossibility of that with him? Months back you told me you missed it. I never understood how that was possible. Did you miss his many posts, or just some of the details in his many posts?
No need for the extended song and dance, Bryan. My request was simple and fair. Don't twist my words to support your potshots at Patrick. As for your last paraphraph, I told you before that my comments regarding those photos were to everyone including Patrick. Perhaps Patrick is just more comfortable agreeing to disagree with me than you seem to be?
But why is it that you keep trying to make this about Patrick and TomM? You have been after them for months regarding this train story. Your initial post made this very clear that this was more a grudge than investigation, but you went back and modified it days after the fact. My hope was that now that your efforts at proving them wrong have fallen well short, you'd manage to turn back to the real issue of what happened. Instead you seem more obsessed than ever with TomM and Patrick.
Speaking of going back and editing derogatory comments out of posts, your response to TomM is really something. A grand total of two minutes elapsed before TomM edited his post, yet you go after him days later for supposedly deleting out some derogatory comment? Now you won't even come clean about what he supposedly said? Disappointing.
____________________________
Sean Arble. Thanks for your brilliant substantive input. And a Merry Christmas to you, too. Or perhaps I should say, Happy Boxing Day, Ol' Chap. Tallyhoe!
-
Tom MacWood,
I asked you this a couple pages ago...maybe you missed it but it was in response to a question of yours.
How can you reconcile Carr and Travers? David?
1915 Simon Carr
“They desired a course where there would be
practically no closed season throughout the year. In
discussing the problem, they had the seaside in mind,
chiefly the region about Atlantic City; but the great
distance from Philadelphia, and the extreme difficulty
of securing a suitable location, caused the
project of a seashore course to be dropped.
The region outside of Camden was searched in all
directions, until, finally, Mr. George A. Crump discovered
a perfectly wonderful bit of golf land at
Sumner Station, on the Atlantic City Division of the
Reading Railroad, thirteen miles outside of Camden.
"I think we have happened on something pretty
fine," he reported to his friends in Philadelphia. His
friends hastened down to have a look at the discovery.
The tract was heavily wooded with pine and oak, and
had an undergrowth as dense as a jungle. For a
month it was gone over carefully on foot; every detail
of conformation was noted; the soil carefully examined
in all parts, and, finally, in October, 1912, a
tract of 184 acres was purchased.”
Carr, who was certainly contemporaneous with Crump and directly involved with Pine Valley, does not say anything about how Crump originally “discovered” the site other than he was searching in all directions. Certainly, nothing definitive here about discovery through “hunting”.
Tom,
This timeline is also a stand alone as Carr makes it clear that when Crump discovered the site he was "searching in all direction" for a location for the golf course. How can you tie this to Travers' account? Or is there more to the Carr account which I have not seen? If so, can you post it?
-
Jim - in your opinion, is there something inherently implausible about the following scenario/description:
Crump was familiar with the land from childhood, long before golf or golf course architecture was even a glint in his eye, and at that point the land was nothing more to him than simply a place to hunt.
After growing up and playing many years of golf on the best courses of the times, Crump saw that same land in a brand new way, as if for the first time -- as if for the first time in that he recognized/intuited its potential as a golf course, from the train with AWT in 1910.
After searching out other sites and pondering the question fully, Crump realized that the land not only could be but indeed was ideal for the kind of golf course he envisioned, and so in 1912 he shared the news with others and bought the land.
So: the hunting story is true of/for the young Crump, the non-golfer, who didn't "know". The train story is true of/for the older Crump, the would-be architect, who at that point "knew". And the mature Crump came into his own in 1912, when he first "knew that he knew".
I'm not arguing for the veracity of this "time-line"; I have no idea if it is true or not. I'm just asking whether it is an implausible scenario, from what you've read.
Peter
-
I think it contradicts Simon Carr's account. Carr would have been closer to him than anyone else.
-
Just a couple of other minor points:
_________________________________
It has been reported on here since at least 2004 that Crump either told his friends or wrote to his friends that:
"I think I landed on something pretty fine"
What is the source of that quote? I assumed it was Carr in 1915. But, Carr quoted Crump as saying:
""I think we have happened on something pretty fine,"
Are there two conflicting sources, or have we here just modified it over time?
"Happen on" means "to find by chance" today. Do you suppose it meant the same thing in 1915? Did Crump find PV by chance looking out a train window?
__________________________________________
It seems to be part of the PV story that Crump sold the Colonnade Hotel in 1910 and then went on to discover the property and build PV, presumably with the money from selling the hotel.
The Hotel was built by Crump's Uncle John Crump. When he retired, he leased it to two of his sons Henry J. and George R. They had some financial difficulties with the hotel that they overcame, as Tom MacWood described in his Opinion piece. Does anyone know how George A. Crump came into ownership of the hotel, presumably from his cousins Henry J. and George R. Crump? And, when that might have occurred?
I came across the following quote in an article in the NY Times on January 31, 1909 about a horse show in Atlantic City: "Henry J. Crump, owner of the Colonnade Hotel, Philadelphia, is a visitor at the St. Charles." Did George A. buy it and sell it within a year? Or, inherit it? Did both cousins die? Other explanations?
Carr said he reported to his friends: "I think we have happened on something pretty fine"
John Arthur Brown said he reported to his friends, "I think I landed on something pretty fine. It is 14 miles below Camden, at a stop called Sumner, on the Reading RR to Atlantic City--a sandy soil, with rolling ground, among the pines."
I really don't think it is that important how he found the site, so if you have your heart set on the train story I don't see the harm in you believing he found it by chance in 1912 looking out a train window....of course that conflicts with Tilly's account and the numerous other accounts that don't mention a train.
Regarding the sale of the hotel, that chain of events is pretty confusing and I'm not sure I have good handle on it. The original owner was John Crump, GAC's uncle. John Crump had two sons (HJ And GR) who ran the hotel, and also owned other hotels. GAC eventually began working for his cousins at the Colonnade. The two sons ran into financial difficulty and defaulted on some loans. Their creditors sued them in 1891, including their father, before eventually coming to some sort of settlement.
John Crump died in 1892, and he must have made stipulations to keep the property out of the hands of his sons. The estate of John Crump owned the hotel; HJ Crump never owned the hotel. In 1900 the Philadelphia Trust Safety Deposit Co, trustee of the estate, transferred the hotel to GAC. At the time of the transfer there were reports of some controversy regarding the sale. There was a gentleman who said he had an agreement with the trustee to buy the hotel when HJ Crump made some 11th hour deal to have GAC purchase it.
In December of 1909 there was a report GAC sold the hotel to George B. Wilson for $1,250,000. In April 1910 it was reported the heirs of John Crump (including HJ Crump) were blocking the sale of the hotel because of irregularities with the 1900 sale, they claimed there was something out of the line with conveyance to GAC. The property was worth $320,000 at the time GAC bought it and was worth $800,000 in 1910, so that may have something to do with it too. Evidently in August 1910 the court sided with GAC because his sale to Martin Greenhouse went through August 5, 1910. Crump left for the UK shortly after the sale.
-
Tom MacWood,
I asked you this a couple pages ago...maybe you missed it but it was in response to a question of yours.
How can you reconcile Carr and Travers? David?
1915 Simon Carr
“They desired a course where there would be
practically no closed season throughout the year. In
discussing the problem, they had the seaside in mind,
chiefly the region about Atlantic City; but the great
distance from Philadelphia, and the extreme difficulty
of securing a suitable location, caused the
project of a seashore course to be dropped.
The region outside of Camden was searched in all
directions, until, finally, Mr. George A. Crump discovered
a perfectly wonderful bit of golf land at
Sumner Station, on the Atlantic City Division of the
Reading Railroad, thirteen miles outside of Camden.
"I think we have happened on something pretty
fine," he reported to his friends in Philadelphia. His
friends hastened down to have a look at the discovery.
The tract was heavily wooded with pine and oak, and
had an undergrowth as dense as a jungle. For a
month it was gone over carefully on foot; every detail
of conformation was noted; the soil carefully examined
in all parts, and, finally, in October, 1912, a
tract of 184 acres was purchased.”
Carr, who was certainly contemporaneous with Crump and directly involved with Pine Valley, does not say anything about how Crump originally “discovered” the site other than he was searching in all directions. Certainly, nothing definitive here about discovery through “hunting”.
Tom,
This timeline is also a stand alone as Carr makes it clear that when Crump discovered the site he was "searching in all direction" for a location for the golf course. How can you tie this to Travers' account? Or is there more to the Carr account which I have not seen? If so, can you post it?
It is clear GAC knew of the site through hunting prior to 1910; all the hunting accounts plus Finegan claims they have discovered evidence. But being familiar with site through the eyes of a hunter and considering its suitability as a potential golf course are two different things. As I told you before I don't believe he began considering it for a golf course until 1912, when he wrote to his friends. They went over the site for a full month before finally pulling the trigger; it was difficult site and it took time to determine if it would work. I thought I already posted this, and again I don't think it is that important how he found the site so if you like the train story...
-
I generally agree with TomM. There is a big difference between knowing the land on the one hand, and realizing its potential for golf and eventually choosing it as a golf site, on the other. Keep in mind that the PV land was far from the type of land normally used for golf. A few of the accounts mention that the flatter, the treeless farmland/grassland nearby was more the norm.
So I guess I really don't see the contradiction or the need for reconciliation. Carr is talking about the process of deciding upon the land for golf. He doesn't get into whether or not Crump had any familiarity with the land before this.
-
Sean,
Well, if you come to the Buda Cup in September, we can meet. I'll be the one with devil's horns coming out of my Titleist cap.
-
Peter,
Although not addressed to me, I'll comment too. Yes, it is plausible. I could even go with it being the most plausible. It's a way to reconcile the two general discovery concepts of the train and hunting. However, people want simple black or white answers. What we have is a bunch of conflicting gray pieces of evidence. So, I have no expectation that there will be an epiphany one day where everyone will say that yes, this or that story, is the absolute truth about how Crump actually discovered the tract.
Jim - in your opinion, is there something inherently implausible about the following scenario/description:
Crump was familiar with the land from childhood, long before golf or golf course architecture was even a glint in his eye, and at that point the land was nothing more to him than simply a place to hunt.
After growing up and playing many years of golf on the best courses of the times, Crump saw that same land in a brand new way, as if for the first time -- as if for the first time in that he recognized/intuited its potential as a golf course, from the train with AWT in 1910.
After searching out other sites and pondering the question fully, Crump realized that the land not only could be but indeed was ideal for the kind of golf course he envisioned, and so in 1912 he shared the news with others and bought the land.
So: the hunting story is true of/for the young Crump, the non-golfer, who didn't "know". The train story is true of/for the older Crump, the would-be architect, who at that point "knew". And the mature Crump came into his own in 1912, when he first "knew that he knew".
I'm not arguing for the veracity of this "time-line"; I have no idea if it is true or not. I'm just asking whether it is an implausible scenario, from what you've read.
Peter
-
Bryan - thanks. For what it's worth, it strikes me as plausible as well. But I can't say that I understand what difference it would make whether it was or wasn't, or whether both or neither or one or the other of the stories could be proven true -- except in terms of how this would support/detract from the reporting/memories of those closest to the times. On the other hand, I tend to believe that these kinds of stories/traditions/narratives tend to be based on some basic truth, even if like barnacles on a ship they get built up over time.
Peter
-
Pat,
I've already answered it twice. Please look in the back pages. Jim has answered it several times.
Neither one of you has identified the location from where you believe Crump sighted the "rolling hills and valleys"
Go look in the back pages.
What does this debate have to do with anything now that you agree that Crump told Tillinghast about the site while on the train?
I see that you have now become intellectually dishonest, in addition to deliberately misquoting me
"I" was the one who stated that Crump did not "FIRST" spot PV from the train.
"I" was the one who stated that Crump, already familiar with the land from prior time spent on the land, hunting/horseback riding, probably pointed out the land to AWT, as they were riding the train, indicating that this was the site he had selected, based on his prior exposure.
If you can't quote or cite me properly, how are we to trust you with anything you post ?
-
.....................................
Carr said he reported to his friends: "I think we have happened on something pretty fine"
John Arthur Brown said he reported to his friends, "I think I landed on something pretty fine. It is 14 miles below Camden, at a stop called Sumner, on the Reading RR to Atlantic City--a sandy soil, with rolling ground, among the pines."
I really don't think it is that important how he found the site, so if you have your heart set on the train story I don't see the harm in you believing he found it by chance in 1912 looking out a train window....of course that conflicts with Tilly's account and the numerous other accounts that don't mention a train.
Regarding the sale of the hotel, that chain of events is pretty confusing and I'm not sure I have good handle on it. The original owner was John Crump, GAC's uncle. John Crump had two sons (HJ And GR) who ran the hotel, and also owned other hotels. GAC eventually began working for his cousins at the Colonnade. The two sons ran into financial difficulty and defaulted on some loans. Their creditors sued them in 1891, including their father, before eventually coming to some sort of settlement.
John Crump died in 1892, and he must have made stipulations to keep the property out of the hands of his sons. The estate of John Crump owned the hotel; HJ Crump never owned the hotel. In 1900 the Philadelphia Trust Safety Deposit Co, trustee of the estate, transferred the hotel to GAC. At the time of the transfer there were reports of some controversy regarding the sale. There was a gentleman who said he had an agreement with the trustee to buy the hotel when HJ Crump made some 11th hour deal to have GAC purchase it.
In December of 1909 there was a report GAC sold the hotel to George B. Wilson for $1,250,000. In April 1910 it was reported the heirs of John Crump (including HJ Crump) were blocking the sale of the hotel because of irregularities with the 1900 sale, they claimed there was something out of the line with conveyance to GAC. The property was worth $320,000 at the time GAC bought it and was worth $800,000 in 1910, so that may have something to do with it too. Evidently in August 1910 the court sided with GAC because his sale to Martin Greenhouse went through August 5, 1910. Crump left for the UK shortly after the sale.
Tom,
Just for clarity, I am not married to Tillinghast's train story, as you seem to think, as the absolute exclusive truth to the exclusion of the hunting or searching or horseback-riding stories. Never have been. I have not called any of the other stories completely bogus (except for Uzzell and Nunneville, both of which are provably wrong). There are things in all the stories them that don't make sense. I'd still like to find a unifying theory that incorporates the various stories.
Thanks for the further detail on GAC and the Colonnade. I assume you have sources for the information. It seems to conflict (not that that's anything new) with other NY Times stories I've seen that say that Henry J., his wife Marie S. and George R. were the proprietors (that does mean owner/operator in NJ in PA doesn't it) in 1894. Then again in 1907, Henry's wife dies and is referred to as the wife of the owner of the Colonnade. And, again in 1909, there was the social column referring to Henry J. as the owner of the Colonnade. Seems odd to me that they were still understood to be the owners in 1907 and 1909 if the hotel was transferred to George A. in 1900. Do you suppose that George A. and George R. were confused? A and R are look pretty close - it would be easy for reporters or clerks to transcribe the initial wrong.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/CrumpSonsColonnadeFinancialIssues2.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MrsCrumpDeathNotice.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/HenryJCrumpatHorseShow.jpg)
_______________________________________________________________
On another front, I came across the Masters thesis of Carol A. Benenson titled:
MERCHANTVILLE, NEW JERSEY: THE DEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECTURE, AND PRESERVATION OF A VICTORIAN COMMUTER SUBURB
There are a number of mentions of various Crumps in the architectural history of Merchantville. Ms. Benenson attributes the architecture of two historic houses on Chestnut Ave to Henry J. Crump. Strangely, to make things more murky, she states that Henry J. and George W. are brothers rather than nephew and uncle respectively. She also states that this was George A. Crump's childhood home. Also strangely, it is not the property that Crump bought from his brother and two sisters after they all inherited it from their father George W.(I described that transaction in the Deed thread). There are too many Georges in this tale.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/CrumpHouseMerchantville.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE:
The Centennial House originally served as the Hospitality House for the
British Exhibit at the 1876 Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. The building
was shipped in parts from Great Britain and assembled at the grounds of Fairmount
Park. After the Fair, Merchantville resident and British Vice Consul, George
Crump, purchased the building, and with the help of his brother, architect Henry
J. Crump, dismantled and reassembled the structure in Merchantville along the
north side of E. Chestnut Avenue. The center section of the original structure
was not brought to Merchantville, but the two end sections were joined to form
a double house which has been in residential use since George Crump's son,
George Arthur Crump, first lived there. This account of the Centennial House's
origins is strongly embedded in local histories. However, it is also reasonable
to suggest that Henry J. Crump, who designed the stylish Queen Anne house at
1 E. Chestnut Avenue, was the original architect for this Stick Style building
which may have been inspired by exposition structures at the Centennial.
Regardless of its origins, the Centennial House is significant because of its
outstanding architectural composition and detail.
It must have been a neat trip, in the mid 1880's, for George A. and his boyhood comrades to take the train from Merchantville to Camden and from there to the flag stop at Sumner and then back for a day of hunting.
On another tangent altogether, did you ever find anything on John Crump's farm/estate in Media PA?
-
Pat,
Things a little slow at the FL happy hour? ;)
Sorry, I can't help you if you can't understand our answers to your "location" question. But, both of us did answer you.
Were you not the one preaching a more collegial team approach to these discussions. There is no "I" in team. But, I'm happy to credit you with the first use of "FIRST".
Now, if you have time for the history test above, give it a try, it might be illuminating as to where various people have been on these subjects over the last 5 months. If you're not up to it, I'll complete it for you in due course.
-
Bryan,
I wasn't the first to use the term "first".
What you don't seem capable of comprehending is that if Crump didn't "first" spot PV from the train, then he knew about the property previously, which means that the train story is invalid, a myth.
-
David,
I told you some time ago that one of Bryan's primary objectives was to disagree with me.
Like a woman scorned, Bryan's still smarting from the fact that I corrected him on a number of inaccurate posts he made due to his lack of first hand familiarity with PV. TEPaul, in his email blasts, also chastised Bryan for his lack of understanding of the topography due to his lack of first hand experience. He was also critical of you in that same regard. Bryan's lack of first hand data bothers him and he has no response so he resorts to distorting and misrepresenting what I've stated and what my position is. That's intellectually dishonest.
Bryan has no frame of reference in terms of on site experience.
He doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of first hand observations, so he lashes out.
I've asked him a simple question, which he claims to have answered previously, if that was the case he should have no problem repeating his alleged, specific point, answer.
-
Bryan
Love, marriage, emotional attachment, whatever you want to call it, your irrational attempt to prove the train story has resulted in you consuming several months and untold hours of your life, hundreds of posts, dozens of maps, charts, formulas, and other triangulations, while at the same time, for months, ignoring the overwhelming evidence the 1910 train story is false: Crump was not playing golf in 1910; Tilly was playing little or no golf in 1910; Crump considered two other sites before deciding on the present site in 1912; Crump wrote to his friends in 1912 telling them that he found the site; eight or nine separate sources saying GAC knew of the site through hunting. You may not be married to the theory but there is some heavy petting and fondling involved.
I will stop beating the dead horse regarding your claim I deleted a derogatory comment about Tilly, its apparent you have no backbone. I'm not sure how you backed yourself into that corner, I suspect one of two things happened, someone emailed and told you I deleted something derogatory, and you are now wondering if that person lied, or you just made it up and don't have the courage or integrity to say you made a mistake. Whatever the case I will drop it.
As far the ownership of the hotel is concerned, when I was preparing for the Crump essay I contacted the department of records for the city of Philadelphia and requested a search of the deeds. From 1868 to 1870 John Crump acquired four separate parcels (from Richard Henry Rush, William Kirk, Albert Gorgas, and Marinda Dorr) that later made up the site of the hotel. In 1900 the Philadelphia Trust Safety Deposit Co, trustees under the will of John Crump, transferred the properties to GAC. In 1910 GAC transferred the properties to Martin Greenhouse. Greenhouse transferred the properties to David Folwell in 1917. I don't know what happened after that. HJ Crump did run the hotel, but he never owned it.
-
Tom,
How can you reconcile the accounts of both Travers and Carr? Doesn't Carr completely undermine Travers suggestion that Crump knew every foot of the ground since childhood?
-
David,
Much as you may think you're opinion was a mystery, it never was. We knew you agreed with Tom. The question is, why don't two contradictory stories which such as Travers and Carr need to be reconciled with you guys yet the train story is obviously a myth when it could fit in with a number of the "nine sources"?
For instance, Carr's account is consistent with AWT with the only inconsistency being the timing of the train ride.
Carr doesn't mention hunting, or even imply it by talking about horses or dogs. He says quite clearly that Crump was looking in all directions for somewhere to put the golf course.
-
Jim
I don't see a conflict...plus the preponderance of accouts claim GAC knew the site through hunting.
It doesn't sound like you've spent much time hiking through the woods. I have gone on quite few hikes through and over thickly forested hills - as a boy, a young man, and as an older adult - and while doing so I can honestly say I have never thought 'boy this would be a good site for a golf course.' Thickly forested land is not something you naturally consider for golf. As I have said several times being familar with land through hunting and considering its suiitability for a golf course are two distinctly different things, particularly when the land is heavily treed.
-
Is that how you reconcile Travers and Carr having contradictory accounts?
If so, how does spotting the same tract from a train become a myth? Serious question.
I said from the beginning of these conversations that even if Crump did know the land before, the perspective the train would have offered could easily have been brand new. You scoffed at that idea. Why is it different?
-
Pat,
How is it that Crump pointed anything out to Tillinghast while on the train?
-
Bryan
The woman who died on the ferry was GAC's wife.
-
Is that how you reconcile Travers and Carr having contradictory accounts?
If so, how does spotting the same tract from a train become a myth? Serious question.
I said from the beginning of these conversations that even if Crump did know the land before, the perspective the train would have offered could easily have been brand new. You scoffed at that idea. Why is it different?
How are the Travers and Carr accounts contradictory?
The train story supposedly took place in 1910.
1. Crump was not playing golf in 1910
2. Tilly was playing little or no golf in 1910
3. Crump considered two other sites before deciding on the present site in 1912
4. Crump wrote to his friends in 1912 telling them that he found the site; eight or nine separate sources saying GAC knew of the site through hunting
If you are attached to the train story, I see no harm...as local myths go this is a very minor one.
-
I know what you think you have as evidence as to why the train story is a myth but that's not what I asked...you know what I asked because you quoted it there. How can you reconcile Carr and Travers as they are completely contradictory?
-
Tom,
I guess the NY Times misspelled Isabelle as Gabell.
eight or nine separate sources saying GAC knew of the site through hunting
Why do you keep perpetuating this myth? You know that there are not eight or nine sources. Reread the first post of this thread.
-
David,
Much as you may think you're opinion was a mystery, it never was. We knew you agreed with Tom.
No need to get snippy, Jim. If you knew my opinion and aren't interested in it, then why did you ask for it in post 77? ("David?") And why are you asking again for it now?
The question is, why don't two contradictory stories which such as Travers and Carr need to be reconciled with you guys yet the train story is obviously a myth when it could fit in with a number of the "nine sources"?
If you know my opinion then you already know that I have answered this question repeatedly. As I read them, the Travers and Carr versions are not contradictory. You keep saying they are, and are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with you for reasons stated repeatedly.
As for the AWT train stories, AWT presents it as if Crump had no idea that hilly wood-covered sand hills existed a dozen miles from his home. It was a revelatory story about the very existence of such land which was so different than the usual flat monotonous land in Southern NJ. Crump became aware that such land existed only by a glance out the window of a fast moving train, and his first thought was that the land would be perfect for golf. This is NOT consistent with Crump having been familiar with the land from hunting, and deciding on the land after careful study of the PV tract and other possible sites.
In other words, I take AWT at his word, and don't believe that what AWT really meant was that Crump was already very familiar with the land from having hunted it extensively, but nonetheless only came to the realization of its potential after a chance glance out a window of a fast moving train. I don't believe that is what AWT really meant because this version doesn't jibe with what AWT wrote. You want to read it this way, but I cannot.
-
David,
It was never in doubt as to your agreement with Tom Macwood on the train story being a myth...your interpretation of Travers' account versus Carr's has my rapt attention.
I took out the ancillary parts of the Carr account and have quoted the meat in the section below. It intrigues me when held up against the post you just made. Does this section below read to you as though Crump is simply returning to land he'd known his whole life? If he had this land in his back pocket (for lack of better words at the moment) why would they have searched all over Camden County?
1915 Simon Carr
The region outside of Camden was searched in all
directions, until, finally, Mr. George A. Crump discovered
a perfectly wonderful bit of golf land at
Sumner Station, on the Atlantic City Division of the
Reading Railroad, thirteen miles outside of Camden.
"I think we have happened on something pretty
fine," he reported to his friends in Philadelphia. His
friends hastened down to have a look at the discovery.
Carr, who was certainly contemporaneous with Crump and directly involved with Pine Valley, does not say anything about how Crump originally “discovered” the site other than he was searching in all directions. Certainly, nothing definitive here about discovery through “hunting”.
-
I don't get what you don't get. They searched every direction for land suitable for a golf course before deciding upon PV. He eventually settled on a place that, according to other sources, he had been familiar with since childhood. Surely he had been long familiar with other locations as well (such as the course near Atlantic City) but there is more to these decisions (and the investigation leading up to them) than mere familiarity with the land. The PV land posed some real challenges and it was NOT what most people thought of as land suitable for a golf course, so surely the choice was a revelation to some, but I don't buy that Crump first became familiar with it because a chance glance out the window of a fast moving train.
I guess you must be placing a tremendous amount of weight on the word "discovered." But this is Carr's word, not Crump's, and I don't place the same emphasis on the word as you apparently do. I read Carr as crediting Crump for coming up with the location. I don't read Carr as giving an exact chronology of exactly when the Crump first saw the land.
-
I guess that's all that needs to be said.
When Tillinghast says Crump spotted it from a train the author is taking a flight of fancy yet when Simon Carr says they looked in all directions for somewhere to put the course and Crump DISCOVERS a viable spot it means he simply returnd to a well know hunting ground.
I've never thought about giving up until now but I'm beginning to think you're a special kind of crazy...
-
David,
Tom Paul and Tom Macwood both say Simon Carr and Joseph Baker were as close to George Crump as anyone could be and neither of them say or imply that Crump knew this parcel previously, let alone knew t well from huntng on it for years. If they do, I haven't seen it and would love a clarification...can you provide it? If not, can you show me the sentences attributedto these two men that suggest Crump knew the land previously?
The Travers' account certainly does, as do Wilson and one or two other...I understand that. I would like to get on he same page regarding where you see in the various sources that Crump knew this spot previously.
-
You want to hang your hat on Carr's word choice. Looking at his article in the context of what else was written about the place, I don't. So call me crazy.
-
David,
Help me out here...there's not a word in Carr's article that has anything to do with hunting yet you see it as supporting the theory that Crump had known this specific land for years because other articles suggested he did? How is that reasonable? Carr makes it crystal clear Crump had finding a place to put his golf course on his mind when he "DISCOVERED" the spot at Sumner Station.
Can we at least take Carr off the list of those supporting the hunting story? Tom? It seems reasonable to me. If we can, I'll ask Bryan to knock the third Hazard reference off our team...
-
Jim
Why do you care so much about how the site was discovered, and in particular the 1910 train story?
-
Jim,
I don't think I wrote that the Carr story "support[ed] the theory that Crump had known this specific land for years." I think I said they were consistent. They don't necessarily conflict. Crump may not have mentioned the hunting story, but his version of events can coexist with the hunting story and does not preclude the story, unless we get overly pedantic with one word choice.
Instead of pulling the one word out of context, I think we need to look at the rest of what he wrote, and also what other people wrote. I don't think Carr was addressing the issue of when Crump first became aware of certain properties. Carr provides a general survey of the areas they considered and credits Crump with coming up with Pine Valley. Carr said "the region outside of Camden was searched in all directions." So then, by your reading this must mean that Crump - born in Merchantville and reportedly a lifetime sportsman and outdoorsman - had no familiarity with any of the properties they might have considered? He laid eyes on the these properties for the very first time? He had no familiarity with any land around Camden? Is that a reasonable reading? I don't think so. Maybe it comes from my upbringing in a rural area where the land played an integral role in the way of life, but this notion that Crump was oblivious to his surrounds to the degree suggested by your interpretation strikes me as untenable.
-
Jim,
It is time to give it up. No logical discussion will move either of them (or Pat for that matter) off of what they know.
David is an expert at perversion - the alteration of something from its original meaning to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended. His latest twist on what "consistent" means is a wowser in that regard.
Tom is an expert at dogmatic avoidance. He has his 5 point dogma about the train story. He has his 8 (or 9 including himself) sources dogma for the "hunting" story, where two are proven erroneous and others including Carr don't mention hunting at all, but he still claims 8 sources. You ask him if we can remove Carr from the 8, and he asks you why you care so much. Avoidance in the first degree.
And, both have suggested from time to time that they don't really care; it's all just minor myths. But, then they post incessantly. I don't understand why they care so much.
My suggestion - just give it up. It is a waste of time now. The deeds provided some irrefutable factual information about the assembly of the property. The posting of the eight supposed "hunting" stories and the various "train" stories will provide anybody who cares to undertake their own analysis of it with a handy place to see the various "discovery" stories from over the years.
-
Alan Wilson wrote he discovered it on a shooting trip; Jerome Travers said GAC told him he first discovered the site hunting; Tom Uzell said Crump's father bought the site as a hunting preserve and that was how GAC became familiar with it; Ellsworth Giles said Crump with dog and gun roamed and explored the property; HW Wind said GAC concluded it was the perfect site while hunting; Shelly said he became familiar with site while hunting small game; Ford said he knew the site through his hunting experiences; Bunker said he discovered the site on horseback. Do you see a pattern?
I don't think it matters how he and horse got to the site.
There are numerous problems with Tilly's 1910 train story:
1. Crump was not playing golf in 1910.
2. Tilly was playing little or no golf in 1910 because of his involvement at Shawnee.
3. Crump considered two other sites prior to settling on the current site in 1912.
4. Crump's 1912 letter stating he just found the site.
5. The majority claim the site was found hunting.
Bryan
Here is the list I had in November; no mention of Carr. I should have added Nunneville who said Crump years ago had bought the site as a hunting preserve, and 'tramped it time and again with his dogs.' That would be number nine. We also know Finegan claims they have evidence GAC knew of the site through hunting...in opposition to the train lore. While the above stories differ slightly they all have one thing in common...he knew of the site through hunting.
-
I am always struck by the pure coincidence of searching literally thousands of acres and ending up with 184 right next to the tracks. What are chances of that, if he hadn't seen it from the train somehow, even if not first?
Yes, it could be coincidence that he rented horses from the Sumners, and needed train access for his future guests and members, and that Lumberton had decided to mine somewhere else and was willing to sell.
We can just be glad he found a site of that size, rather than one of 120 acres as widely suggested by CBM, or we wouldn't have the course we have today. It might be interesting to know what other suitable sites might have been available in 1912, and how easy it was to focus in on this site. A lot of things factor into site selection, including perhaps those spring fed streams.
As others have said, I don't really care about the train vs hunting, and believe both have some truth to them. Would love to know more about the entire site selection process, but we probably never will.
-
Tom,
Why do you care so much that you have to pervert some of your 8 or 9 or 10 sources to support the hunting story?
-
Jim,
Bryan's snide and insulting tone is not only unnecessary, it is also an unfortunate indication that he has become overlyemotional to the detriment of his ability to discuss this stuff reasonably. That said, he is probably correct about one thing. We probably aren't going to agree. But that was clear from long ago, so I have no idea why he has been been pushing this agenda for the past few months.
Over these various threads I have been trying to honestly answer your questions. I don't care which story (if either) is ultimately true and am merely trying to call it as I see it. Given that I have at least tried to address your concerns, perhaps you will answer a few of mine.
You focus on a single word in Carr - discovered - and while I don't agree with your reading in the context of the rest of the quote(s), I understand your position. It makes sense even if I don't agree with it - if Carr was attempting to establish a chronology of the timing of when Crump first became aware of PV, then the conflict you see would be real. I just disagree that this is what Carr was attempting to do.
Where things get more murky, though, is when we turn to AWT. AWT left little doubt in what he meant. In AWT's world, Crump, the sportsman and outdoorsman, was oblivious that there were tree covered sand hills only 12 miles from his house until he "chanced a glance" from a train, and his "first thought" for the land was golf. This story not only conflicts with a number of accounts, it defies common sense. How can you reconcile this AWT story with what we know of Crump and with a number of the other stories?
-
David,
If we could all just make up what words, sentences and paragraphs mean to fit some picture we have the world would be a more difficult place...
But if that's the game, please show me where Tillinghast says Crump was never aware of this land prior to seeing it from the train? I know he uses the words "found" and "discovered" so I assume they can receive the same interpretation as when Simon Carr uses the word.
Pat,
I would still really love to hear what Crump ponted out to Tillinghast from the train.
-
double post. Sorry. [FWIW Jim, I tried to make sure my tone was acceptable in the spirit of Ran's New Year's thread, but somehow double posted my changes. Nothing nasty in the original I don't think, just trying to be cautious. The post is below.]
-
Jim,
Please just address the AWT statement instead of trying to shift it back to me, or back to Carr. I am not asking you about Carr or your opinion of my interpretation, I am asking you about your understanding of the AWT statement.
Do you really believe that what AWT was really saying is that Crump had been familiar with the land for years but decided it would work for a golf course because he caught a glimpse of it from a train?? I don't think you believe this for a minute, but if you do I'd like to hear it from you. Go back and read the AWT statements and then tell me that it can be reconciled with this notion that AWT was already familiar with the land from hunting or whatever.
According to AWT he chanced a glance out the window and "saw a tract of land which rivetted (sic) his attention instantly." Do you really believe that AWT's attention would have been riveted by land with which he had been long familiar?
According to AWT, the land caught Crump's attention upon the chance glance because the land was just so different than the rest of the land in Southern New Jersey (". . . for, unlike the usual flat Jersey landscape, this was beautifully rolling and hilly . . . As a matter of fact his attention had been attracted by a freakish bit of country in South Jersey, freakish because it was so totally different from the monotonous flat lands of those parts . . . it was different from the usual Jersey territory which stretched in monotonous flatness in every direction.) Do you really believe that Crump could have been familiar with the land through hunting yet he never happened to notice that it was beautifully rolling and hilly, and very different from the rest of Southern New Jersey? [He'd have to have been hunting with his head up his ass, which I doubt was the case.]
According to AWT, Crump immediately thought of the land's potential for golf. Upon seeing this land, Crump's "first thought was the connection of this tract with golf." Yet you want to argue that AWT really meant that Crump had long been familiar with the land? If he had long been familiar with the land, then how could his "first thought" be the land's connection with golf? That is nonsensical.
In sum, I don't think you can honestly tell me that you read AWT in a manner consistent with the other accounts. To do so would be to ignore about everything he repeatedly wrote about the incident. AWT was describing the moment of Crump's initial discovery of the nature of the land, a "freakish" landscape which caught his eye from a passing train. A landscape with which one has long been familiar is not a "freakish landscape" and one does not first think of golf when one knows the land well from hunting or exploring. That makes no sense.
-
Amazing .
-
David, if you think it's worthwhile to get into another sentence splicing death march you'll have to find someone else. You take the two guys that, along with John Arthur Brown, likely knew Crump the best and decipher their stories which do not mention or imply hunting in any way and consider them corraborations to the hunting myths. It's that simple! The quality of a source does matter.
What do you think of John Arthur Brown writing that Tillinghasts story was exactly what was in Crump's own notes? I assume you, Tom MacWood and Pat Mucci each have the pamphlet Brown wrote because you've each referenced it but I'll let you each deny that on your own if you do not.
-
Jim,
I am not asking you to splice sentences, I am asking you to reconcile the AWT story with the other stories. It is a very similar question to the ones you asked me and I have been patiently trying to answer for about a month or so.
I think you are trying to have it both ways. You insist upon your reading of Carr which highlights the possible conflict created by the word "discovered," yet you won't even address the obvious and large inconsistencies between AWT and the others.
Do you really believe that what AWT wrote reconciles with the notion that Crump had been familiar with the land for years?
______________________________________________
As for Brown, I have the book but don't have it handy, and don't remember what he said about the train story one way or another. Didn't he just quote or paraphrase AWT's newspaper accounts?
-
This email was in my inbox this morning...it was in yours as well...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen--
It has be somewhere in all of this discussion, but just in case here is what John Arthur Brown wrote on page 7 of "Short History of Pine Valley"...
Pine Valley had a rather unusual beginning.
In the early 1900 a group of enthusiastic golfers from the Philadelphia Country Club at Bala, Pennsylvania, occasionally journeyed to Atlantic City on the Reading Railroad to play the Atlantic City Country Club. George Crump was the leader of the group.
Our old record indicate that on one trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which apparantly was suitable for a golf course. This raised is curiosity and later he and Howard Perrin, the first President of the Pine Valley Golf Club, spent several days tramping over the grounds which now comprise the Club.
The property at the time was owned by Sumner Ireland who had a residence nearby. The railroad station at that poine was then called Sumner.
Crump's old records indicate his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of a most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property had one time had been covered by the ocean.
Crump formed a syndicate and in 1912 bought 184 acres from Mr. Ireland. Some of the old newspaper articles are interesting in this connection. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1912, is worth quoting in full. It gives and excellent description.[/i]
Page 8 continues with the description from the paper that we've seen before.
Hope you all have a Happy New Year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you say you don't read those emails, and I can't blame you but this one is quite important...to Tom Macwoods credibility and the fact that he convinced you and Pat to along with him one way or another.
-
An off-line source has provided the John Arthur Brown version of the discovery story. I have not seen the original book, but have no reason to doubt the validity of this transcription.
As Tom has said since his Opinion piece, it supports the "train" story. On that basis, I guess that it too must be considered "bogus" in the eyes of Mucci, MacWood and Moriarty. Anyone else who is still following along can interpret it as you wish.
I will add it to the compendium of quotes in the opening posts when I get a chance.
"Here is what John Arthur Brown wrote on page 7 of "Short History of Pine Valley"...
"Pine Valley had a rather unusual beginning.
In the early 1900 a group of enthusiastic golfers from the Philadelphia Country Club at Bala, Pennsylvania, occasionally journeyed to Atlantic City on the Reading Railroad to play the Atlantic City Country Club. George Crump was the leader of the group.
Our old record indicate that on one trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which apparently was suitable for a golf course. This raised is curiosity and later he and Howard Perrin, the first President of the Pine Valley Golf Club, spent several days tramping over the grounds which now comprise the Club.
The property at the time was owned by Sumner Ireland who had a residence nearby. The railroad station at that point was then called Sumner.
Crump's old records indicate his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of a most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property had one time had been covered by the ocean.
Crump formed a syndicate and in 1912 bought 184 acres from Mr. Ireland. Some of the old newspaper articles are interesting in this connection. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1912, is worth quoting in full. It gives and excellent description."
Page 8 continues with the description from the paper that we've seen before."
Of Course it does make the erroneous claim that Crump bought the land from Mr. Ireland; and, that the land was pasture land.
-
I know you say you don't read those emails, and I can't blame you but this one is quite important...to Tom Macwoods credibility and the fact that he convinced you and Pat to along with him one way or another.
Any emails with TEPaul or Cirba as sender or recipient are edited out of my inbox. This includes when they are CC'ed. It may mean I miss a relevant email or two, but it beats slogging through their hundreds of screeds. I have no interest in their email circle jerks which are nothing but pathetic cries for attention.
I have no idea why you think that passage above impacts TomM's credibility. Bryan is the one who has been trying to put together a listing of the various accounts, not TomM. Is there something in particular about this account that puts TomM's credibility into question?
The passage looks to me like he is paraphrasing the AWT articles, but maybe Shelly's book is influencing me on this. (If I recall correctly Shelly indicated that the train story came from newspaper articles.)
Now Jim, will you please address my questions about the AWT articles?
-
Bryan,
Pat has said every inch of the property was an impenetrable jungle but the contemporaneous sources don't go quite as far. He's used Tillinghast as support for this conclusion but AWT's only reference that I've seen is in discussing the 13th greensite being hidden from view, not the rest of the property. I don't read Brown's words to say every inch was covered...
Do any of these early sources mention an active sand mining operation in any way?
-
The problem, David, is that Brown makes it clear he was reading Cumps notes.
Macwood repeatedly said every source other than AWT contradicted the train story. As the evidence has been revealed it's clear that not only was Macwood fabricating Carr and Baker's support for the hunting story but he intentionally left Brown out who makes it clear that Tillinghast's story gives an excellent description.
These three men knew more about the origins of Pine Valley than any other 10.
-
David, I'm no hunter so bear with me but the reports are that 20 acres of swampland was to be converted to lake(s). This had to have been the bottom part of the golf course near 14 - 17 today. THis also happens to be the best place to grasp the scale of the property because of the steep incline up to the 14th tee, the long high ridge between the present 15th hole and the 12/13 up above and the sweeping valley from that ridge across to the 16th and 17th holes. It would have been striking from the train tracks which at that spot (near the current 14th gree/15th tee) are on a bed 15 feet above grade.
If Crump was hunting on this property, why would he spend his time down in the swamp?
So my reading of Tillinghast is that the moment the land fully intrigued him for his course was from the train but the details of the land and acquiring it had to be on the ground.
I don't put much stock in Tillinghast's use of "three years ago" as meaning the regular golf season of 1910 which Macwood uses as one of his 5 hollow points. These articles were published beginning on January 4th 1913.
-
The problem, David, is that Brown makes it clear he was reading Cumps notes.
He mentions Crump's notes, but does not indicate that the train story came from Crump's notes. I'd like to know what these notes say or even what they are, but don't. Brown certainly doesn't tell us.
Macwood repeatedly said every source other than AWT contradicted the train story. As the evidence has been revealed it's clear that not only was Macwood fabricating Carr and Baker's support for the hunting story but he intentionally left Brown out who makes it clear that Tillinghast's story gives an excellent description.
Jim, I hope you don't take offense, but you are really letting your ill-will toward TomM drive your posts here. TomM's essay explicitly states that the train story comes from AWT and John Arthur Brown. From the essay: "The two most popular stories come from very reliable sources: the train window story comes from AW Tillinghast and John Arthur Brown, the hunting story from Jerome Travers and Alan Wilson."
How can you say he intentionally left it out when he not only mentions it, he describes it as a "very reliable source?"
I think you are forgetting who is driving these threads. In the beginning it was Bryan and Cirba, and since it has been Bryan and to a lesser extent you. More than anything it has been Bryan's witch hunt, and it certainly is not any thesis of TomM or me. If it was TomM's thesis it would be in the form of a IMO, not another endless witch hunt taking whatever pot shots you guys thought might hit the target.
Bryan was well aware of TomM's reference to Brown, or at least he should have been because Bryan quoted it and included it in his list on this page. You surely cannot pin it on TomM just because Bryan did not think to follow it up with the actual passage. This latest false accusation that TomM sandbagged evidence he long ago brought to our attention really ought to be beneath you. It reeks of some hysterical stunt Cirba might have tried to pull. Please don't start stooping to his level.
These three men knew more about the origins of Pine Valley than any other 10.
A few times now you have claimed or strongly implied that Brown was a contemporary of Crump's and was around at the time of the creation of the course. Maybe I am remembering wrong, but I am not sure this is entirely accurate. Didn't Brown become president of the club in the late 1920's? Was he around the Club in 1910-1913? Whether he was or not, the passage above suggests he was not writing based on is own recollection but was rather relying a club records. I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that these are the same club records upon which Shelly relied, namely newspaper accounts. He also mentioned Crump's records, but I don't know what these are. Do you?
Travers was a contemporary of Crump's and reportedly knew him well enough for them have discussed many aspects of Crump's childhood and the formation of the course with him. I am not sure you can say that about Brown. If you can then I'd like to see your justification.
I forgot, what year did Crump kill himself?
-
I just checked my junk mail. Sure enough this hysterical notion that TomM sandbagged regarding Brown comes from Cirba. Only Cirba could come with such nonsense as accusing TomM of withholding a source he explicitly identified in his IMO. Jim, I really hope that you are not going to start parroting for that nitwit. You should know by now that if he says it, there is a good chance it will turn out to be wrong.
-
David, I'm no hunter so bear with me but the reports are that 20 acres of swampland was to be converted to lake(s). This had to have been the bottom part of the golf course near 14 - 17 today. THis also happens to be the best place to grasp the scale of the property because of the steep incline up to the 14th tee, the long high ridge between the present 15th hole and the 12/13 up above and the sweeping valley from that ridge across to the 16th and 17th holes. It would have been striking from the train tracks which at that spot (near the current 14th gree/15th tee) are on a bed 15 feet above grade.
If Crump was hunting on this property, why would he spend his time down in the swamp?
So my reading of Tillinghast is that the moment the land fully intrigued him for his course was from the train but the details of the land and acquiring it had to be on the ground.
I think this is crazy and I think you know it. There is no way he hunted the land yet was unaware that he was on large tree covered sand hills.
As for him staying away from the swampland, he had dogs and was likely hunting birds, so the areas near the swampland were likely where he was hunting. Indeed this may have been why he was there in the first place. Whatever he was hunting, most animals tend toward water by necessity as part of their regular routine, and hunters know this.
Honestly Jim, if you read those articles outside the context of this debate, would you come away with the impression that AWT was talking about land with which Crump was already readily familiar?
-
"He discovered the wild site from a train with perhaps an eye for shooting rather than golf, but once he began wandering the site gun in hand, he found the most perfect land for golf, land not unlike the rugged heathland outside London."
I thought I'd finish that quote from Macwood's essay for you, I'm sure it was an oversight stopping where you did...
Let's just say that Tom's knowledge has evolved since he wrote that essay. Since Pat started the "Pine Valley and Topos" thread in about July (or was there a thread immediately preceeding that one) Tom has held firm that the preponderance of sources preaching the hunting story proves it's true...strange logic for a historian but that's been his position. Here's just one of dozens of his posts along those lines...and no, I don't use his essay as a source to double check what he says on here..
"Jim
That's true, but with so many solid news reports contradicting that story was there anyone who took that isolated story seriously? I didn't.
Of the numerous stories (Wilson, Bunker, Travers, Giles, Uzell, Ford, Wind and Shelley) claiming he found the site hunting and/or on horseback I believe the earliest is May 1914. "
How many of these were actual news reports? One!
How many are provably untrue? At least two!
-
So now you imply I am fudging the record because I didn't quote what you wanted me to quote? My quote wasn't an oversight at all-- I quoted the part where TomM mentioned Brown, which is what we were discussing.
You really ought to take a step back, Jim.
-
Jim,
Tom MacWood did describe Brown as a reliable source for the train story in his Opinion piece. It seems he has subsequently decided that Brown's version is bogus along with Tillinghast's version. He has sandbagged in two senses: first when he didn't cite the sources for the many anecdotes in the Opinion piece; and, second, when he refused on many occasions to provide the sources so that I, or anyone else, could vet them. To the extent that I have searched and found his sources, he has accurately reported what they wrote. He continues to promote stories (such as Uzzell) as valid support for the hunting story when they have proven to be false. That's not sandbagging. Not sure what to call it.
David continues to do analysis and interpretation, most of which eludes me.
Would you like to engage in a two way discussion of all the sources and how we might make sense of them to see if there is a coherent way to understand all of them while weeding out the parts that seem to be in error?
-
David,
I'm perfectly comfortable with what I have written...are you comfortable with the fact that you cut your quote short of where it shows Tom to be disagreeing with his own essay? You may have included the Brown part but left out the part that addressed our larger conversation...the train story being a bogus myth.
Bryan,
Short of any real info I'm not sure there's much to discuss. Since these threads have begun I figured the Browns Mills site was likely a family hunting preserve, proving that could help...I'll see. Geographically it makes a hell of alot more sense than Clementon and we know Clementon is wrong.
I'm inclined to believe all these guys thought they were right but when two sources completely contradict one another it's a challenge. If you think there's a route towards figuring something out, I'm in. 90% of my typing on these threads have been attempting to flush out what I see as false absolute claims by Tom and Pat so I'd love to think the ability to move a ball forward is still there...
-
David,
I'm perfectly comfortable with what I have written...are you comfortable with the fact that you cut your quote short of where it shows Tom to be disagreeing with his own essay? You may have included the Brown part but left out the part that addressed our larger conversation...the train story being a bogus myth.
My quote addressed exactly what we were discussing. You are so rabid to get TomM that you are trying to make issues out of every little thing, whether a real or imagined. His view has changed over time. So what? He has long acknowledged this. Why the hell would I quote something relevant only to a non-issue?
Do you even know at this point what it is that TomM did to deserve your bottomless animus?
____________________________________________
Bryan,
This whole multi-month exercise has been your strange attempt to get TomM, and from my perspective you have fallen well short, as has Jim. After all this, it sure looks like he had a sound basis for his opinion of the train story, whether you guys agree with it or not. I personally don't always agree with the way TomM handles source material, but given the treatment he constantly receives from you and others, it is no surprise to me that he did not go out of his way to help you out with your research. After all, we aren't talking about supposedly-super-secret club records and he isn't demanding that you take his word for anything. Rather he is relying on published articles, books, etc. Didn't he identify them to you? If it were me I'd gladly hand over the articles themselves, but for you to to get bent out of shape because you left it to you to pull the articles yourself? Well that seems a bit much.
As for my analysis, its soundness has never been dependent upon your willingness to accept it. I generally take your opinion seriously and if my analysis eludes you that that gives me some pause, but frankly it gives me much less pause than it used to before this stuff all become so personal for you. Here is some more analysis which I suspect you will reject out of hand because I doubt it is what you want to hear, but hopefully you will prove me wrong . . .
I am not sure I am willing to entirely throw away the Uzzell account because it got the purchase story wrong. It well could be this was the Crump family's hunting land in the sense that it is where they hunted, whether they owned it or not. My friends and family have hunted the same land for decades without ever purchasing a profit or any other interests.
Also, while I doubt that the Crumps ever purchased the land or a profit, I don't think your searches go back far enough to tell us for sure. We know Crump's extended family ran into financial trouble in the 1890's and we really don't know what they owned up to that point or what if anything the sold over the years, do we? Also, I am not sure that a profit owned by Crump would even show up in a deed documenting his purchase of the entire estate, as the profit would have become redundant. Also, such a profit could have existed when Crump was a child and either expired or extinguished at some point. Given that it was his father who supposedly purchased the interest, you'd have to go back for quite a bit further than you did to say for absolute certain that the Crumps never had a legal interest in the land.
Even if we knew the Crumps never had a legal property interest, this wouldn't necessarily settle the issue. As I said from the beginning there area also a number of arrangements and licenses whereby the Crumps could have acquired access to the land, short of purchasing and recording a profit. I know you hate these sorts of pesky details, but since you are making statements about how story is absolutely proven false you really ought to consider getting the rest of your ducks in a row, or at least modify your statement to fit with your degree of proof.
One thing I find interesting about the Uzzell account is that he had the identity of Crump's father correct, which is more than I can say. Doesn't this suggest that he had some sort of source who at least had some correct information? Even if the account of the purchase is incorrect, there may be something to be learned from the account. Besides, if you start throwing out accounts where everything does not line up, then the AWT story is a goner.
Speaking of which, perhaps you can reconcile what AWT actually wrote with this notion that everything can fit together. Specifically, I'd appreciate if you would address how Crump could be riveted by the land from a train if he had already been very familiar with the land from hunting, and how his first thought could be golf it it was his hunting grounds?
Or is it your position that the only stories that are correct are AWT and Brown?
-
David, I'm not out to get Tom at all beyond calling out his fantasy after months of hoping he would have a normal conversation...no animus.
-
Give me a break Jim, the animus is palpable from both you and Bryan.
But what was TomM's crime here anyway? Viewing the AWT story as apocryphal? Well he sure as hell isn't the first one to doubt the AWT story. Travers and the others who told a different story obviously disagreed. Shelley openly doubted it, as did Finnegan. Even TEPaul - MacWood's biggest fan - doubts it veracity, or at least he did before this became the MacWood Witch-Hunt De Jour. (My guess is TEPaul changed course if he thought he smelled blood in the water. That is the kind of guy he is.)
Yet you guys spend months trying to prove . . . what, exactly? That not every single source mentions the hunting story? So what? That Tom's view has changed over the years? Good for him, but he readily admitted this.
What has this been about? And was it worth it?
-
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50636.0.html
-
Jim,
You are probably right about further discussion. I too would like to pursue anything that moves the ball forward. I don't want to continue the perverse logical navel gazing these threads have descended into. The one conclusion I can draw from all of this is that there is a lot of evidence that conflicts with a lot of other evidence. It prevents me from drawing any absolute conclusions about the one true story.
Interesting thought about Browns Mill. Along the same line I am also still curious about where Uzzell got his 300 acre hunting preserve inheritance story from. I would hope that there was some grain of truth in Uzzell's story, but it sure wasn't related to the property that became PV. Crump's uncle, John Crump apparently had a farm/estate in Media, PA. If Crump somehow inherited the Colonnade Hotel from Uncle John, might he also have inherited the farm/estate in Media? Might it be 300 acres? Might it have been good hunting land (it's a shopping mall today)?
-
David,
Neither am I out to get Tom, whatever that means. I don't think he needs you to defend him.
I wanted to vet his claim of 8 sources supporting the hunting story. I posted them all. Take them for what you will. It is my opinion that they don't all support the hunting story. You can have a different opinion. Tom appears to have taken offense to my trying to vet the sources. Sorry, but I can't help with that.
As to the Uzzell article, you can put forward possibilities all you want. I'll not discuss them with you until you provide some evidence that any of them are credible. There are endless possibilities of how the Crump and dad could have been involved. Maybe they owned part or all of Lumberton. Maybe Crump Sr. was a silent partner to Jonas Bowman. Maybe Crump Sr. bought some other property for a hunting preserve. I'm sure you could come up with more. The fact remains that Uzzell got the acreage wrong, the location wrong and the purchase and inheritance wrong. If you can find some consistency in the rest of the article with the hunting story then feel free to carry on, but I'll not join you on that wild goose chase of endless possibilities.
I'm glad Uzzell got Crump's father's "identity" (did you mean job?) correct. That wouldn't have been too hard. If you want to pursue that angle, why don't you check ancestry.com and verify when Crump's father arrived in the USA. If he was British Consul he'd have to have been British and immigrated at some point, no? Then you'd know how far back you'd have to check the PV deeds so that you can be absolutely sure.
I'm not interested in further reconciling the train story for you, either AWT or Brown. Been there, done that. You and Pat and Tom are impossible to have a reasonable discussion with. If that constitutes a win for you or a confirmation of your truth then I'm OK with that.
-
David,
If Tom thinks he's being unfairly criticized he should feel free to discuss it with me...him calling you in to his defense is pretty pathetic. Maybe you haven't been paying attention. Why would anybody want, or need, to get TomM?
-
Pat,
You've been sending emails like crazy off-line yet I haven't seen an answer to the question of what Crump pointed out to Tillinghast from the train...any chance you'll take a stab at it today?
-
The problem, David, is that Brown makes it clear he was reading Cumps notes.
Macwood repeatedly said every source other than AWT contradicted the train story. As the evidence has been revealed it's clear that not only was Macwood fabricating Carr and Baker's support for the hunting story but he intentionally left Brown out who makes it clear that Tillinghast's story gives an excellent description.
These three men knew more about the origins of Pine Valley than any other 10.
Jim
Have you read Brown's history? He does not make it clear he was reading Crump's notes regarding the train story. I have read all the histories, as well as numerous reports and articles, including internal reports from Baker, Carr and Smith, and I have never heard anyone refer to Crump's notes. Where did you come up with that?
In one sentence Brown does say, "Crump's old records indicate his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of a most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property at one time had been covered by the ocean."
I don't know what Brown is referring to there...that is one confusing and disjointed sentence. I wonder if he is referencing the 1912 letter, and perhaps an article written by HW Wind from 1950. This is from that article: "A few weeks later he [Crump] reported on his quest. 'I think I have landed on something pretty fine,' he wrote. 'It is 14 miles below Camden, at a stop called Sumner, on the Reading RR to Atlantic City--a sandy soil, with rolling ground, among the pines.' Within the week an inspection committee visited and approved the site which long before had been the winter headquarters of the Leni-Lenape tribe and, centuries before that, in the opinion of many geologists, the bed of the ocean which covered this flange of southern New Jersey." For those who have not read it the Brown history is basically a collection of quotes from old articles. It is reminiscent of a scrapbook.
Back to the train story. Brown says the train story comes from 'our old club records'; Shelly says some reports in the press mention the site was found via a train (i.e. Tilly); Finegan refers to the train story as PV lore. One would assume all three men had access to the same material, at least as far as old club records are concerned. I wonder if Brown's old club record is Tilly's old article. Whatever the case both Shelly and Finegan correct Brown's train story.
I have fabricated Carr and Baker's support for the hunting story? Where did I do that? I have been consistent about the list of articles that mention the site was discovered hunting and/or on horseback, and Carr is not on the list (see reply #111 where I quoted a post from November). Perhaps there is confusion with my other list of those who claimed Colt laid out the course. Carr is on that list, along with Grantland Rice, Travers, Travis and quite a few others.
I have never said Baker supports the hunting story....he is not on the list either. If you recall not long ago I posted Baker's recollection of events and there was nothing regarding how the site was found, although there is mention of Baker being Crump's frequent hunting companion. I have said several times that Baker is likely the source for Shelly and Wind's hunting accounts, and most likely the source of the hunting photographs. I think I made it very clear that was my speculation.
-
Tom,
Re your statement that Shelly and Finegan corrected Brown,
Whatever the case both Shelly and Finegan correct Brown's train story
I am told that the following is what Finegan said about the train story. Is this correct? If it is, then Finegan didn't "correct" Brown. He simply reiterated what Shelly had written. I know, it's a small point.
"What is obvious is that George Crump, a search committee of one, took his obligation seriously. For years, Pine Valley lore had it that Crump spotted the land from a treain window one wintry Saturday on his way to Atlantic City and said to himself, "What a place for a golf course!" But as Warner Shelley points out in his invaluable Pine Valley Golf Club: A Chronicle, published in 1982, "... he [Crump] knew the grounds by tramping through them with his gun and dogs. A photo of Crump resting amid the pines in 1909 is a testimony of that fact..."
-
Another quote from Finegan:
"For years Pine Valley lore had it that Crump spotted the land from a train window one wintry Saturday on his way to the seashore and said to himself, "What a place for a golf course!" More recently, however, evidence has surfaced that he had come to know the ground by virtue of hunting for small game there."
-
Jim, This notion that TomM called me in defend him is a laugher. TomM and I rarely communicate except on these public threads. I get more spam email in a day from a certain pompous ex-poster than I get messages from Tom in a year. Besides, he needs no help from me.
Call it what you will, but both you and Bryan have both been trying in vane to prove TomM wrong about this train story. You've acknowledged this was your purpose here just a few posts above. In the process, you two have not only misrepresented his position, you have lost all perspective on the relative importance of the overall issue. And for what? What have you accomplished? All you've done is confirm that there is good reason that TomM doubts the train story. Thanks for that, I guess.
___________________________________
Bryan,
You and Jim had acting as if the entirety of the Uzzell story had been proven false. My point was and is that this is far from the case. This was apparently a point well made given that in your next post you acknowledged that there may be something to learn from the story.
According to Census records, Crump's father was born in PA, which is why I doubted he was British Consul. Whether or not you think this would have been an easy detail to get right, it is a detail that only appears in Uzzell, isn't it?
I don't blame you for not trying to further reconcile the AWT story. With an honest reading it really isn't reconcilable and I think you and Jim must realize this. But the implausibility of the train story makes this whole detailed dissection of the other stories a bit pointless, doesn't it?
-
Tom,
So you read "more recently" as being post Shelly rather than just another reference to the Shelly photos? Does Finegan describe at all what the new evidence is?
-
David,
You misunderstand me, as usual. Uzzell has been discredited in respect of him supporting the hunting story. His reference to the a 300 acre hunting preserve inherited by George A. is wrong. Feel free to intuit whatever else you want to his story.
Forgive me, but I thought that a British Consul had to be a citizen of Britain. Consuls represented the interests of citizens of their own country generally speaking. Are you sure you've got the right George born in PA? There are a lot of George's in the family tree.
Tom doesn't "doubt" the train story. I believe he thinks of it as a "myth" and "bogus". That's somewhere beyond a "doubt".
-
Disclaimer: I am not a hunter.
Question: Do people hunt small game/quail while on horseback in jungle-like undergrowth near swamps?
Around here, I understand that people hunt ducks from duck blinds near lakes and marshes and hunt large game like deer and moose on foot. Not sure about quail.
-
David,
You misunderstand me, as usual. Uzzell has been discredited in respect of him supporting the hunting story. His reference to the a 300 acre hunting preserve inherited by George A. is wrong. Feel free to intuit whatever else you want to his story.
You don't understand the limits of your own proof, "as usual." You have discredited Uzzell as to how Crump attained the property in 1912. That is it. You haven't proven a lick about the hunting, or the Crumps' formal or informal prior interest in the land, if any. In other words, Uzzell may have gotten the inheritance part wrong and everything else, including the hunting, correct. For just one example, maybe he knew from a reliable source that the 300 acres PV had eventually acquired had long been the Crump family hunting grounds, and he took it from there.
Forgive me, but I thought that a British Consul had to be a citizen of Britain. Consuls represented the interests of citizens of their own country generally speaking. Are you sure you've got the right George born in PA? There are a lot of George's in the family tree.
I thought so too, which is why I assumed it was a different family member. I am telling you how G.A. Crump's father, "George," was listed in the census records. He is listed as British Consul (or similar) in the same records. Draw your own conclusions.
Tom doesn't "doubt" the train story. I believe he thinks of it as a "myth" and "bogus". That's somewhere beyond a "doubt".
So this multi-month witch-hunt is justified because TomM put it in slightly stronger terms than you might have? Yet we are to believe your claim it is nothing personal against TomM? I doubt that.
-
Finegan doesn't say what the new evidence is.
Uzzell's entire account is discredited? I don't think so. His account mentioning the hunting angle is consistent with numerous other accounts, and in that context it should be given proper consideration. If you are going to be that stringent shouldn't you also discount Tilly and Brown's accounts?
Tilly said Colt was in Canada when he was called; Colt was not in Canada in 1913. Tilly claimed his article in January 1913 was the first words written about the project, but there was a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer late in 1912. Tilly said the entire project was financed by Crump. Tilly said Crump died from a tooth ache. Brown said Crump purchased 184 acres from Sumner Ireland.
-
George W. Crump was born in Philadelphia in 1838. His mother and father were born in England, and some of this brothers and sisters were born over there too. George W. and some of his younger siblings were born in the US. The old man, William Crump was the editor of a Philadelphia newspaper. I believe I covered all that in my essay.
-
Uzzell's entire account is discredited? I don't think so. His account mentioning the hunting angle is consistent with numerous other accounts, and in that context it should be given proper consideration.
"Hunting angle"?
What exactly is that?
-
The problem, David, is that Brown makes it clear he was reading Cumps notes.
Macwood repeatedly said every source other than AWT contradicted the train story. As the evidence has been revealed it's clear that not only was Macwood fabricating Carr and Baker's support for the hunting story but he intentionally left Brown out who makes it clear that Tillinghast's story gives an excellent description.
These three men knew more about the origins of Pine Valley than any other 10.
Jim
Those are some bold statements.....care to back them up?
This is an example of how emotion, and your emotional attachment to the train story, has effected your objectivity and accuracy. As I have said before, as local myths go this one is relatively minor, so if you have you have some sort of attachments I don't see the harm. In the greater scheme of things its really not that important.
Have you read Brown's history of PV?
Hunting theme, hunting angle...the seven or eight accounts that claim Crump was familiar with the site through hunting.
-
Jim,
TomM's request seems a reasonable one. You claim to be posting because you think TomM made a number of false claims. So are you going to back up your claims? I won't start multiple threads about it, nor will I keep after it for months, but it might be interesting if we gave your posts even a fraction of the scrutiny that Tom's posts get, or mine for that matter. Here are the claims from your post above . . .
- "The problem, David, is that Brown makes it clear he was reading Cumps notes."
- "Macwood repeatedly said every source other than AWT contradicted the train story."
- "It's clear that not only was Macwood fabricating Carr and Baker's support for the hunting story . . ."
- ". . . but he intentionally left Brown out who makes it clear that Tillinghast's story gives an excellent description."
- "These three men knew more about the origins of Pine Valley than any other 10."
I don't think a single one of your claims stands up to much scrutiny, but am curious to see you try to back them up and am willing to consider your evidence. Surely TomM isn't the only poster who ought to be taken to task for what he has (supposedly) claimed?
_____________________________________________
Bryan, in response to your hunting questions, I don't think we have enough detail to say for certain what all Crump might have hunted on the land, or whether he was always on horseback. But one can hunt just about anything on horseback (and the combination of horseback and dogs was quite common for small game.) One can also use a combination of horses and walking. If they were hunting on horseback, I'd guess that they were hunting a much larger area than just the 184 acres or even 300 acres, as those would be a fairly small areas to hunt on horseback.
-
Finegan doesn't say what the new evidence is.
Uzzell's entire account is discredited? I don't think so. His account mentioning the hunting angle is consistent with numerous other accounts, and in that context it should be given proper consideration. If you are going to be that stringent shouldn't you also discount Tilly and Brown's accounts?
Tilly said Colt was in Canada when he was called; Colt was not in Canada in 1913. Tilly claimed his article in January 1913 was the first words written about the project, but there was a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer late in 1912. Tilly said the entire project was financed by Crump. Tilly said Crump died from a tooth ache. Brown said Crump purchased 184 acres from Sumner Ireland.
I would infer that Finegan was again referring to Shelly and the picture of Crump resting amid the pines as the "new evidence". If there was something newer than that, don't you think he might have mentioned what the newer evidence was?
Did I say that Uzzell's entire account should be discounted? No. Just the part about the hunting preserve and Crump inheriting it. The rest of the article is about the course in 1927. I haven't really tried to arrive at any kind of judgement about that. It irrelevant to the discovery story. There is one paragraph in the article about the discovery. Here it is again with the erroneous parts stroked out.
"Mr. Crump was the son of a British Consul to
this country who was a great huntsman and who
purchased the present property near the village of
Clementon, New Jersey, as a hunting preserve.
The son, inheriting the property, became interested
in golf and sensing the matchless appropriateness
of the land for a golf course devoted himself
wholeheartedly to producing the finest layout
money, devotion, and human ingenuity could
devise. He began the work in 1910 from his home
at Merchantsville near Philadelphia."
I don't know how you and David can read that and infer any hunting angle vis-a-vis the 184 property that Crump bought from Lumberton who in turn bought it from the Jonas Bowman estate.
As a separate thought, Uzzell says in the last statement that Crump began work on the course from his home in Merchantville in 1910. I hope you'd agree that that doesn't align with any other account of the discovery and early design and construction.
-
Hunting?
-
................................
Bryan, in response to your hunting questions, I don't think we have enough detail to say for certain what all Crump might have hunted on the land, or whether he was always on horseback. But one can hunt just about anything on horseback (and the combination of horseback and dogs was quite common for small game.) One can also use a combination of horses and walking. If they were hunting on horseback, I'd guess that they were hunting a much larger area than just the 184 acres or even 300 acres, as those would be a fairly small areas to hunt on horseback.
In one of Tom's eight sources, there is reference to horseback (with no reference to hunting). Tom has inferred that horseback equates to hunting in one of the articles. I was just trying to assess the likelihood of that inference. I had heard of fox hunting with hounds and horses but I've only seen it in the movies and it always looked to be in relatively open English forests. The Pine Valley property has been described as jungle-like. I hadn't really heard of hunting on horses for "small game" and "quail" as mentioned in two articles. I'd have thought that was unusual. And, near impossible in jungle-like undergrowth. Anyway, I'd infer that horseback riding does not necessarily equate to hunting. I know you might think of it as "consistent" with hunting, but to me it's a stretch.
-
Hunting?
Now, that's a good question.
-
Bryan
If you are going to be that stringent shouldn't you also discount Tilly and Brown's accounts?
Tilly said Colt was in Canada when he was called; Colt was not in Canada in 1913. Tilly claimed his article in January 1913 was the first words written about the project, but there was a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer late in 1912. Tilly said the entire project was financed by Crump. Tilly said Crump died from a tooth ache. Brown said Crump purchased 184 acres from Sumner Ireland. What do you say?
-
Tom,
I don't think I'm being stringent. Uzzell got the hunting preserve part wrong. Therefore his account doesn't support the "hunting angle". That's just being factual.
As for other articles and histories, sure there are errors in many of them. If the errors are relevant to the point we are discussing, then we should throw out the point in error. That is not to say that one error renders a whole piece useless, in my opinion.
Brown saying Crump purchased the 184 acres from Sumner Ireland is right about the acreage and wrong about the seller. I pointed out the error previously. That error has no bearing on the "hunting angle" so it is irrelevant to the train and/or the hunting discussion. Nor, does it render the rest of his history necessarily wrong. As to the rest of your examples, do they bear in some way on the hunting and/or train angle specifically? How?
-
Bryan,
AWT was glaringly wrong on reporting the cause of Crump's death.
He continued to be incorrect as time passed, and no one corrected him.
I see a parallel in the train story.
What you and others continue to ignore are the physical properties immediately adjacent and south of the tracks and the description of what was allegedly seen.
"rolling hills, valleys and pasture land"
Where are the "rolling hills" ? PLURAL ? Could you point them out ?
Where are the "valleys" ? PLURAL ? Could you point them out ?
Where is the "pasture land" ? Could you point it out ?
Remember , his train was speeding east.
And remember, Carr and AWT along with other accounts, described the land as dense forest/woods with thick jungle like undergrowth that HUD the land from the mortal eye.
So please point out those physical features/properties that GAC allegedly saw from the train.
Jim Sullivan, could you point them out ?
-
Pat,
Does this fairly represent your position?
"My initial categorization wasn't that AWT was lying, that was Jeff Brauer's categorization of my take on the train story.
I think AWT got it wrong in terms of one word, "FIRST".
I don't think that GAC "first" saw PV with a "chance glimpse" from a train traveling east at 60 mph.
Neither the terrain/topography/landform nor the dense forestation and undegrowth allow for that.
I've said, dozens of times, which you either forgot or didn't read, that GAC, already familiar with the property, pointed it out to AWT and others on a trip to AC."
David and Tom,
I'm putting together an answer for you.
In the meantime can you tell me if "isolated" here means isolated or something different?
"Jim
That's true, but with so many solid news reports contradicting that story was there anyone who took that isolated story seriously? I didn't.
Of the numerous stories (Wilson, Bunker, Travers, Giles, Uzell, Ford, Wind and Shelley) claiming he found the site hunting and/or on horseback I believe the earliest is May 1914. "
-
Jim,
Like Yogi, what I write usually represents what I think...... But not always.
-
Bryan, your speculation and assumptions regarding the Uzzell article are interesting, but perhaps we ought to return to reality. You came up with a deed indicating that, in 1912, Crump purchased the land in question. He did not inherit it. Thanks for that. But this deed proves nothing about the past chain of title of the land, past interests (formal or informal) the Crumps might have had in the land, whether the Crumps used the land as their family hunting grounds, etc.
Sticking just to the facts and what of the account you've actually discredited, here it is again with the ONLY discredited portion highlighted and stricken:
"Mr. Crump was the son of a British Consul to
this country who was a great huntsman and who
purchased the present property near the village of
Clementon, New Jersey, as a hunting preserve.
The son, inheriting the property, became interested
in golf and sensing the matchless appropriateness
of the land for a golf course devoted himself
wholeheartedly to producing the finest layout
money, devotion, and human ingenuity could
devise. He began the work in 1910 from his home
at Merchantsville near Philadelphia."
That is it. You've proven that G.A. Crump did not inherit the property in 1912. You are just assuming the rest follows, but that is not an assumption I am willing to make.
________________________________________
I think it is a mistake for you to continue to assume that the only evidence Shelley had was the photo. He doesn't say that. He includes the photo, but he does not let on as to how he knew that the photo had a connection to the land in question. You seem to think Shelley just assumed it was the same land, but in my book that'd make Shelley an idiot. I don't think Shelley was an idiot so I don't buy your assumption about his lack of common sense when it came to understanding a photograph.
_________________________________________
As for your latest take on how Crump might or might not have hunted the land, you sure have a lot of definite opinions on the matter for someone who knows so little about it. I won't bother with your assumptions and speculation except to say that I disagree with most of them but don't see how getting into it will advance the discussion.
_________________________________
Jim, Isolated always means isolated, but one needs to always look at the context. For a half century, until Brown recited AWT's version, AWT seems to have been the sole purveyor of the train story.
-
Bryan,
AWT was glaringly wrong on reporting the cause of Crump's death.
He continued to be incorrect as time passed, and no one corrected him.
I see a parallel in the train story. I understand that you see a parallel. I don't see a parallel.
What you and others continue to ignore are the physical properties immediately adjacent and south of the tracks and the description of what was allegedly seen.
"rolling hills, valleys and pasture land" To whom are you attributing this quote? I don't recall seeing it before. Or, is it just a rhetorical device?
Where are the "rolling hills" ? PLURAL ? Could you point them out ?
Where are the "valleys" ? PLURAL ? Could you point them out ?
Where is the "pasture land" ? Could you point it out ?
Remember , his train was speeding east.
And remember, Carr and AWT along with other accounts, described the land as dense forest/woods with thick jungle like undergrowth that HUD the land from the mortal eye. Do you think that it was possible to ride a horse through the "dense woods" and "jungle like undergrowth"? Do you believe that riding on horseback means that Crump was hunting?
So please point out those physical features/properties that GAC allegedly saw from the train. Been there, done that. Twice. Look back in the threads. There's no point in me writing it out a third time for you, since you evidently don't read the replies anyway.
Jim Sullivan, could you point them out ?
-
Bryan, your speculation and assumptions regarding the Uzzell article are interesting, but perhaps we ought to return to reality. Would that be the alternate reality of your speculation and assumptions? You came up with a deed indicating that, in 1912, Crump purchased the land in question. He did not inherit it. Thanks for that. I truly take heart that we ocassionally agree on a point. But this deed proves nothing about the past chain of title of the land, past interests (formal or informal) the Crumps might have had in the land, whether the Crumps used the land as their family hunting grounds, etc. No, it does not deal with past "might have"s. If you ever find any evidence of past Crump family involvement with that 184 acre property, I would certainly like to see it.
Sticking just to the facts and what of the account you've actually discredited, here it is again with the ONLY discredited portion highlighted and stricken:
"Mr. Crump was the son of a British Consul to
this country who was a great huntsman and who
purchased the present property near the village of
Clementon, New Jersey, as a hunting preserve.
The son, inheriting the property, became interested
in golf and sensing the matchless appropriateness
of the land for a golf course devoted himself
wholeheartedly to producing the finest layout
money, devotion, and human ingenuity could
devise. He began the work in 1910 from his home
at Merchantsville near Philadelphia."
That is it. You've proven that G.A. Crump did not inherit the property in 1912. You are just assuming the rest follows, but that is not an assumption I am willing to make.
I understand that you're not ready to make that assumption. I think it is a highly likely assumption. Do you think that your alternative is likely, or very likely or just possible? If I understand your thinking correctly, you think it is possible that G. W. Crump bought the 184 acre property as a "hunting preserve" in the 1880's when George A. was a "boy" and then sold it some time before 1901, but retained hunting rights on the property through Bowman's and then Lumberton's ownership. Methinks that if I assumed such a sting of events, that you'd rip me to shreds.
What do you make of Uzzell's statement that George A. began work on the course in 1910. Do you recall anybody else making that claim. Does it give you more or less confidence on Uzzell's credibility on his background research for the article?
________________________________________
I think it is a mistake for you to continue to assume that the only evidence Shelley had was the photo. He doesn't say that. He includes the photo, but he does not let on as to how he knew that the photo had a connection to the land in question. You seem to think Shelley just assumed it was the same land, but in my book that'd make Shelley an idiot. I don't think Shelley was an idiot so I don't buy your assumption about his lack of common sense when it came to understanding a photograph.
Thanks for setting up a straw man and attributing it to me with no basis for doing so. Clearly you don't know what I think. Why would you try to infer that I think Shelly was an "idiot"? I have said in the past that Shelly presumably had some information that linked the photo to the PV location. I've only said that it would be nice to know what it was. Why do you want to tar and feather me with something I don't think and didn't say. Are you in such need of rhetorical points that you'll make stuff up. Should I start calling you sleazy, to use one of your words?
_________________________________________
As for your latest take on how Crump might or might not have hunted the land, you sure have a lot of definite opinions on the matter for someone who knows so little about it. I won't bother with your assumptions and speculation except to say that I disagree with most of them but don't see how getting into it will advance the discussion.
_________________________________
Jim, Isolated always means isolated, but one needs to always look at the context. For a half century, until Brown recited AWT's version, AWT seems to have been the sole purveyor of the train story.
-
In my continuing quest to try to document all the sources on the discovery story, following is the January 4, 1914 article from the Philadelphia Inquirer that Brown referred to. I'll add it into the initial posts of the thread. I cannot confirm who the author was based on the clipping I have.
"Just about ten years ago, according to their own estimates, a coterie of Philadelphia's deepest dyed-in-the-wool golfers began a search for an ideal links. Their quest antedated the similar attempts of New Yorkers by a year at least. By 1904 it was evident that golf had come to stay in America, but the subclay soils among Philadelphia suburbs made it impossible to play with any degree of comfort more than seven months each year, despite extensive drainage systems, put in at larger clubs like Merion. But a sandy soil that would serve as a filter was not the only thing demanded. The old guard and some of the new guard, too, for that matter, wished an up-to-date links scientifically trapped and requiring thinking golf, which is more than can be said for some clubs where pink teas and ham bites seem to be the chief end of man and woman.
At first the search was in a desultory way from hearsay and railroad car windows. Years sped by without definite results, until it became apparent that a closer canvas must be begun, so many an automobile trip was made half with that end in view.
About two years ago, after locations as far away as Northfield and Somers Point had been exhausted, the choice narrowed to Pine Valley, close to the Reading Railway, sixteen miles below Philadelphia, on the direct line to Atlantic City. It is also close to the White Horse pike, an automobile route.
* * * *
The land there, comprising 184 rolling acres, is, or was, the highest ground in Southern New Jersey, 200 feet at points above sea level, being 100 years ago the home of the Delaware Indians. It is the watershed between the Tuckahoe and Delaware Rivers. The first blow of the ax was struck there last February; ........................."
This article puts a different spin on the discovery - desultory searching by train and more detailed searching on automobile trips over a period of ten years. It supports neither the train nor the hunting angle. One does wonder how they would have explored the 184 acre site by automobile. The nearest road was well away from the site. Other stories have the assessment of the property taking place after debarking from the train.
I'll also add, as time allows, the Finegan version based on the quotes that have been provided by others.
-
One other interesting feature of the January 4, 1914 Philadelphia Inquirer article was the course map that headed the article. It looks like an interesting amalgamation of the blue version of the blue/red topo with tree lines from the 1913 topo. Curious that they'd show the tree lines covering some of the holes, e.g. the 4th. The holes don't exactly match up with the Colt map. And, I don't recall seeing the "Swamp" so clearly laid out before.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PVLayout01-04-1914PhiilieInquirer.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Re the Uzzell, nice trying to shift the burden to me, but this is not about me vs. you, this is about you vs. Uzzell. You claimed to have "discredited" Uzzell's story of how Crump became familiar with the property. "Discredited" is your word, not mine. But you have only "discredited" one part Uzzell's story --you proved Crump purchased the property in 1912 which means he did not inherit it. You haven't touched the rest of the story.
And it is not a matter of "might haves" or assumptions on my part. It is a matter of taking Uzzell's account seriously even though he got the part about the inheritance wrong. You pretend that the whole story must necessarily stand or fall with the inheritance, but that is a stilted, unrealistic reading. More importantly, it is nothing but an stretched assumption on your part and does NOT justify your claim that you "DISCREDITED" the rest. You haven't.
As between my opinion and yours, please quit putting words in my mouth about what you think I must be thinking. You are not even close. While you try to spin it otherwise, Uzzell tells us that Crump was familiar with the land because his family had long hunted the land. I suspect that Uzzell got this part of the story correct and then mistakenly assumed from there that the Crumps must have owned the land they hunted. This is far more plausible than your version, which seems to have him making up the entire chain of events out of whole cloth.
Here again is the passage. I've again highlighted and stricken the only part of the story you have actually "discredited."
"Mr. Crump was the son of a British Consul to
this country who was a great huntsman and who
purchased the present property near the village of
Clementon, New Jersey, as a hunting preserve.
The son, inheriting the property, became interested
in golf and sensing the matchless appropriateness
of the land for a golf course devoted himself
wholeheartedly to producing the finest layout
money, devotion, and human ingenuity could
devise. He began the work in 1910 from his home
at Merchantsville near Philadelphia."
If you have "discredited" more than this, please identify what you have discredited and refresh my recollection on the FACTS discrediting anything else. Thanks.
______________________________________
As to the statement that he began work in 1910, what is your problem with that? I don't know when Crump started working on the project, but it could have been 1910. We know he went abroad to study golf courses in 1910. Another source has him sending for maps of Camden County while he was overseas studying golf course. AWT indicated the "quietly" started working on the project in 1910, when he began "quietly investigating" the site, and I don't recall you objecting to AWT's characterization.
In fact I am very interested in the timing because I am most curious about whether or not Crump was already considering PV before he traveled abroad, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he already had the site pegged as a potential site for golf as early as 1910.
But let me guess . . . since you are out to discredit Uzzell you will try to claim that "work" can only possibly mean physical work on the property, and that didn't start until 1913, therefore Uzzell must be wrong. If that is your logic, then you would not be discrediting Uzzell but rather yourself.
_____________________
An aside Re the 1914 plan in the newspaper, the road shown in the plan from the newspaper (starting in the upper left corner and ending at the 10th green) is also present on the 1913 topo. (I had corrected you when you claimed there were no roads on the property per the topo, you asked me to identify the road, it slipped my mind but seeing that plan again reminded me. )
_________________________
Re: Shelley, I am glad you now agree that he must have had more reason to believe that Crump was familiar with the land than just that picture. But then that raises the question as to what this is all about?
-
That article has been posted half a dozen times or more in the last few years. I think it is pretty obvious Bryan knows next nothing about PV (and golf architecture history in general), and is allowing himself to be a vehicle for a couple of jackasses.
-
David,
Take Uzzell's account "seriously". Would I be more serious if I accept, without a corroborating source, that the first sentence is correct. Your point escapes me once again.
We disagree. Move on.
_________________________________________________
Why do you think I have a problem with the 1910 statement. I asked you what you thought of it. You're being needlessly argumentative. Please stop attributing positions to me.
In the context of that paragraph it seemed odd to me. I was thinking about Crump's self-described "landing on" or "happening on" the property in 1912 and this article saying he began "work" (however you want to define it) in 1910 on producing the finest layout on the property that Uzzell said Crump's father bought and sold some time previously. Seemed like a disconnect to me. If you are seriously emotionally attached to Crump's father buying the property don't let me get in the way.
____________________________________________________
I asked you where you thought the road, if that is what it is, went from and to. It starts on the course and ends on a green. Seems like a strange road. There were no allowances in the deeds for a road or ROW across the course.
_____________________________________________________
Once again, you pervert what I say so that you can take a shot. Good start to 2012.
______________________________________________________
-
Tom,
Yes, I know it was posted before. I wanted it here for those who didn't want to search for it and in the context of the Brown account.
I'm saddened to see that you're not moving ahead in 2012 in the spirit that Ran wanted for his site.
I'm comfortable with what I know. I am not disturbed by your pot shots. I will not retaliate.
I purposely don't front for the offline people. If you want to battle with them, go off-line. I suspect they'd be happy to engage.
-
Take Uzzell's account "seriously". Would I be more serious if I accept, without a corroborating source, that the first sentence is correct.
You seem to accept quite a bit of that first sentence. I don't care whether you accept the rest or not, but I'd prefer it if you quit pretending you "discredited" the parts you don't accept. You haven't discredited a word of that first sentence, have you?
Your point escapes me once again.
More like you are trying to "escape" my point. You claimed you discredited Uzzell's version of how Crump came to know the property. You haven't. All you've disproven is the single clause about the inheritance.
We disagree. Move on.
Before we move on I'd rather you clarify just what it is you think you have discredited, and provide proof thereof. You must realize you haven't really discredited anything but the inheritance.
_________________________________________________
Why do you think I have a problem with the 1910 statement. I asked you what you thought of it. You're being needlessly argumentative. Please stop attributing positions to me.
In the context of that paragraph it seemed odd to me. I was thinking about Crump's self-described "landing on" or "happening on" the property in 1912 and this article saying he began "work" (however you want to define it) in 1910 on producing the finest layout on the property that Uzzell said Crump's father bought and sold some time previously. Seemed like a disconnect to me.
You've repeatedly suggested that the 1910 mention doesn't ring accurate, yet you scold me for asking you what problem you have with it? Even though the rest of your response indicated you do have a problem with it? Yet I am the one being needlessly argumentative? That's rich.
____________________________________________________
If you are seriously emotionally attached to Crump's father buying the property don't let me get in the way.
So much for your stated desire to "move on." Or did you mean that I was to "move on" while you continued to take shots at me about the Uzzell issue? If you want to continue to put words in my mouth and take these petty pot shots at my position, you might want to refrain for a post or two from lecturing me for supposedly doing these same things.
I am not "attached to Crump's father buying the property." I don't know whether or not he ever owned the land and neither do you. I don't care whether he did or not. The land in question could have been the Crump family hunting grounds whether or not he ever had a formal ownership interest. You keep trying to tie the hunting story to the ownership of the property but that doesn't wash. It was and is quite common for well connected people to hunt land owned by others. I've explained this to you many times but you ignore it and keep putting different words in my mouth to try and twist my position to one more to your liking.
I asked you where you thought the road, if that is what it is, went from and to. It starts on the course and ends on a green. Seems like a strange road. There were no allowances in the deeds for a road or ROW across the course.
It starts on the course? Another unsupported assumption on your part. We don't know where it starts because the topo map does not extend beyond the borders of the property. The map makers didn't even bother to draw the features (such as the contour lines) to the border of the property. If it was a road used for accessing the property by the owners of said property, a ROW would be redundant. One does not need a ROW across ones own property. To support your assumption, you'd have to check previous titles to the property to the south --NOT the deed where PV was purchasing said property because PV's purchase would extinguish the need for such a ROW by making it redundant (same would apply to any other restrictions previously reserving rights for the person who bought the property.)
_______________________________________
Once again, you pervert what I say so that you can take a shot. Good start to 2012.
I don't think I perverted what you wrote, You have no high ground to stand on when it comes these things. Perhaps you should work on cleaning up your own act instead of lecturing others.
__________________________________________________
I looked a little bit into hunting culture in New Jersey around this time. From what I can glean after a quick look, it sounds as if the only woodland suitable for hunting in Camden County was in the southern part of the county. The area around Clementon was particularly known for its quality rabbit and quail hunting. Because of overcrowding and depletion on publicly accessible lands, well off sportsman tended toward hunting on privately owned land. Sometimes they formed clubs or associations to secure exclusive access to private land for the members of the club or association.
-
I looked a little bit into hunting culture in New Jersey around this time. From what I can glean after a quick look, it sounds as if the only woodland suitable for hunting in Camden County was in the southern part of the county. The area around Clementon was particularly known for its quality rabbit and quail hunting. Because of overcrowding and depletion on publicly accessible lands, well off sportsman tended toward hunting on privately owned land. Sometimes they formed clubs or associations to secure exclusive access to private land for the members of the club or association.
Isn't this pretty standard when the area in question is attached to a major metropolitan area? As you move away from Camden/Philadelphia the hunting would improve...no?
I would have thought Joseph Baker would have been aware of the family hunting grounds, wouldn't you Tom?
-
Bryan, David, Tom M and all of the offline lunatic email senders, ;D
Ask yourself this question.
Is it possible, after living in a town for 39 years that you'd be unfamiliar with the land a mere 13 miles away ?
Especially land with roads, trolleys and trains leading to and/or through it ?
-
“Baker is the primary source for a lot of info. The 1910 trip to the UK, the consideration of two sites prior to, and the train station. I suspect is also the primary source for Crump's familiarity with the site from hunting.”
And when asked where Baker referenced Crump’s familiarity with the site from hunting he responded by simply underlining…
The recollections of Joseph H. Baker of the PVGC and of George A. Crump, the founder - good friend of many years and hunting companion on more than fifty trips over the United States.
This is a recent implication by Macwood that Baker said Crump knew of the site from hunting…do you think it says that David?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This in response to my comments on the Shelley 1909 hunting picture being evidence Crump knew the land previously from hunting:
Jim
Shelly became a member of PVGC in 1928. He would have been exposed to Baker, Perrin, Carr and many other old timers who knew what happened. His understanding is consistent with the others; he is a credible source.
Is this attempting to put Carr and Baker in as supporting sources for the hunting angle?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another attempt to say Baker is the source for Crump hunting on the Pine Valley ground before it became Pine Valley:
In regards to the photograph of Crump hunting in the Shelly book, there is a similar photo of Crump hunting in the woods in the most recent history. Crump has different close on in this photo so it is clearly a different hunting trip. The likely source of those photos is Joseph Baker. Baker was a regular hunting companion of Crump's; he claimed to have been on over 50 hunting trips with Crump. He was also Crump's companion on the 1910 golfing trip overseas. Baker was one of the first to build a home at PV, he began living there in 1916 and was still living there as late as 1951. I'm not sure when he died. Shelly also lived at PV. He began living there in 1957.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I asked Tom;
Don't you agree that it's virtually certain that your hunting sources can all be traced to a single report and not from George Crump's mouth? Do you think Crump told Warner Shelly he had hunted on that specific property as a kid?
His response:
”It is unlikely Shelly is the source; the more likely source is Crump and Joseph Baker, Crump's hunting companion and long time PV resident. Travers said Crump told him directly he discovered the site while hunting.”
I don’t know, it looks like you’re pushing Joseph Baker pretty hard…
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This from John Arthur Brown…the 50 year President of the club:
"Pine Valley had a rather unusual beginning.
In the early 1900 a group of enthusiastic golfers from the Philadelphia Country Club at Bala, Pennsylvania, occasionally journeyed to Atlantic City on the Reading Railroad to play the Atlantic City Country Club. George Crump was the leader of the group.
OUR OLD RECORDS INDICATE that on one trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which apparently was suitable for a golf course. This raised is curiosity and later he and Howard Perrin, the first President of the Pine Valley Golf Club, spent several days tramping over the grounds which now comprise the Club.
The property at the time was owned by Sumner Ireland who had a residence nearby. The railroad station at that point was then called Sumner.
CRUMP’S OLD RECORDS INDICATE his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of a most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property had one time had been covered by the ocean.
Crump formed a syndicate and in 1912 bought 184 acres from Mr. Ireland. Some of the old newspaper articles are interesting in this connection. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1912, is worth quoting in full. It gives and excellent description."
I know you have the priviledge of individual interpretations that have little to do with reality but do you really think John Arthur Brown was referencing a mythological bogus story from a newspaper clipping that he stumbled upon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jim
That's true, but with so many solid news reports contradicting that story was there anyone who took that isolated story seriously? I didn't.
Of the numerous stories (Wilson, Bunker, Travers, Giles, Uzell, Ford, Wind and Shelley) claiming he found the site hunting and/or on horseback I believe the earliest is May 1914. "
So AWT being isolated means Brown was what? He told a distinct story from AWT.
Why is it that the 50 year President of the club plus two of George Crump's closest friends throughout the process made it clear that he found the site in the course of a search and did not mention hunting or anything of the like?
-
Bryan, David, Tom M and all of the offline lunatic email senders, ;D
Ask yourself this question.
Is it possible, after living in a town for 39 years that you'd be unfamiliar with the land a mere 13 miles away ?
Especially land with roads, trolleys and trains leading to and/or through it ?
Hey Yogi...did you really just ask that question?
Why did you change your mind regarding Crump pointing out the site to AWT?
-
Bryan, David, Tom M and all of the offline lunatic email senders, ;D
Ask yourself this question.
Is it possible, after living in a town for 39 years that you'd be unfamiliar with the land a mere 13 miles away ?
Especially land with roads, trolleys and trains leading to and/or through it ?
Hey Yogi...did you really just ask that question?
Why did you change your mind regarding Crump pointing out the site to AWT?
Jim,
Sleep depravation is affecting your reading comprehension skills and your ability to remember previous posts.
In a reply to Jeff Brauer I offered an alternative solution that satisfied his position.
I NEVER felt that GAC FIRST discovered the land upon which to site PV on his speeding eastbound train ride to AC.
I haven't changed my mind on that issue, and don't intend to unless so directed by CBM when I next visit him in Southampton.
-
Apparently your comprehension hasn't changed much at all...it still stinks.
Do you think Crump pointed out the spot to AWT at any time...irrespective of if it was his first sighting or his 100th?
-
Apparently your comprehension hasn't changed much at all...it still stinks.
Do you think Crump pointed out the spot to AWT at any time...irrespective of if it was his first sighting or his 100th?
Jim,
I think Crump pointed out PV to everyone he came in contact with who visited the area.
-
Pat,
AWT wrote on January 12th 1913 that Crump had seen the land from the train three years earlier...I know you disagree that this was the first time Crump saw the property. I'm not asking about first but I am asking about prior to January 12th 1913...do you think Crump pointed out the spot to AWT prior to the article being written?
-
Bryan, David, Tom M and all of the offline lunatic email senders, ;D
Ask yourself this question.
Is it possible, after living in a town for 39 years that you'd be unfamiliar with the land a mere 13 miles away ?
Especially land with roads, trolleys and trains leading to and/or through it ?
Merchantville is more than 15 miles away from PV - it's possible that Crump might have missed those 184 acres in the half million acres within 15 miles of his home.
Which roads were those? PV's property was initially land locked except for the RR. Do you know when the White Horse Pike was finished to Berlin? According to the Camden County Historical Society it was 1922. But, what do they know? The trolleys stopped at Clementon and there were no roads from there to the property. Don't ever let reality get in the way.
I was saddened to hear of the passing of Dr. Katz, but he did leave behind a fine tribute to you from some years ago:
"The often wrong but never uncertain Pat Mucci seems to have eased off on his activity, as well. Be still my heart." ;)
-
Bryan, David, Tom M and all of the offline lunatic email senders, ;D
Ask yourself this question.
Is it possible, after living in a town for 39 years that you'd be unfamiliar with the land a mere 13 miles away ?
Especially land with roads, trolleys and trains leading to and/or through it ?
Merchantville is more than 15 miles away from PV - it's possible that Crump might have missed those 184 acres in the half million acres within 15 miles of his home.
Over 39 years ?
That's about 35 acres a day or only about 12,820 acres a year.
Which roads were those?
The Pike and other roads, including the roads leading to the amusement park on the same road as PV
PV's property was initially land locked except for the RR.
Do you know when the White Horse Pike was finished to Berlin?
According to the Camden County Historical Society it was 1922. But, what do they know?
Berlin is further east than Clementon.
In addition, wasn't it you who posted photos of cars in the teens in the area near PV.
I think one of your posts described automotive transportation in the area, accompanied by pictures.
The trolleys stopped at Clementon and there were no roads from there to the property.
If that's the case, why was there a train station there ? If there were NO ROADS, would they just shove the passengers off the train into the woods, or would the passengers take roads to their final destination ?
Don't ever let reality get in the way.
You're the one totalling lacking when it comes to reality at PV.
Tell us again, how many times over what period of years have you visited the site and surrounding area.
I was saddened to hear of the passing of Dr. Katz, but he did leave behind a fine tribute to you from some years ago:
What you DON'T know, along with so many other things, is that Tom Egan and I were friends.
We played golf together at Baltusrol, where he was a member, where had me as his guest for many years.
Like TEPaul and Ran Morrissett, we used to bash each other on GCA.com and in personal IM's and emails.
Only an uninformed idiot would make a blanket statement without knowing all of the facts surrounding the relationship.
Again, like your lack of personal knowledge about PV, your total lack of knowledge regarding the relationship between Tom Egan and myself has led you to draw false and grossly incorrect conclusions.
"The often wrong but never uncertain Pat Mucci seems to have eased off on his activity, as well. Be still my heart." ;)
-
Pat,
Before you get too far afield...
Pat,
AWT wrote on January 12th 1913 that Crump had seen the land from the train three years earlier...I know you disagree that this was the first time Crump saw the property. I'm not asking about first but I am asking about prior to January 12th 1913...do you think Crump pointed out the spot to AWT prior to the article being written?
-
Jim,
I don't know when AWT claims that GAC pointed out the area that PV was to be sited on.
Does anyone know the precise date ?
-
Isn't this pretty standard when the area in question is attached to a major metropolitan area? As you move away from Camden/Philadelphia the hunting would improve...no?
Generally, but it also would depend upon the nature of the grounds. Flat, farmed land is generally not ideal for hunting whereas hilly, wooded land is generally better. Judging by various reports, Clementon and environs was apparently among the better places to hunt in Camden County, particularly for small game and quail. As a sportsman Crump would have been aware of this.
I would have thought Joseph Baker would have been aware of the family hunting grounds, wouldn't you Tom?
I cannot speak for TomM, but as a long time hunting companion of Crump's, I would think that Baker would have been aware of where Crump commonly hunted. Ironically, this seems to be very similar to the position that is causing you so much alarm. I don't know for certain, but Baker is the possible source behind Shelley's version explaining Crump's familiarity with Pine Valley, and would have been someone who may have been able to identify Crump's location in those photographs.
_____________________________________
Jim, I have read your collection of comments and quotes above, and I fail to understand the fuss. TomM wrote, "I suspect is also the primary source for Crump's familiarity with the site from hunting.” And when asked why he suspected this, he pointed you toward a statement about their years of hunting together.
In other words you guys agree. You both think that Baker would be a reliable source on whether or not Crump was familiar with the land from hunting. You both apparently view Baker as "a credible source," as TomM put it. You two take this inference in different direction. Tom suspects that Baker may be the source behind the Shelly account, and this seems reasonable to me. I am not sure what you think, but it seems you are arguing it is somehow unreasonable to suspect that Baker may have told Shelly that Crump knew the land from hunting, or to call Baker the likely source. I don't get this.
Whatever you think, you claimed that TomM fabricated Baker's support. Surely after going back through the quotes you can see that he did not.
While I don't know for certain, Baker seems a likely source to me, and I suspect it was him who confirmed the hunting story and the photos to Shelly. Does this mean I too just fabricated Baker's support as well?
_________________________________
As for Brown, he wrote his account 50 years after the fact. Are you really arguing that AWT's account cannot properly be called isolated even though it stood alone a half a century?
When I read Brown, I assumed, rightly or wrongly, it was derivate of the newspaper articles, and that these were the records to which he referred. Shelly seemed to confirm this when he stated that the train story came from newspaper accounts. Wrongly or rightly, I have assumed that Shelly and Brown had access to the exact same records. Does Brown's account differ from the newspaper accounts in any significant regard?
I don't think Brown "stumbled upon" the newspaper accounts. I think it more likely that the club kept a record of such things. Do you think something happened to the "club records" between the brown and shelley books?
Also, none of this really backs up your claim, which was that TomM was intentionally hiding the Brown version (as if he was the only one with access to Brown.) One look at TomM's IMO piece proves that this was not the case.
Why is it that the 50 year President of the club plus two of George Crump's closest friends throughout the process made it clear that he found the site in the course of a search and did not mention hunting or anything of the like?
First, I assume we agree that, despite your earlier claim the contrary, Baker was not there and that his account is fifty years removed? Second, as to the other two, to whom do you think they should have mentioned it, and how do you know that they didn't mention it to anyone? Do you think they anticipated this idiocy?
____________________________
Jim, as for your question to Patrick, AWT's story isn't even consistent on the point (pun intended.) AWT's more contemporaneous accounts do NOT say that AWT pointed out the property from the train, do they? Didn't he write that Crump kept it to himself. Didn't AWT add the point and himself to the story in 1933?
-
Merchantville is more than 15 miles away from PV - it's possible that Crump might have missed those 184 acres in the half million acres within 15 miles of his home.
Come on Bryan, even you know enough about hunting to know this logic doesn't follow. When it comes to hunting, not all acreage is equal. From AWT's description of the NJ landscape the land around Clementon was about the closest remotely interesting hunting land to Merchantville, and various accounts I have read confirm that the hunting in Camden County occurred in the southern part of the county, and the area around Clementon was known for its quality hunting.
Which roads were those? PV's property was initially land locked except for the RR. Do you know when the White Horse Pike was finished to Berlin? According to the Camden County Historical Society it was 1922. But, what do they know? The trolleys stopped at Clementon and there were no roads from there to the property. Don't ever let reality get in the way.
Apparently either they don't know too much, or you didn't research too carefully. White Horse Pike reportedly dates back to its days as an Indian foot trail, and it and the RRs had long been the main thoroughfare to Atlantic City. The 1922 date was apparently the date they finished paving the road, but it had long been in existence up until that point. The road is so "storied" that it even has one of those little "Images of America" picture books written about it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=OLsI5cWUBuEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=White+horse+turnpike&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PrYDT4XZLaqbiAKNwvjSDg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA
I hope you don't mind me saying so, but as of late you only seem to research enough to possibly justify your preconceived answer, rather than following through until you have accurate information. Had you followed through until you actually found accurate information, I don't think you would be suggesting that the White Horse Pike may not have been in existence, and I don't think you would be scoffing at the idea of Crump having been familiar with the hunting around Clementon.
-
Here is a excerpt from Automobile Topics, May 21, 1910, about a planned "Motordrome." The area hardly sounds isolated.
Clementon is ideally situated for such a project. It is just off the White Horse Pike which forms the main automobile road from Camden to Atlantic City and is on the line of both the Public Service trolley line and the main lines of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Philadelphia and Reading Railway. There will thus be an abundance of methods of reaching the grounds, those who go by train or automobile making the trip from Philadelphia in twenty minutes while those who use the trolleys can get to the track in forty minutes. The location is particularly advantageous for motorists as there are seven State roads leading into Clementon.
-
David,
Bryan appears to be selective in terms of what he posts.
Somehow the expression, the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth, seems to have escaped him.
He has predetermined his conclusions and now posts to suit his agenda
-
Patrick, I don't believe Bryan would intentionally post false or misleading information and I hope I didn't imply otherwise. We have often disagreed but he's never been dishonest. Same goes for Jim.
-
David,
I'm sure you know I wasn't expecting, nor waiting, for your agreement as to the message Tom has been trying to send so let's agree to disagree. I "backed up my claims" as well as I'm interested in doing and I stand by them.
Simon Carr and Joseph Baker would have known this land had something to do with Crump's hunting history and yet they don't mention a word of it...they don't even imply it. Do they outright deny it? No. Why would they? It makes no difference if you and Tom "suspect" Baker was Shelley's source...Baker wrote his own story and made it clear the site was found during a concerted effort to find somewhere to build a golf course.
Brown was the President of the club for 50 years. Do you really think John Arthur Brown was referencing a mythological bogus story from a newspaper clipping that he stumbled upon? He pointed to the January 4th 1914 article as the best source. You can assume he and Shelley were looking at the same stuff but I don't think they came up with the same result.
-
David,
I'm sure you know I wasn't expecting, nor waiting, for your agreement as to the message Tom has been trying to send so let's agree to disagree. I "backed up my claims" as well as I'm interested in doing and I stand by them.
You and TomM disagree and that is to expected on a discussion group such as this one. But nothing you have posted remotely backs up your claim that TomM fabricated Baker's support, or any of the other listed claims.
http://Simon Carr and Joseph Baker would have known this land had something to do with Crump's hunting history and yet they don't mention a word of it...they don't even imply it. Do they outright deny it? No. Why would they? It makes no difference if you and Tom "suspect" Baker was Shelley's source...Baker wrote his own story and made it clear the site was found during a concerted effort to find somewhere to build a golf course.
I think you are confusing the absence of evidence with evidence of absence. In other words, you have unrealistic expectations of what Carr and Baker ought to have said, and read way to much into their silence on the issue.
I also think you are reading things into Baker which are not necessarily there, but rather reflect your desired outcome. In other words I don't think he "made it clear" that the Crump first became aware of this particular land during the "concerted effort to find somewhere to build a golf course."
Brown was the President of the club for 50 years. Do you really think John Arthur Brown was referencing a mythological bogus story from a newspaper clipping that he stumbled upon? He pointed to the January 4th 1914 article as the best source. You can assume he and Shelley were looking at the same stuff but I don't think they came up with the same result.
I don't think he knew it was mythological or bogus when he referenced it, but was going by the articles in PV's files. After all, he wasn't there, was he? I think it was discovered to apocryphal later, which is why Shelly corrected the record.
And I don't assume Brown and Shelly were looking at the same stuff. I assume Shelly had access to whatever "records" Brown had, but that he also supplemented those with additional information. Isn't that what Shelly suggests? He wrote. ". . .there is proof that in fact Crump knew the grounds by tramping though them with his gun and dogs while hunting . . .." So either Brown missed this "proof," understood it differently, or Shelly had additional information.
You attach great significance to Brown's longevity at the club. Well, Shelly had been there since the late 1920's and had served on the Board for over 40 years. So when he wrote that "there was proof" why don't you take that as seriously as Brown's intepretetation of unidentified records?
-
There are many things we don't know. One thing we do know is that the train story was published three times in 1913, in one newspaper and two magazines. Of course we don't know if Crump read newspapers or magazines, so we don't know if he saw the three articles.
We also know, from one of the NGLA threads that newspapers and magazines often published articles by merely copying them and not verifying their accuracy.
-
Patrick, I don't believe Bryan would intentionally post false or misleading information and I hope I didn't imply otherwise.
We have often disagreed but he's never been dishonest.
I'm not so sure.
Bryan posted the following in this thread:
Which roads were those?
PV's property was initially land locked except for the RR.
Do you know when the White Horse Pike was finished to Berlin?
According to the Camden County Historical Society it was 1922. But, what do they know?
The trolleys stopped at Clementon and there were no roads from there to the property.
He knew that Berlin was further East than Clementon.
And, He knew that the Pike was a major thoroughfare.
Unfortunately, in another thread he posted the following which directly contradicts his position that there were no roads in Clementon in 1910-1912.
Seems that Virginia Ireland had the first car in the Pine Valley area around 1908 - a Stutz roadster.
[/u]
So, if Bryan stated that Virginia Ireland had the first car in the Pine Valley area around 1908, two to four years prior to 1910 and 1912, there must have been roads for her to drive it on.
She must have been able to garage the car at her home. How did she get to and from her home in her Stutz Roadster if not on roads ?
Bryan misrepresented the state of transportation in and around Clementon/Pine Valley to suit his latest agenda and is a victim of his own prior posting.
You're free to draw your own conclusions, I've drawn mine.
Same goes for Jim.
Jim is merely suffering from exhaustion due to sleep deprevation.
I've never doubted his sincerity or honesty.
-
Pat,
When was East Atlantic Avenue built?
The nearest the White Horse Pike gets to Pine Valley's property is 1.2 miles and on the 1898 topo the only road from that direction was the private road through the Sumner Ranch. You may recall that Pine Valley later acquired access to this road which means they did not have access prior. Clementon Park was built in 1907 or 1908...it's possible the road was built as access to the park from the Sumner/Pine Valley station but I wouldn't be sure of it...why get off at Sumner when you could get off in Clementon?
If they didn't drive through the Sumner property then the only way to get to Pine Valley would have been on the train...
-
David,
I made my comments about Tom and his approach to this conversation and am willing to discuss them with him. I'm not going to discuss them with you.
Regarding Brown, I donlt attach any more significance to his longetivity at the club than I would Shelley. I'm responding to your implied lack of relevance of his comments because they came 50 years after the events. He said Crump's notes correspond to the January 4th 1914 article regarding the discovery. Shelley did not reference notes, he referenced "press clippings at the time". Why would the AWT story make it into any club records if it was a myth?
-
David,
I made my comments about Tom and his approach to this conversation and am willing to discuss them with him. I'm not going to discuss them with you.
Regarding Brown, I donlt attach any more significance to his longetivity at the club than I would Shelley. I'm responding to your implied lack of relevance of his comments because they came 50 years after the events. He said Crump's notes correspond to the January 4th 1914 article regarding the discovery. Shelley did not reference notes, he referenced "press clippings at the time". Why would the AWT story make it into any club records if it was a myth?
Jim
You are either a very confused person, or desperate, or both. That is not what Brown said. Do you have Brown's book?
-
I do not have the book. What do you think I'm missing?
-
David,
I made my comments about Tom and his approach to this conversation and am willing to discuss them with him. I'm not going to discuss them with you.
No offense Jim, but you can continue to discuss whatever you like with whomever you like, and I will continue to comment as I like as well. As I see it, your own claims do not hold up to anything near the critical scrutiny you place others, and the same goes for Bryan.
Regarding Brown, I donlt attach any more significance to his longetivity at the club than I would Shelley. I'm responding to your implied lack of relevance of his comments because they came 50 years after the events.
I am not sure what my "implied lack of relevance" means but I suspect you misunderstood me. I never said his comments were irrelevant. They are relevant, but to me they appear to be largely derived from the AWT articles. The 50 years comments were specifically addressing your claims; so far as I know AWT was the only one espousing his view for 50 years, which makes his view rather isolated view in my book, or at least it was for for 50 years.
He said Crump's notes correspond to the January 4th 1914 article regarding the discovery.
1. Brown did NOT say that "Crump's notes correspond with the January 4th 1914 article regarding the discovery."
2. Brown didn't link Crump's records (whatever those were) to either version of the discovery story.
3. Brown did not say anything about "notes" at all!
4. All Brown said about "Crump's old records" is that they "indicate his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of the most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property at one time had been covered by ocean." Where in this did Brown say that Crump's notes correspond with the January 1914 article?
This is precisely the sort of thing I am talking about. You expect others to speak in absolute truths always, yet you throw throw stuff out there like this as if it were a fact when it is not. Your statement is NOT supported by the record.
Shelley did not reference notes, he referenced "press clippings at the time".
Well Brown didn't reference notes either? So what is your point exactly? You are acting as if you know that "club records" means some contemporaneously written account specifically describing the discovery story, but you do not know that, and it is highly unlikely! It would be wonderful if such records existed, but I suspect they do not exist. If they did, then Brown and Shelly wouldn't be singing different tunes. In reality, neither of us knows what these "records" were, and they could well be nothing but old newspaper articles kept by the club.
You read more into the potential of these records than I do. Had they contained the type of information you suspect they contain, then Shelly should have been singing a different tune.
Why would the AWT story make it into any club records if it was a myth?
Do you really think it unusual that a club would save old clippings about the club? If they did save clippings, do you really think they would thoroughly vet these already published articles for detailed accuracy, and purge their files of any that did not pass muster? Merion's club secretary held onto hundreds of old newspaper clippings about Merion. Do you think that we can take everything in all those newspaper clippings as factually accurate just because Merion's secretary chose to save them?
-
Just so I do not again get falsely accused of sandbagging, Brown also wrote, "Our old records indicate that on a trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw a pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which apparently was suitable for a golf course. This raised his curiosity and later he and Howard Perrin, the first President of Pine Valley Golf Club, spent several days tramping over the grounds which now comprise the club."
The above is the part that seems largely derivative of the newspaper clippings to me, and Shelly seems to confirm this.
He also said that the properly was owned by Sumner Ireland. Had he been looking at actual business records, would he have gotten this detail wrong?
-
David,
John Arthur Brown:
"The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1912, is worth quoting in full. It gives and excellent description."
Philadelphia Inquirer - January 4th, 1914:
At first the search was in a desultory way from hearsay and railroad car windows. Years sped by without definite results, until it became apparent that a closer canvas must be begun, so many an automobile trip was made half with that end in view.
About two years ago, after locations as far away as Northfield and Somers Point had been exhausted, the choice narrowed to Pine Valley, close to the Reading Railway, sixteen miles below Philadelphia, on the direct line to Atlantic City. It is also close to the White Horse pike, an automobile route.
-
David,
John Arthur Brown:
Jim, it's important to state that JAB didn't make this statement, he merely quoted a newspaper article.
"The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1912, is worth quoting in full. It gives and excellent description."
Philadelphia Inquirer - January 4th, 1914:
At first the search was in a desultory way from hearsay and railroad car windows. Years sped by without definite results, until it became apparent that a closer canvas must be begun, so many an automobile trip was made half with that end in view.
But, Bryan told us that there were NO ROADS NEAR PINE VALLEY.
How could they travel by automobile if there were NO ROADS ?
About two years ago, after locations as far away as Northfield and Somers Point had been exhausted, the choice narrowed to Pine Valley, close to the Reading Railway, sixteen miles below Philadelphia, on the direct line to Atlantic City. It is also close to the White Horse pike, an automobile route.
I believe that I cited the White Horse Pike as a major thoroughfare but Bryan said it wasn't completed to Berlin until 1922.
How could they have been driving on the White Horse Pike in 1914, 1912 or 1910 if it wasn't operational, as Bryan declared ?
-
David,
John Arthur Brown:
"The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1912, is worth quoting in full. It gives and excellent description."
Philadelphia Inquirer - January 4th, 1914:
At first the search was in a desultory way from hearsay and railroad car windows. Years sped by without definite results, until it became apparent that a closer canvas must be begun, so many an automobile trip was made half with that end in view.
About two years ago, after locations as far away as Northfield and Somers Point had been exhausted, the choice narrowed to Pine Valley, close to the Reading Railway, sixteen miles below Philadelphia, on the direct line to Atlantic City. It is also close to the White Horse pike, an automobile route.
Jim I am not sure who is feeding you this information but you should really take a look at the Brown book for yourself.
-
Why would the AWT story make it into any club records if it was a myth?
Do you really think it unusual that a club would save old clippings about the club? If they did save clippings, do you really think they would thoroughly vet these already published articles for detailed accuracy, and purge their files of any that did not pass muster? Merion's club secretary held onto hundreds of old newspaper clippings about Merion. Do you think that we can take everything in all those newspaper clippings as factually accurate just because Merion's secretary chose to save them?
Are you serious? If it's false it doesn't make it into the file...period. Or are you talking about someone doing some digging 20 years after the fact?
-
David,
As I asked Tom, what am I missing?
-
Well one thing you are missing is that the portion of the January 4, 1914 article you quoted is not in the the Brown book. At least it is not in my version, which was printed in 1974.
The quote starts with the next paragraph: "The land there, comprising 184 rolling acres, is or was, the highest ground in New Jersey . . . ."
_______________________________________
I can't quite believe you think that PV would definitely never have saved a newspaper clipping unless all the information had been vetted as absolutely true. Care to reconsider this? Does this apply to other clubs as well?
-
My only quote from Brown is that he says the newspaper is worth quoting in full...that's why I put that after the words John Arthur Brown and a colon. The next section that says Philadelphia Inquirer... ending with a colon indicating what follows is from the paper. Should have been pretty clear although I wouldn't have expected Pat to pick it up...
-
Well one thing you are missing is that the portion of the January 4, 1914 article you quoted is not in the the Brown book. At least it is not in my version, which was printed in 1974.
The quote starts with the next paragraph: "The land there, comprising 184 rolling acres, is or was, the highest ground in New Jersey . . . ."
David,
My book appears to be similar to yours.
Brown also refers to Crumps old records and his interest in the property..
So the club must have those old records.
Did they retain them, or did they exit the property, similar to the schematic reaquired by TEPaul and He whose name cannot be mentioned, Lord Voldemort ?
The mention of the stream, then pond, then lake, dammed by three concrete dams, is also interesting.
But, what's most interesting is the statement that "an 18 foot swimming pool has been built"
_______________________________________
I can't quite believe you think that PV would definitely never have saved a newspaper clipping unless all the information had been vetted as absolutely true. Care to reconsider this? Does this apply to other clubs as well?
-
Pat,
When was East Atlantic Avenue built?
The nearest the White Horse Pike gets to Pine Valley's property is 1.2 miles and on the 1898 topo the only road from that direction was the private road through the Sumner Ranch.
You may recall that Pine Valley later acquired access to this road which means they did not have access prior.
That's not necessarily true. Access or ROW is granted on private roads
Clementon Park was built in 1907 or 1908...it's possible the road was built as access to the park from the Sumner/Pine Valley station but I wouldn't be sure of it...why get off at Sumner when you could get off in Clementon?
Because Sumner was closer to the park then Clementon.
Why have any station at Sumner if you didn't have access getting to and from it ?
If they didn't drive through the Sumner property then the only way to get to Pine Valley would have been on the train...
But Jim, you're own newspaper accounts clearly state that they drove to the site, frequently.
Repeat, they made MANY drives to the site.
If there were no roads, how would you drive to the site ?
How would you get to and from the train station to your destination ?
Do you think they just dropped passengers off in the wilderness.
How did passengers get to and from the train station if there were no roads ?
Please, get more sleep.
-
In 1950 Joseph Baker wrote down his recollections:
"The recollections of Joseph H. Baker of the PVGC and of George A. Crump, the founder - good friend of many years and hunting companion on more than fifty trips over the United States.
He secured the right-of-way from the Ireland property for a road one hundred feet wide for about ninety-nine years and in the old days that is the way we came to Pine Valley - by way of Watsontown.
Pat,
Watson town was North of the property and not far East of the Amusement Park. If East Atlantic Avenue was built, why would they have to take the ROW across the Ireland property? Prior to having the ROW, did they have direct access to the property?
-
My only quote from Brown is that he says the newspaper is worth quoting in full...that's why I put that after the words John Arthur Brown and a colon. The next section that says Philadelphia Inquirer... ending with a colon indicating what follows is from the paper. Should have been pretty clear although I wouldn't have expected Pat to pick it up...
Huh? This doesn't make sense. You held it out as if this section of the article was quoted by Brown. There is no reason to include the quote in conversation about Brown and what he wrote in his book, unless you thought Brown quoted it in his book. Surely you wouldn't have been trying to trick us into believing he quoted something he didn't so I can only suppose that you just assumed he quoted the whole article like he said he did.
Earlier in the thread both you and Bryan quoted the first part of Brown, then indicated that the next page "continues with the description from the paper that we've seen before." That you used identical language leads me to believe that you are both relying on the same source of this article. The problem is, Brown doesn't continue on with the article, but rather only with part it. He excluded the part you seem to be relying upon. I just went and checked Bryan's initial post, and he has it wrong there as well. He has Brown quoting the same portion of the article you quoted above. This too is wrong, at least according to the 1978 edition.
I know you guys were unwittingly injecting this material into the Brown book and understand how it could have happened, but I hope you guys understand that this is getting rather frustrating from this end. You guys apparently let certain ex-posters get you all riled up about how TomM must be concealing material or up to other untoward acts, and now it seems it is just one rush after an other, and none of it ever pans out. You both should know better than to take your lead from them. Both made fools of themselves when they were posters, and laying along with them now will only make you look bad.
Anyway, if you ever get a chance to take a look at the Brown book, you will see that is largely a collection of extended quotes from various articles and description. The vast majority of the text is quotations and most of the rest seems to be paraphrases. It is almost as if someone typed out the highlights of a scrapbook, paraphrasing in between the quotes to try and tie it all together.
-
My only quote from Brown is that he says the newspaper is worth quoting in full...that's why I put that after the words John Arthur Brown and a colon. The next section that says Philadelphia Inquirer... ending with a colon indicating what follows is from the paper. Should have been pretty clear although I wouldn't have expected Pat to pick it up...
I did pick it up, that's why I made my comment.
The presentation could be construed as misleading, and I didn't want other to be misled.
-
David,
This is what I said Brown said. In another post I reiterated that Brown says perfectly clearly that the January 4th, 1914 article is "WORTH QUOTING IN FULL" regarding the discovery of the site...
This from John Arthur Brown…the 50 year President of the club:
"Pine Valley had a rather unusual beginning.
In the early 1900 a group of enthusiastic golfers from the Philadelphia Country Club at Bala, Pennsylvania, occasionally journeyed to Atlantic City on the Reading Railroad to play the Atlantic City Country Club. George Crump was the leader of the group.
OUR OLD RECORDS INDICATE that on one trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which apparently was suitable for a golf course. This raised is curiosity and later he and Howard Perrin, the first President of the Pine Valley Golf Club, spent several days tramping over the grounds which now comprise the Club.
The property at the time was owned by Sumner Ireland who had a residence nearby. The railroad station at that point was then called Sumner.
CRUMP’S OLD RECORDS INDICATE his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of a most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property had one time had been covered by the ocean.
Crump formed a syndicate and in 1912 bought 184 acres from Mr. Ireland. Some of the old newspaper articles are interesting in this connection. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1912, is worth quoting in full. It gives and excellent description."
I know you have the priviledge of individual interpretations that have little to do with reality but do you really think John Arthur Brown was referencing a mythological bogus story from a newspaper clipping that he stumbled upon?
-
In 1950 Joseph Baker wrote down his recollections:
"The recollections of Joseph H. Baker of the PVGC and of George A. Crump, the founder - good friend of many years and hunting companion on more than fifty trips over the United States.
He secured the right-of-way from the Ireland property for a road one hundred feet wide for about ninety-nine years and in the old days that is the way we came to Pine Valley - by way of Watsontown.
Pat,
Watson town was North of the property and not far East of the Amusement Park.
If East Atlantic Avenue was built, why would they have to take the ROW across the Ireland property?
Many people would characterize it as a "shortcut"
What always amazes me is your exclusionary thought process.
ie, if they had to get a ROW, EAA couldln't exist.
That's flawed logic and a false conclusion.
Prior to having the ROW, did they have direct access to the property?
In what context would you evaluate my answer.
Contrary to the opinions of others, East Altantic Ave between the Amusement Park and PV was well developed by 1931, with at least seven roads leading north off of East Atlantic Ave.
As to East Atlantic Avenue, it wasn't unusual to have a road parallel railroad tracks in the 1800's and early 1900's.
Presently, I can't tell you the date that East Atlantic Ave became operational to traffic, but, it clearly predates 1931.
In addition to East Atlantic Ave and the seven or more roads leading north from it in, between the AP and PV, in 1931 other roads led to PV, including Old Mill Road, 2nd Avenue and Stone Hall Rd, or 3rd Avenue.
So, I wouldn't be so quick to paint the course as inaccessible except by parachute drop
-
Pat,
I don't know when East Atlantic Avenue was built and neither do you. It's quite easy to say.
What makes you think Old Mill Rd was publicly accessible? If it was, why would Pine Valley need a right of way? East Atlantic Avenue would have been more direct than Old Mill as well...but maybe they wanted to avoid all the traffic you guys were typing about earlier...
-
An interesting comment in that January 1914 article is that they are already planting trees along the fairways...
-
An interesting comment in that January 1914 article is that they are already planting trees along the fairways...
Jim,
It would seem to be an indication that they cleared far more than they needed to clear and wanted to repopulate the cleared areas outside of the playing corridors.
It makes perfect sense.
-
Come on Jim, if it was worth quoting it in full, then why didn't he quote it in full? And why did you quote it as if he quoted it? Obviously you did not know what he quoted. Neither did Bryan.
You aren't really trying to offer the only portion of the article he left out as the definitely accurate part, are you?
-
Pat,
I don't know when East Atlantic Avenue was built and neither do you. It's quite easy to say.
We do know that it was prior to 1931.
I'm sure that we could ascertain the date it was used to convey traffic with more research.
What makes you think Old Mill Rd was publicly accessible?
What makes you think it wasn't ?
If it was, why would Pine Valley need a right of way?
There could be a number of reasons, including commercial traffic gaining access to PV
East Atlantic Avenue would have been more direct than Old Mill as well...
Only if you're coming from the West.
Don't forget that Berlin Rd/TPK was an established thoroughfare and Old Mill Rd intersected it and led directly to PV.
Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean that roads leading to PV didn't exist.
but maybe they wanted to avoid all the traffic you guys were typing about earlier...
It could have been the quality of the Berlin Tpk, perhaps they prefered remaining on the BT then shunting off it directly to PV.
Don't be so smug in your conclusions, you've been in error too many times to enjoy unbridled confidence. ;D
-
Patrick,
Apparently there isn't anything that you can't twist, pervert, and misstate in furtherance of your agenda. It is really a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you.
Pat,
I don't know when East Atlantic Avenue was built and neither do you. It's quite easy to say.
We do know that it was prior to 1931.
I'm sure that we could ascertain the date it was used to convey traffic with more research.
I'll help you narrow down your range of dates. East Atlantic Road was not on the deeds as of 1917.
What makes you think Old Mill Rd was publicly accessible?
What makes you think it wasn't ?
In November 1914 Virginia Ireland sold to Pine Valley Golf Club a right of access to a private road across her property from the Clementon - New Freedom Road to the Sumner RR station. That road is now called Old Mill Road. You missed this in the deeds thread, I guess.
If it was, why would Pine Valley need a right of way?
There could be a number of reasons, including commercial traffic gaining access to PV
There was one reason. It was private. Commercial traffic?!?!? Have you ever driven it? Do you know that it is one lane and at least partly a grass track?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PVOldMillRoad.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PVOldMillRdgrass.jpg)
East Atlantic Avenue would have been more direct than Old Mill as well...
Only if you're coming from the West.
Don't forget that Berlin Rd/TPK was an established thoroughfare and Old Mill Rd intersected it and led directly to PV.
Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean that roads leading to PV didn't exist.
Hmmmm, he ends with a triple negative sentence. Actually we do know that East Atlantic Ave didn't exist in 1910 - 1912. BTW, the Berlin RD/TPK (as you call it) was actually called the Clementon - New Freedom Road in those days. Even today, part of it is called the Watsontown - New Freedom Road.
but maybe they wanted to avoid all the traffic you guys were typing about earlier...
It could have been the quality of the Berlin Tpk, perhaps they prefered remaining on the BT then shunting off it directly to PV.
Don't be so smug in your conclusions, you've been in error too many times to enjoy unbridled confidence. ;D
Yup, Old Mill Road must have been a high quality grass road back in 1910 - 12. It's certainly a high quality one lane partial grass road today. And it might even still be private, running through the "Valley House" estate as it does.
-
I do not have the book. What do you think I'm missing?
I have the 1963 version of the book, and to call it simplistic would be an understatement. It is basically a collection of newspaper and magazine articles, or I should say quotes from newspapers and magazines, strung together in a semi-coherent manner. The exception are the first three or four paragraphs, which are not direct quotes, but I believe also come from articles.
The book begins with this first paragraph, "Pine Valley had a rather unusual beginning. In the early 1900s a group of enthusiastic golfers from the Philadelphia Country Club at Bala, Pennsylvania, occasionally journeyed to Atlantic City on the Reading Railroad to play the Atlantic City CC. George Crump was the leader of this group."
I believe this comes from Tilly's article in American Golfer the month or two prior to the train article:
"At the turn of the century, it was the habit of a few Philadelphia golfers to spend their winter weekends, playing the original eighteen holes at Northfield, the cours of the Country Club of AC. There they found winter conditions very different from those of the Quaker City, only sixty miles distant. Every Saturday morning the coterie of enthusiasts boarded the train, possibly leaving inches of snow at home, knowing wel that the seaside course would be free of it and the temperature four or five degrees higher. The regulars included George Crump, Howard Perrin, Cameron Buxton, Robert Large, WP Smith, AH Smith, Frank Bohlen, Wirt Thompson and myself" I doubt Brown had direct access to American Golfer because otherwise he would have known, with a little independent research, that these guys were not all member of PCC at Bala, in fact most of them were members of rival clubs.
The next paragraph in the book is the one dealing with the train which you have twice mislead us to believe comes from 'Crump's notes.' "Our old records indicate that on one trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw a pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which apparently was suitable for a golf course...."
This comes from either Tilly's American Golfer article or his Philadelphia Record article, which are similar:
"This section is to have still another golf course, one which may eclipse any of the others. Although I have known of the plans for over a year, I had promised secrecy and only recently have I absolved from that promise; consequently the announcement appears in print today for the first time. Every one is aware of the superiority of South Jersey courses during the winter months, and golfers from Philadelphia spend many week-ends on the links at Atlantic City during the cold weather. The sandy soil quickly melts snow and drains very quickly, and is altogether admirable for the purposes of golf. Nearly three years ago George A. Crump, the well known player, was on one of the Reading Railway trains, bound for the seaside links. Glancing out of the window, he saw a tract of land which rivetted (sic) his attention instantly, for, unlike the usual flat Jersey landscape, this was beautifully rolling and hilly. Immediately it occurred to him that the land would be ideal for a golf course. It is situated close by the railroad tracks about 15 miles from Camden, near Clementon." The pasture part is odd.
The next paragraph in the book:
"The property at the time was owned by Sumner Ireland who had a residence nearby. The railroad station at that point was called Sumner."
The next paragraph in the book.
"Crump's old records indicate his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of a most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property at one time had been covered by ocean." As I indicated a couple of pages ago I believe he is referring to the letter Crump wrote to his friends in 1912, and that he may have also borrowed from a paragraph HW Wind's 1950 article where Wind quotes the letter and then immediately goes into ancient sea aspect.
The next paragraph quotes the Philadelphia Inq from 1/4/1914. He then briefly talks about Colt followed by a quote from American Golfer on Govan, followed by a quote by Ben Sayers in American Golfer. Followed by a Quote from the Philadelphia Public Ledger, followed by a quote from a letter from Charles Knapp, followed by a quote from the NY Evening Sun, followed by a quote from the Philadelphia Record, followed by a quote from William Evans (Public Ledger), followed by another quote from the Public Ledger, followed by another quote from the Public Ledger, followed by a quote from American Golfer, followed by a quote from Philadelphia Evening Ledger, and so on and so on. The book reads like a scrapbook, and that is what I believe the source information came from either a scrapbook or a collection of articles, and letters, that had been snipped out over the years. Those were the club records he was referring to. In 1963 it would have been too difficult for Brown to go through hours and hours of microfiche in multiple libraries.
There are no Crump notes.
-
Regarding Baker here is a quote from Wind's 1950 article:
"Across the road from Hollenback lives Joseph H. Baker who, at ninety, is the club's oldest member and the borough's most popular citizen. 'Colonel' Baker, as he has been called for four decades, built his first home at PV in 1916. A few years ago, cataracts in both eyes forced him to give his golf but otherwise he has slowed down hardly at all. There is still the spring of the athlete in the colonels step as he hustles to greet his friends who walk over from the club to pass the evening with him. After he has prepared the drinks and made everyone welcome, the colonel, his white hair covered by a twill hat of the Walter Travis era, stretches out in his lawn chair and needs very little coaxing to burst into Just a Wee Deoch an' Doris and his other favorites in a strident baritone.
The old boy is the last link with the old times, the days of George Crump, his companion on fifty hunting trips and hundreds of golf rounds, was consumed with the idea of creating PV. Whenever he relates 'how George did it,' Colonel Baker rises to his highest pitch of animation--and it is understandable. For anyone who loves golf and golf courses, the genesis of PV is one of the truly stirring stories."
I believe Baker was a major source for both Wind and Shelly, and most likely the source of those hunting photographs. In fact I believe Baker is in one of those photos.
-
You aren't really trying to offer the only portion of the article he left out as the definitely accurate part, are you?
David,
Brown said the article was worth quoting in full...get a grip on this. It's quite simple.
Did the article mention a hunting preserve? No, it mentioned a concerted effort since 1903 or '04 to find a suitable place for a golf course.
-
Tom,
What do you think the Wind/Baker post there says about anything? Is there a question that Baker hunted with Crump? The fact that you think Baker was Shelley's source for the hunting stories is fine but Baker had his own story on the discovery and according to you he was the "only person asked to write a complete account of Crump's formation of the course"... Let's take his word for it instead of whatever you think Wind had to say...
-
Brown said the article was worth quoting in full...get a grip on this. It's quite simple.
Brown didn't quote the portion of the article on which you rely. "...get a grip on this. It's quite simple."
Did the article mention a hunting preserve? No, it mentioned a concerted effort since 1903 or '04 to find a suitable place for a golf course.
Did Brown quote this part of the article? No, he quoted all the rest, but NOT THE PORTION YOU KEEP TRYING TO ATTRIBUTE TO HIM.
Surely you cannot seriously be attributing the excerpt to the Brown book or Brown? It isn't in the book!
Take a step back and think about this Jim. Imagine your reaction if TomM tried to pull such a stunt!
-
. . .
1963 John Arthur Brown
"Pine Valley had a rather unusual beginning.
In the early 1900 a group of enthusiastic golfers from the Philadelphia Country Club at Bala, Pennsylvania, occasionally journeyed to Atlantic City on the Reading Railroad to play the Atlantic City Country Club. George Crump was the leader of the group.
Our old record indicate that on one trip to Atlantic City, Crump saw pasture land near the town of Clementon, New Jersey, which apparently was suitable for a golf course. This raised is curiosity and later he and Howard Perrin, the first President of the Pine Valley Golf Club, spent several days tramping over the grounds which now comprise the Club.
The property at the time was owned by Sumner Ireland who had a residence nearby. The railroad station at that point was then called Sumner.
Crump's old records indicate his interest in the property and the possibility, as he saw it, for the development of a most interesting inland golf course under seaside conditions, as the property had one time had been covered by the ocean.
Crump formed a syndicate and in 1912 bought 184 acres from Mr. Ireland. Some of the old newspaper articles are interesting in this connection. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1914, is worth quoting in full. It gives and excellent description.
"Just about ten years ago, according to their own estimates, a coterie of Philadelphia's deepest dyed-in-the-wool golfers began a search for an ideal links. Their quest antedated the similar attempts of New Yorkers by a year at least. By 1904 it was evident that golf had come to stay in America, but the subclay soils among Philadelphia suburbs made it impossible to play with any degree of comfort more than seven months each year, despite extensive drainage systems, put in at larger clubs like Merion. But a sandy soil that would serve as a filter was not the only thing demanded. The old guard and some of the new guard, too, for that matter, wished an up-to-date links scientifically trapped and requiring thinking golf, which is more than can be said for some clubs where pink teas and ham bites seem to be the chief end of man and woman.
At first the search was in a desultory way from hearsay and railroad car windows. Years sped by without definite results, until it became apparent that a closer canvas must be begun, so many an automobile trip was made half with that end in view.
About two years ago, after locations as far away as Northfield and Somers Point had been exhausted, the choice narrowed to Pine Valley, close to the Reading Railway, sixteen miles below Philadelphia, on the direct line to Atlantic City. It is also close to the White Horse pike, an automobile route.
* * * *
The land there, comprising 184 rolling acres, is, or was, the highest ground in Southern New Jersey, 200 feet at points above sea level, being 100 years ago the home of the Delaware Indians. It is the watershed between the Tuckahoe and Delaware Rivers. The first blow of the ax was struck there last February; .........................""
Bryan, above is from your second post of the thread where you set out the various versions. I've highlighted in red the portion that does NOT appear in the Brown book. (Mine is the last edition, but I have no reason to believe substantive changes were made between editions.)
Apparently, like Jim, you either received incorrect information or misunderstood the information you received from your behind the scenes sources. I am looking at the book, and the section from the article you quote is not in it. You may want to fix this, and reconsider whatever assumptions you have drawn from its inclusion in the Brown book.
-
David,
Does your version of the book say the January 4th article is worth quoting in full?
-
David,
Does your version of the book say the January 4th article is worth quoting in full?
From the 1974 reprint of the book . . .
. . .
Crump finally formed a syndicate and in 1912 bought 184 acres from Mr. Ireland. Some of the old newspaper reports are interesting in this connection. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, January 4, 1914, is worth quoting in full. It gives an excellent description.
"The land there, comprising 184 rolling acres is, or was, the highest ground in Southern New Jersey, 200 feet at points above the Sea Level, being more than 100 years ago the home of the Delaware Indians. . . ."
-
I'll take that as a yes. Thank you
-
Jim,
Is the portion of the article you quoted in any version of the Brown Book?
-
David,
Does your version of the book say the January 4th article is worth quoting in full?
Jim,
What you're missing is that the quote that follows JAB's remark is NOT the quote you posted.
After JAB states that the article is worth quoting in full, he states, "It gives and excellent description".
Then, the quote starts, "The land there, comprising 184...... "
Your quote does NOT appear in my book.
So, where did you get your apparently erroneous quote from ?
-
Patrick, I think Jim now knows the quote isn't in the book, but I am hoping he will clarify.
He nonetheless wants to argue that Brown was actually affirming the excluded portion because Brown wrote that the article was worth quoting in full, even though Brown quoted EVERYTHING BUT the part Jim thinks is important! It is astounding. Brown excludes one section of the article, and we are to believe that this excluded section is the one part he really believed? Jim seems to have tied himself in knots here.
-
Brown spends four paragraphs discussing the "Story of the Discovery of the Pine Valley Property" and references a newspaper article which is "WORTH QUOTING IN FULL" for further clarification/color to the story.
He then moves on to the next step in the "HISTORY OF PINE VALLEY"...
Easy fellas, your rabid behavior might scare people off...
In John Arthur Brown's opinion, the January 4th, 1914 article is worth quoting in full.
-
Bryan,
I'm not sure if you're hoping to keep the page 1 sources up to date, but I think the January 4th, 1914 article (even without the authors name) could go on the list supporting the train story. If you do that, David makes a good point that the Brown reference is probably two distinct sources...Brown and the Inquirer.
David,
I guess Tillinghast wasn't so isolated for all those years after all.
-
So you believe that the excluded portion of the January 4, 1914, article indicated that Crump first became aware of the property from the window of a passing train in 1909 or 1910? Fascinating.
-
Jim,
Sure, I'll update it when time permits. Has anyone who has the first printing of the book confirmed that the full article was not quoted. I guess that I'll also add the full article to the list.
Perhaps there should be three lists: the train, hunting, and others. I'm beginning to suspect that the "others" list is a runner in this race.
-
So you believe that the excluded portion of the January 4, 1914, article indicated that Crump first became aware of the property from the window of a passing train in 1909 or 1910? Fascinating.
What I believe is that it's possible...as opposed to a bogus myth or lie...and that the Brown confirmation of the accuracy of the 1914 article supports that possibility...strengthens it.
-
Jim,
If Crump sailed from New York for Europe on September 6th and didn't return to New York until December 11th, almost the entire fall, from the aspect of probability, can't you rule out any possible sighting in the winter of 2010 ?
-
Pat,
The article was published on January 12th 1912 so three years earlier would have been during the winter golf season of November 1909 - March 1910...not the end of 1910.
-
Tom,
What do you think the Wind/Baker post there says about anything? Is there a question that Baker hunted with Crump? The fact that you think Baker was Shelley's source for the hunting stories is fine but Baker had his own story on the discovery and according to you he was the "only person asked to write a complete account of Crump's formation of the course"... Let's take his word for it instead of whatever you think Wind had to say...
Where did I write Baker was the only person to write a history? I've searched those words within your quotation and didn't pull up anything.
What article was published on January 12th 1912?
-
August 4th in. Pine Valley and Topos.
-
Jim, I view your last couple interpretations of Brown and that January 4, 1914 article as so attenuated that I don't think it is worth pursuing further. You seem to have dug in your heels, and from my perspective it just doesn't seem like you striving for the most reasonable understanding of this stuff. I don't think you can reasonably adopt as Brown's a section of an article he excluded from his book. Likewise, I don't think you can reasonably read that excluded section of the article as supporting the AWT train story. But you are determined and there is no use me trying to convince you otherwise. Plus, it has become obvious that neither you nor Bryan can even begin to cast much doubt on TomM's (and Shelly's, TEPaul's, Travers, etc.) understanding of how Crump first became familiar with the property. So what more is there to discuss?
I believe the date of the AWT article you reference is January 12, 1913, not January 12, 1912.
Good luck! No hard feelings from me.
-
Could you post it? I can't find it.
-
Joseph Baker was Crump's close friend who he traveled to Europe with in 1910. To my knowledge he was only one asked to write a complete account of Crump's formation of the course....from their trip abroad to Crump's death. Travers said Crump discovered the site while hunting; Wilson said he discovered the site while on horseback. Most accounts say he found the site while hunting, Tilly is the exception. I agree with Pat when he said Tilly's story was designed more to entertain than to tell the accurate story.
Jim
Not only did you misquote me, you took what I said out of context, but that is par for the course, you did that yesterday too. Oh well.
-
Edited to clarify in the event you missed this...
Would love your clarification on how I misquoted you...
Tom,
What did Jerome Travers and Alan Wilson say about locating the site based on hunting there? The Browns Mills Site looks a more likely candidate for that discovery. Also, who was Joseph Baker? And can you just type the pertinent section?
Joseph Baker was Crump's close friend who he traveled to Europe with in 1910. To my knowledge he was only one asked to write a complete account of Crump's formation of the course....from their trip abroad to Crump's death. Travers said Crump discovered the site while hunting; Wilson said he discovered the site while on horseback. Most accounts say he found the site while hunting, Tilly is the exception. I agree with Pat when he said Tilly's story was designed more to entertain than to tell the accurate story.
-
I have revised the opening posts to correct the quote from the January 4, 1914 article in the Brown book.
I have also included the full first part of the January 4, 1914 article as a separate item.
Strangely there are now 8 stories on the train side.
It seems to me that it is silly to be considering this as a two-sided battle. There are a number of the stories that are neither train nor hunting. Surely they should be recognized as valid possibilities on their own.
-
Patrick,
Will you agree that the following picture is before construction and before clearing on this part of the property?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV14thGreenSite.jpg)
This is what it looked like after construction.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV14thGreenBuilt.jpg)
Looks pretty open before construction. I can see the the RR track up on the embankment.
-
Tom,
If you recall not long ago I posted Baker's recollection of events and there was nothing regarding how the site was found
As usual, I can't find where you posted this. I see many references to Browns Mills and Absecon and hunting and Wind, but it's all bits and pieces. Where is the complete recollection of the discovery period posted.
Do you have the complete recollections? Or, are you going on third part accounts of Baker's recollections.
Does anybody else have it?
Whatever it says, it would be nice to see a complete transcription of the recollection. Maybe it fits in the "other" category.
-
Bryan,
No,
I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction.
Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.
Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.
Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.
In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.
I seem to recall that These photos were previously posted on another thread some time ago
-
Bryan,
Any idea of the date of that first picture?
Also, Tom posted a part of Baker's story in post 17 of this thread...I assumed it was everything Bake said on the matter.
-
Bryan,
No,
I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction.
I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.
The part in the foreground, the island, the part along the RR track embankment. All this around where the 14 green got built.
Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.
But, we know that his story was a complete bogus myth, so who would rely on that description. Of course, all 184 acres must have been uniformly densely forested. How silly of me to think otherwise based on a picture.
Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.
Not obvious to me. The underbrush in the foreground looks virgin. The island and the area along the tracks looks untouched. Why would they have cleared this section? They didn't figure out the routing over this end for years. Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.
In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.
But, this isn't where the swamp was marked on the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article. If it was swamp before it formed the pond in the picture, then I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of clearing needed.
I seem to recall that These photos were previously posted on another thread some time ago
-
Bryan,
Any idea of the date of that first picture?
Also, Tom posted a part of Baker's story in post 17 of this thread...I assumed it was everything Bake said on the matter.
The picture was undated. It was obviously before the 14th was built and likely after the 17th was built. I think I see the 17th on the rolling hill in the background, but you would know better. I can't remember the date associated with that.
Thanks for post 17. How soon I forget. I was looking further back.
-
No sweat...Tom's probably not thrilled with the fact that I know what he says and when he says it...
In one of the previos threads Tillinghast wrote about the discovery of the 13th hole and how the greensite alone had been hidden from the mortal eye. I think that was in the January 1915 timeframe. It's worth putting it together because the same article indicates #14 was going to have to become a par 3 as a result of moving the green to the left (North). In an article dated a month or two before that one Simon Carr is quoted as saying the 14th was a par 4. It's clear the 14th greensite hadn't been cleared for golf as of the date of this picture.
-
American Golfer, Dec. 1914;
As an illustration of the magnitude
of the work, let me tell you that in one
place, nearly twenty acres of bog will
be made into a lake and it requires but
small imaginative power to picture its
attractiveness in the days to come.
To give an idea of the demands of
Pine Valley, let me quote from the recent
report of the club secretary, Dr.
Simon Carr:
The total length of Pine Valley course is
about 6,700 yards. It is not a sluggers
course in any sense, except in the opinion
of those who fix their standards by parlor
golf played only with a mashie and putter.
The following is an analysis of the shots
up to the green, based on the supposition
of good driving from each tee:
3 brassey approach shots, at holes 4, 16,
18.
4 cleek approach shots, at holes 1, 6, 9,
13.
4 midiron approach shots, at holes 2, 11,
12, 17.
4 mashie approach shots, at holes 7, 8,
14, 15.
The one-shot holes are: No. 10 for a
short iron, No. 3 for a long iron, No. 5,
full shot with a wooden club.
This arrangement give a full, well-balanced
variety of approach shots as anyone
could wish, and they are skilfully distributed
over the round.
January 10th, 1915, Philadelphia Record
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/jan10_1915_PV13_blurb.jpg)
March 1915, American Golfer
At Pine Valley the new
holes will be completed as
rapidly as possible. The
original plans have been
changed slightly for Mr.
Crump uncovered a magnificent
hole when he cut
the timber from the ridge
which is encountered when
the 12th green is quitted.
The drive is across a deep
depression and unless the
shot is a long one the green
will not be in sight. Along
the left of the fairway extends
a pronounced throw
which will take a hooked
ball and send it far from the "straight
and narrow." This new 13th certainly
is one of the best of any on the new
course.
-
I am not sure what you guys see in those photos, or how you can pretend to know what was there before it was cleared and dammed.
Bryan, do you have a larger version of the first photo? It appears in both books (cropped in second) but it is very dark in the Brown book. What is your source?
It is hard to tell for sure, but it looks like clearing has occurred on the left side of the photo and possibly the right side. The little island in the middle may not have been cleared, but then the same taller trees appear in the supposed post-clearing photo as well --only the smaller trees and underbrush are missing.
Wasn't the 14th green built largely on fill added to the right of the island in that photo?
Bryan, there are golfers in the second photo. How tall do you suppose those trees were to the right of the golfers? Certainly well taller than 30 ft, wouldn't you say?
___________________________
Jim, the articles you posted don't seem to match your lead-in from the previous post. Are there more articles coming?
-
Here is a paragraph from the Baker recollection, from TomM's post.
Once home Crump paid a visit to Brown Mills, where he thought of building a golf course. Then with the same object in view he went to Absecon, where the present country club is located. In Absecon he found the mosquitos so many and vicious that he decided it would not do. He came back to Merchantville and started to buy the ground at Sumner station, which was later changed to Pine Valley. He paid $50.00 for most of it, and for some ground paid $100 per acre. He secured the right-of-way from the Ireland property for a road one hundred feet wide for about ninety-nine years and in the old days that is the way we came to Pine Valley - by way of Watsontown.
People will make of it what they will, but while Baker describes Crump going to check out the other two sites, there is no mention of Crump searching for the PV site, or going to inspect the site, or of him having discovered the site during this time period. Just that he "came back to Merchantville and started to buy up the ground at Sumner station." It is almost as if Baker thought of Sumner station as part of Merchantville, as if Crump went and looked at two sites elsewhere, and when they didn't work out he came home and went with the local, familiar spot.
Obviously nothing dispositive, but it sure doesn't seem to be written as if the PV spot was totally foreign to him and he he had just discovered it. But of course because it is not dispositive you guys don't even want to hear it, I am sure.
-
Nobody is suggesting it was foreign to him in the summer of 1912.
If the train story is correct then he would have known of the spot for a couple years at least. Remember, the idea was to play on the coast because of weather. Clementon is extremely close to Philadelphia. They knew first hand that the course at Atlantic City performed very well in the winter but that's 50 miles or so closer to the ocean. I've never understood how this trips up Tom, and now you. Knowing it was interesting but thinking it was in the wrong place wouldn't put it on the top of the list in my opinion.
Why is it that my position of simply wanting agreement that something was possible is more rigid than your position of proving it was impossible?
Let's talk golf!
My posting of the articles Mike strung together a few months ago is intended to further the discussion of the date of the picture(s) Bryan posted. As of December 1914 it seems unlikely the area would have been cleared because it wasn't in play for a golf hole but soon after (based on the January article) it was in play. Tom debated that the 14th hole changed its "par" multiple times and so the reference to it changing from a 4 to a 3 after finding the 13th green meant nothing. He said it was initially a 3, then a 4 then a 3 again. Based on that I asked how many times it changed from a 4 to a 3 and he didn't answer. I think the discovery of the 13th green led to the creation of the 14th green/15th tee although TEP thinks Crump may have never seen the 14th hole as it was built, which doesn't match up great with my timeline of deciding on the hole in winter/spring 1915...
-
When was the 14th hole built?
Was it ever playable in Crump's lifetime?
-
I don't know. TEP doesn't think so.
-
David,
A few posts ago you said my posts were "attenuated" and when I went to look up the definition my computer siezed up...was that your doing? What exactly did you mean?
-
Weakened, frail, sickly, lacking force, stretched thin, stretched to (or past) the breaking point. Blaming me for your computer's seizure would require attenuated logic.
-
I think you must be certifiable.
-
I think you must be certifiable.
In comparison, that is less attenuated.
-
Patrick,
Will you agree that the following picture is before construction and before clearing on this part of the property?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV14thGreenSite.jpg)
This is what it looked like after construction.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV14thGreenBuilt.jpg)
Looks pretty open before construction. I can see the the RR track up on the embankment.
Why wouldn't you, much of the land was already cleared
In addition, the lake had been dammed and operational, with any trees cleared from the swamp to accomodate the lake.
What's the date of the top photo 1914 or later.
Also, could you post the caption that accompanied the photos.
I believe the bottom photo is 1922.
-
Bryan,
No,
I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction.
I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
You KNOW it wasn't a pre-clearing photo.
That's obvious from looking at the photo, and, I believe the caption that accompanies the picture does NOT mention pre-clearing, but rather pre-construction in that area. Would you post the caption. In addition, in your reply, you admit that clearing is evidenced in the photo on # 17, yet you state that the photo is pre-clearing.
What you fail to recollect is that I stated that the only one of two locations from which AWT might have sighted the property without obstructing terrain was by the 17th tee, but, that view, as the Eastbound train emerged from behind the large white landform that blocks any views south, would have been of the swamp.
Secondly, as I look at the photo it seems to me that it's NOT taken from the ridge on # 13 or the tee on # 14, but, from a point well below those elevations.
Thirdly, you know the land's been cleared in the top photo in the foreground because there's a white path running across the picture, and there are no trees.
I know, Mike Cirba would claim that the white path was the railroad tracks, but, we already know he was wrong on that call on the 6th hole.
The second photo looks like 1922
Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.
The part in the foreground, the island, the part along the RR track embankment. All this around where the 14 green got built.
I'd certainly agree that the island is pre-construction.
Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.
But, we know that his story was a complete bogus myth, so who would rely on that description. Of course, all 184 acres must have been uniformly densely forested. How silly of me to think otherwise based on a picture.
Except that AWT's story is corroborated by Carr and many others.
If you look at aerial photos from 1922 and 1925 you can see that all non-golf areas are uniformly, densely forested, as they also appear in aerial photos from 1931, 1938 and subsequently.
You have an agenda and believe what your agenda tells you that you have to believe.
Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.
Not obvious to me. The underbrush in the foreground looks virgin. The island and the area along the tracks looks untouched. Why would they have cleared this section? They didn't figure out the routing over this end for years. Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.
That's NOT true.
Why would you make that up about the routing ?
Just go back and look at the original stick routing and the red/blue topo.
The stick routing is dated March 1913 and I believe the red/blue topo around May of 1913, I believe a full year earlier than the photo you posted
They always had holes designated for this area.
To refresh your memory, here's the red/blue topo.
How can you state that they hadn't figured out the routing, it's on the red/blue topo, along with the lake.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4404668772_1e782b51ac_o.jpg)
Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.[/size]
So you now contradict yourself again, and admit that it's NOT a pre-clearing photo as your caption above the photo states.
why wouldn't they have cleared 17 all the way back to the 17th tee and over to 16 green and perhaps over behind # 14 green ?
how else would they get to # 14 green if not from behind it, from the west ?
In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.
But, this isn't where the swamp was marked on the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article. If it was swamp before it formed the pond in the picture, then I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of clearing needed.
Oh, now the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article is your bible. How convenient.
Do you mean the map that had the trees running through the middle of the fairways, tees and greens ?
How about the red/blue topo.
How about the fact that the lake as pictured is the low lying area of the property, (read swamp)
Being from Canada I doubt you have a clue as to what swamps in New Jersey look like.
Trees are in abundance in them.
To be enlightened, Google "the great swamp nj" or go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Swamp_National_Wildlife_Refuge
The more you post about Pine Valley, the more I'm convinced you really know less and less about it and just want to take the opposite side of the debate, which is fine, but, get your facts right before you make declaritive statements.
Remind us again, how many times over how many years have you been on site ?
I seem to recall that These photos were previously posted on another thread some time ago
-
Patrick,
Apparently there isn't anything that you can't twist, pervert, and misstate in furtherance of your agenda.
I did no such thing.
I merely QUOTED YOU.... VERBATIM.
You posted two statements that directly contradicted one another and I pointed it out vis a vis direct citation.
You stated that there were no roads in the area in 1912 and went on to say that the Pike wasn't conplete to Berlin until 1922, yet, earlier you told us that Virginia Sumner was driving a Stutz in Pine Valley as early as 1908.
I can understand your embarrassment and anger since your conflicting statements, based upon which side of the argurment you conveniently chose to take at the time, made you look foolish, especially when both quotes were posted simultaneously..
It is really a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you.
You seem to say that ONLY when I disagree with you.
I'll ask you again, at what location on the tracks was Crump when he "first" spotted, from an eastbound train speeding at 60+ mph, the rolling hills, valleys and pasture land ? And, could you point out those rolling hills, valleys and pasture land he spotted ?
Be very specific and don't duck the question as you have time and time again.
Thanks
-
I am not sure what you guys see in those photos, or how you can pretend to know what was there before it was cleared and dammed.
Bryan, do you have a larger version of the first photo? It appears in both books (cropped in second) but it is very dark in the Brown book. What is your source? It's from the Brown book. The native size is 1200 pixels wide, but the quality is no better. It loses something going through Photoshop and Photobucket.
It is hard to tell for sure, but it looks like clearing has occurred on the left side of the photo and possibly the right side. The little island in the middle may not have been cleared, but then the same taller trees appear in the supposed post-clearing photo as well --only the smaller trees and underbrush are missing.
What I think I see in the first picture is: clearing on the left side for the 15th FW; a row of trees, between 15 and 16, on the left extending two trees into the pond on the small peninsula; the clearing behind the row of trees on the left that is the 16th fairway; and, the clearing up the hill on the left middle of the picture for the 17th fairway. I also see what I think is uncleared land across the foreground from left to right with a path; an untouched island; and an area from there along the track that appears untouched to me. Your phot interpretation will vary, I'm sure.
Wasn't the 14th green built largely on fill added to the right of the island in that photo?
Sounds reasonable to me. They appear to have done a fair bit of earth moving on the course. Again, in my opinion.
Bryan, there are golfers in the second photo. How tall do you suppose those trees were to the right of the golfers? Certainly well taller than 30 ft, wouldn't you say? Somewhere around 30 to 40 feet, I'd guess. See, it's not so hard to agree on something.
___________________________
Jim, the articles you posted don't seem to match your lead-in from the previous post. Are there more articles coming?
-
Here is a paragraph from the Baker recollection, from TomM's post.
Once home Crump paid a visit to Brown Mills, where he thought of building a golf course. Then with the same object in view he went to Absecon, where the present country club is located. In Absecon he found the mosquitos so many and vicious that he decided it would not do. He came back to Merchantville and started to buy the ground at Sumner station, which was later changed to Pine Valley. He paid $50.00 for most of it, and for some ground paid $100 per acre. He secured the right-of-way from the Ireland property for a road one hundred feet wide for about ninety-nine years and in the old days that is the way we came to Pine Valley - by way of Watsontown.
People will make of it what they will, but while Baker describes Crump going to check out the other two sites, there is no mention of Crump searching for the PV site, or going to inspect the site, or of him having discovered the site during this time period. Just that he "came back to Merchantville and started to buy up the ground at Sumner station." It is almost as if Baker thought of Sumner station as part of Merchantville, as if Crump went and looked at two sites elsewhere, and when they didn't work out he came home and went with the local, familiar spot.
Obviously nothing dispositive, but it sure doesn't seem to be written as if the PV spot was totally foreign to him and he he had just discovered it. But of course because it is not dispositive you guys don't even want to hear it, I am sure.
Same as Jim responded.
In addition, what do you make of Baker mentioning Brown Mills and Absecon while the Philadelphia Inquirer of January 4, 1914 mentions locations (plural) as far away as Northfield and Somers Point, as sites looked at by Crump. Is Baker right? Or is the Philadelphia Inquirer? Or are they both right and they just saw or heard of different parts of the same elephant. As another side thought, why would he look at Brown Mills - it isn't near the ocean, being as far inland as Pine Valley?
-
Patrick,
Will you agree that the following picture is before construction and before clearing on this part of the property?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV14thGreenSite.jpg)
This is what it looked like after construction.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV14thGreenBuilt.jpg)
Looks pretty open before construction. I can see the the RR track up on the embankment.
Why wouldn't you, much of the land was already cleared See my post above of where I think the cleared areas are.
In addition, the lake had been dammed and operational, with any trees cleared from the swamp to accomodate the lake. What kind of trees grow in NJ swamps?
What's the date of the top photo 1914 or later. Don't know. The photo isn't dated. Jim is trying to figure out when it was from based on the discovery of the 13th hole.
Also, could you post the caption that accompanied the photos.
Sure, there was one caption between the two pictures:
"Imagination at work! The picturesque 14th green was developed by changing an island to a peninsula. The lower alternate tee has since been abandoned."
I believe the bottom photo is 1922. What's your source?
Let me add the third picture in the sequence:
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV14th1950s.jpg)
Certainly looks like their tree planting program was a roaring success. And all before you got there. And, tell us again how similar it is today with how it was in the beginning. The current towering pines vs the original stunted oaks and dwarf pines (or was it the other way around). At least there were some 30 to 40 foot pines back in the day.
Why are you so emotionally invested in the impenetrable forest dogma? Is it not possible in your world for people to have different interpretations of things and events?
-
Bryan,
No,
I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction.
I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
You KNOW it wasn't a pre-clearing photo.
That's obvious from looking at the photo, and, I believe the caption that accompanies the picture does NOT mention pre-clearing, but rather pre-construction in that area. Would you post the caption. In addition, in your reply, you admit that clearing is evidenced in the photo on # 17, yet you state that the photo is pre-clearing.
Sure, there is clearing in some parts as I described above. In other areas I've identified I think it wasn't cleared. Why are you so gung-ho on playing gotcha?
What you fail to recollect is that I stated that the only one of two locations from which AWT might have sighted the property without obstructing terrain was by the 17th tee, but, that view, as the Eastbound train emerged from behind the large white landform that blocks any views south, would have been of the swamp. So, Crump could see across the swamp in your opinion? And, looking across the swamp obliquely, he could look up the hill to where 17 would end up?
Secondly, as I look at the photo it seems to me that it's NOT taken from the ridge on # 13 or the tee on # 14, but, from a point well below those elevations.
Who said it was taken from the ridge on 13 or the 14th tee? Seems fairly obvious to me that it was taken from somewhere behind the current forward tee. Maybe just back from the sandy path that is there today.
Thirdly, you know the land's been cleared in the top photo in the foreground because there's a white path running across the picture, and there are no trees.
Hmm, a path equates to clearing. That path looks like it still exists today. This is weak, even for you.
Now, that's nice convoluted logic - there are no trees, therefore it has been cleared. That's even weaker. There are no trees on the Old Course. I guess it was cleared.
I know, Mike Cirba would claim that the white path was the railroad tracks, but, we already know he was wrong on that call on the 6th hole.
The second photo looks like 1922 So you've said. What's your source.
Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.
The part in the foreground, the island, the part along the RR track embankment. All this around where the 14 green got built.
I'd certainly agree that the island is pre-construction. Wow, something we agree on!
Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.
But, we know that his story was a complete bogus myth, so who would rely on that description. Of course, all 184 acres must have been uniformly densely forested. How silly of me to think otherwise based on a picture.
Except that AWT's story is corroborated by Carr and many others.
If you look at aerial photos from 1922 and 1925 you can see that all non-golf areas are uniformly, densely forested, as they also appear in aerial photos from 1931, 1938 and subsequently.
You have an agenda and believe what your agenda tells you that you have to believe.
Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.
Not obvious to me. The underbrush in the foreground looks virgin. The island and the area along the tracks looks untouched. Why would they have cleared this section? They didn't figure out the routing over this end for years. Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.
That's NOT true.
Why would you make that up about the routing ?
Just go back and look at the original stick routing and the red/blue topo.
The stick routing is dated March 1913 and I believe the red/blue topo around May of 1913, I believe a full year earlier than the photo you posted
They always had holes designated for this area.
To refresh your memory, here's the red/blue topo.
How can you state that they hadn't figured out the routing, it's on the red/blue topo, along with the lake.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4404668772_1e782b51ac_o.jpg)
Well, actually I was thinking of the Colt plan. As you might notice, there are no holes down in the southern end of the property where the 14th eventually ended up.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Colt_PV.jpg)
Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.[/size]
So you now contradict yourself again, and admit that it's NOT a pre-clearing photo as your caption above the photo states.
why wouldn't they have cleared 17 all the way back to the 17th tee and over to 16 green and perhaps over behind # 14 green ?
how else would they get to # 14 green if not from behind it, from the west ?
Oh, Patrick, get over yourself. I've described the areas that I think are cleared and those that I believe are not. Why are you trying to play this gotcha game. How does this in any way advance the yardsticks? What have you added to our collective understanding since you started the topo thread?
In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.
How do you suppose they got the horses and steam winches into the swamp to pull the tree stumps?
But, this isn't where the swamp was marked on the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article. If it was swamp before it formed the pond in the picture, then I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of clearing needed.
Oh, now the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article is your bible. How convenient.
Do you mean the map that had the trees running through the middle of the fairways, tees and greens ? How do you decide what is garbage and what is gospel truth?
How about the red/blue topo.
How about the fact that the lake as pictured is the low lying area of the property, (read swamp)
Being from Canada I doubt you have a clue as to what swamps in New Jersey look like.
Trees are in abundance in them.
To be enlightened, Google "the great swamp nj" or go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Swamp_National_Wildlife_Refuge
Nice to see you're actually doing some research. Did you have some momentary doubt you needed to check out. You do recall that when I pointed out articles about the history of fires and logging in the Pine Barrens many months ago, that you laughed them off as not applicable to PV. Let me just play that back to you.
The more you post about Pine Valley, the more I'm convinced you really know less and less about it and just want to take the opposite side of the debate, which is fine, but, get your facts right before you make declaritive statements. I have no idea why you are so emotionally attached to such a insignificant point.
Remind us again, how many times over how many years have you been on site ? Remind us again, how many times you were on the site between 1910 and 1914.
I seem to recall that These photos were previously posted on another thread some time ago So?
-
Pat,
The March and May dates refer to when the map was produced, not when Crump finished drawing on it. As I'm sure David and Tom will tell you, they were not planning holes in this area initially.
-
Certainly looks like their tree planting program was a roaring success. And all before you got there.
And, tell us again how similar it is today with how it was in the beginning.
I'd be happy to.
Note the dense forest behind the green on # 3.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV3rdHoleGI1915.jpg)
Note the dense forest on the north side of the railroad tracks.
Notice the height of the trees. No dwarf pines or oak are there.
You relied on one quote, probably repeated elsewhere, describing the site erroneously.
The photos show how very tall those trees were.
Picture yourself riding on the train and looking north.
You couldn't see a thing through that dense forest.
Looking south, what you still don't understand, is the massive intervening landform that blocks your view for a very long stretch.
There are perhaps only two locations where a passenger wouldn't have his view south blocked by the higher landform to the south.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV18th1917overlayGEGLV.jpg)
Take a look at the dense forest, comprised of tall, mature pines and oaks.
The current towering pines vs the original stunted oaks and dwarf pines (or was it the other way around).
The early pictures posted don't reveal any dwarf pines or stunted oaks.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Pine Valley,
but, then again, that's to be expected as you've never seen the property.
At least there were some 30 to 40 foot pines back in the day.
Why are you so emotionally invested in the impenetrable forest dogma?
Let's just chalk it up to photo graphic evidence combined with contemporaneous eyewitness accounts by AWT, Carr and others.
Does the forest below look "thin"
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=5299&DMSCALE=25.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=718&DMY=112&DMTEXT=%20pine%20valley&REC=16&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
What's amazing to me is that YOU the one emotionally invested in claiming that there were open, views, unobstructed by landforms, trees or underbrush, when you've never been to Pine Valley and have no understanding of the terrain, especially as it relates to views from the railroad tracks.
Is it not possible in your world for people to have different interpretations of things and events?
If TEPaul or Jim Sullivan or Archie Struthers had a different interpretation I'd be more prone to give their interpretations more weight as they're familiar with the topography and vegetation. But you have absolutely NO personal experience. You don't have a clue as to how the land south of the RR tracks looks from the RR tracks, especially as you're heading east. Your understanding of the land form is minimal at best.
[/quote]
-
Bryan,
I don't think you can draw any definite conclusions about whether clearing has yet taken place by those photos. It looks like many portions of the land (except for the small island) may have been cleared of large trees to me, and the road running across the foreground suggests something had already been ongoing.
Thirty or forty feet tall for those trees? I'd have guessed a bit higher, but maybe they were short golfers.
-
Bryan,
No,
I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction.
I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
You KNOW it wasn't a pre-clearing photo.
That's obvious from looking at the photo, and, I believe the caption that accompanies the picture does NOT mention pre-clearing, but rather pre-construction in that area. Would you post the caption. In addition, in your reply, you admit that clearing is evidenced in the photo on # 17, yet you state that the photo is pre-clearing.
Sure, there is clearing in some parts as I described above. In other areas I've identified I think it wasn't cleared. Why are you so gung-ho on playing gotcha?
Bryan, do you expect me to allow you to make incorrect, false or conflicting statements and not bring them to everyone's attention.
You're amongst the first to jump on everyone else for errors, intentional or innocent.
Why do you want differential or special treatment ?
What you fail to recollect is that I stated that the only one of two locations from which AWT might have sighted the property without obstructing terrain was by the 17th tee, but, that view, as the Eastbound train emerged from behind the large white landform that blocks any views south, would have been of the swamp.
So, Crump could see across the swamp in your opinion? And, looking across the swamp obliquely, he could look up the hill to where 17 would end up?
Absolutely NOT.
This is where you total lack of familiarity with the land causes you to make false claims.
You are BLINDLY invested in trying to prove that Crump had an unencumbered view of rolling hills, valleys and pasture lands.
I've asked you, dozens of times, to point out Crump's location when he made his alleged sighting, and after dozens of requests, you still can't identify the location nor the rolling hills, valleys and pasture land he allegedly spotted while sitting in an eastbound train doing 60+mph.
Secondly, as I look at the photo it seems to me that it's NOT taken from the ridge on # 13 or the tee on # 14, but, from a point well below those elevations.
Who said it was taken from the ridge on 13 or the 14th tee? Seems fairly obvious to me that it was taken from somewhere behind the current forward tee. Maybe just back from the sandy path that is there today.
There is no sandy path running across the hole, there today.
Thirdly, you know the land's been cleared in the top photo in the foreground because there's a white path running across the picture, and there are no trees.
Hmm, a path equates to clearing. That path looks like it still exists today. This is weak, even for you.
You just don't understand the landform or the configuration of the course, yet you persist in making declarations, declarations that are incorrect.
Now, that's nice convoluted logic - there are no trees, therefore it has been cleared. That's even weaker. There are no trees on the Old Course. I guess it was cleared.
In desperation, now you're comparing the site at TOC with the site at PV.
Face it, you're lost and don't know what you're talking about.
I know, Mike Cirba would claim that the white path was the railroad tracks, but, we already know he was wrong on that call on the 6th hole.
The second photo looks like 1922 So you've said. What's your source.
Pine Valley.
Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.
The part in the foreground, the island, the part along the RR track embankment. All this around where the 14 green got built.
I'd certainly agree that the island is pre-construction. Wow, something we agree on!
Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.
But, we know that his story was a complete bogus myth, so who would rely on that description. Of course, all 184 acres must have been uniformly densely forested. How silly of me to think otherwise based on a picture.
Except that AWT's story is corroborated by Carr and many others.
If you look at aerial photos from 1922 and 1925 you can see that all non-golf areas are uniformly, densely forested, as they also appear in aerial photos from 1931, 1938 and subsequently.
You have an agenda and believe what your agenda tells you that you have to believe.
Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.
Not obvious to me. The underbrush in the foreground looks virgin. The island and the area along the tracks looks untouched. Why would they have cleared this section? They didn't figure out the routing over this end for years. Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.
That's NOT true.
Why would you make that up about the routing ?
Just go back and look at the original stick routing and the red/blue topo.
The stick routing is dated March 1913 and I believe the red/blue topo around May of 1913, I believe a full year earlier than the photo you posted
They always had holes designated for this area.
To refresh your memory, here's the red/blue topo.
How can you state that they hadn't figured out the routing, it's on the red/blue topo, along with the lake.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4404668772_1e782b51ac_o.jpg)
Well, actually I was thinking of the Colt plan. As you might notice, there are no holes down in the southern end of the property where the 14th eventually ended up.
Your question was to the effect, "why would they have cleared there" The answer is because they were going to put holes there.
Then you respond, out of context, by leaping backward in time.
The top picture referenced was taken AFTER the lake was created.
You may remember we discussed that event and date.
You may also remember that AWT stated that Crump discovered the 13th hole, based upon the view.
I maintained that the "view" was the view of the lake.
Once Crump had his "light bulb" moment, the die was cast, and # 13 and 14 became a reality.
In the top photo it appears as though they were at various stages in clearing # 15, 16 and 17, and perhaps behind # 14 green.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Colt_PV.jpg)
Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.
So you now contradict yourself again, and admit that it's NOT a pre-clearing photo as your caption above the photo states.
why wouldn't they have cleared 17 all the way back to the 17th tee and over to 16 green and perhaps over behind # 14 green ?
how else would they get to # 14 green if not from behind it, from the west ?
Oh, Patrick, get over yourself. I've described the areas that I think are cleared and those that I believe are not.
NO YOU DIDN"T.
In the caption to your top photo YOU STATED that it was pre-construction and PRE-CLEARING.
It was only AFTER I brought it to your attention that you changed your description.
Why are you trying to play this gotcha game. How does this in any way advance the yardsticks? What have you added to our collective understanding since you started the topo thread?
It's very simple, I'm preventing you from MISREPRESENTING the facts.
You can't make irresponsible, erroneous statements and expect them to go unchallenged.
Do you want to present the truth, or what best serves your agenda ?
The answer seems obvious to me.
In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.
How do you suppose they got the horses and steam winches into the swamp to pull the tree stumps?
Very carefully and probably from access and an access road running parallel to the railroad tracks.
Even today that path/road is in use.
Both photos YOU presented seem to indicate it was put into use early on.
But, this isn't where the swamp was marked on the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article. If it was swamp before it formed the pond in the picture, then I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of clearing needed.
Oh, now the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article is your bible. How convenient.
Do you mean the map that had the trees running through the middle of the fairways, tees and greens ?
How do you decide what is garbage and what is gospel truth?
Mostly the same way I decide when confronting a medical problem, with FACT based EVIDENCE.
You were the one who conveniently gave credence to an obviously flawed schematic that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
I don't need to know how you decide, since it's obvious.
You decide based upon whether or not it fits your predetermined agenda.
How about the red/blue topo.
How about the fact that the lake as pictured is the low lying area of the property, (read swamp)
Being from Canada I doubt you have a clue as to what swamps in New Jersey look like.
Trees are in abundance in them.
To be enlightened, Google "the great swamp nj" or go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Swamp_National_Wildlife_Refuge
Nice to see you're actually doing some research. Did you have some momentary doubt you needed to check out. You do recall that when I pointed out articles about the history of fires and logging in the Pine Barrens many months ago, that you laughed them off as not applicable to PV. Let me just play that back to you.
You're so desperate that you're trying to apply a general occurance to a specific site.
If Pine Valley had been ravaged by fires, why would Tillinghast and Carr, two contemporaneous eyewitness accounts, describe the site as dense forest with jungle like undergrowth, dense forest and thick undergrowth so visually impeding that the land was not visible to the mortal eye.
You've been proven wrong, over and over again, and in desperation, keep throwing nonsensical arguments/issues into the fray in order to cling to your championing of the myth. Over and over again you've tried to deflect facts with conjecture. It won't work. You're lost, you've never studied the terrain and vegetation at Pine Valley, yet hold yourself out as an expert, making erroneous claim after erroneous claim.
The more you post about Pine Valley, the more I'm convinced you really know less and less about it and just want to take the opposite side of the debate, which is fine, but, get your facts right before you make declaritive statements.
I have no idea why you are so emotionally attached to such a insignificant point.
If it's so insignificant why are you, Cirba, Brauer and other misguided individuals so emotionally attached to claiming that Crump "First" saw Pine Valley from an eastbound train, speeding at 60+mph. That from that train, from that chance glimpse, he saw, rolling hills, valleys and pasture land ?
OK, if that's your claim, where was he located when he had his "chance glimpse" and saw those features ?
And, where are those features ?
You're the expert, those should be easy questions for you to answer,
UNLESS, in your heart of heart, you realize that there are NO rolling hills visible from the RR tracks.
There are no valleys visible from the RR tracks and there is no pasture land visible from the RR tracks.
Especially, on a "chance glimpse" from a speeding eastbound train doing 60+ mph.
That's an awful lot to take in on a "chance glimpse", especially when the terrain blocks much if not most of the land south of the tracks and the trees and underbrush block the rest, with the possible exception of the swamp, which most wouldn't call ideal land for golf.
Remind us again, how many times over how many years have you been on site ? Remind us again, how many times you were on the site between 1910 and 1914.
The same number of times that you've ever been there.
-
Pat,
The sandy path in that first picture is still there today...it's just a few yards behind the drop area I used last time I played there...
Also, it would be abvious to anyone paying attention that Bryan was referring to the 14th hole portion of that picture being pre-clearing and pre-construction so let's move on to that specific subject. The early plans make it clear that Crump was steering well clear of the swamp. Look at his Stick routing, the Colt plan and the Blue/Red Plan. All of the early iterations avoid the swamp.
In that context, there's no reason to believe this area would be cleared and then let go.
For the moment let's leave our disagreement about exactly what Crump wanted to look at when clearing the trees on the ridge that became the 13th approach and green. Let's look at the timeline of developing the lake with a dam and the 13th green and 14th hole final iterations.
In January 1915 AWT write of how the 13th hole was discovered so it happened sometime (anytime) before that. The same article indicates that the repositioning of the 13th green will require a change to the 14th hole from a 4 to a 3. This is evident if you look at the Blue/Red Plan showing where the 13th green was in Blue. By moving it substantially Northeast you cut off alot of land.
In December 1914 an article quotes from "a recent report from Simon Carr" on the approach clubs to holes and lists 14 as a par 4. This same article says "20 acres of bog will be converted to a lake".
What can we derive from this rough timeline?
When I debated this several months ago with Tom MacWood he estimated how long each publication could potentially take to print a story. He would know better than me.
There was another article discussing damming up a creek...why would we think that was only about the 5th/18th hole creek? It referenced 3 dams.
-
Pat,
The sandy path in that first picture is still there today...it's just a few yards behind the drop area I used last time I played there...
It's not the SAME path.
Also, the angle that the first picture is taken from is different from the angle in which the second picture is taken from.
Also, it would be abvious to anyone paying attention that Bryan was referring to the 14th hole portion of that picture being pre-clearing and pre-construction so let's move on to that specific subject.
It is NOT obvious because Bryan asked the following question, directly above the top photo:
Will you agree that the following picture is before construction and before clearing on this part of the property?
The early plans make it clear that Crump was steering well clear of the swamp. Look at his Stick routing, the Colt plan and the Blue/Red Plan.
All of the early iterations avoid the swamp.
They do NOT.
Please, go back and re-analyze the blue/red topo more carefully and you'll see the interaction of the holes with the swamp area.
In that context, there's no reason to believe this area would be cleared and then let go.
You're wrong again, go back and re-examine the blue/red topo.
For the moment let's leave our disagreement about exactly what Crump wanted to look at when clearing the trees on the ridge that became the 13th approach and green. Let's look at the timeline of developing the lake with a dam and the 13th green and 14th hole final iterations.
In January 1915 AWT write of how the 13th hole was discovered so it happened sometime (anytime) before that. The same article indicates that the repositioning of the 13th green will require a change to the 14th hole from a 4 to a 3. This is evident if you look at the Blue/Red Plan showing where the 13th green was in Blue. By moving it substantially Northeast you cut off alot of land.
In December 1914 an article quotes from "a recent report from Simon Carr" on the approach clubs to holes and lists 14 as a par 4. This same article says "20 acres of bog will be converted to a lake".
Perhaps there's a better way of determining the chain of events.
Isn't the linch pin Colt's visit in April/May of 1913, which is when the Blue/Red topo was crafted.
In both blue and red you can see evidence of the re-drafting of the configuration of the current 13th and 14th holes.
Hence, it would appear, that as early as April/May of 1913, the idea to convert the swamp to lake/golf, had been floated.
What can we derive from this rough timeline?
That as early as April/May of 1913 the idea to convert the swamp came to mind
When I debated this several months ago with Tom MacWood he estimated how long each publication could potentially take to print a story. He would know better than me.
Certainly there was a lag, but, who knows the lag time for each article, they had to differ based on individual circumstances.
There was another article discussing damming up a creek...why would we think that was only about the 5th/18th hole creek? It referenced 3 dams.
I seem to recall that all three were in the clubhouse/18th hole area with one being at the driveway leading to the clubhouse paralleling the 5th hole and the other two to the right of the 18th fairway, one near where the driveway turns to go in front of the 18th green and the other about 100 yards to the east of that, next to the 18th mid-fairway.
-
Certainly looks like their tree planting program was a roaring success. And all before you got there.
And, tell us again how similar it is today with how it was in the beginning.
I'd be happy to.
Note the dense forest behind the green on # 3.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV3rdHoleGI1915.jpg)
You know, because you've tramped all the ground there, that that is at the opposite end of the property from the 14th.
Here is a zoom of the 14th area from the 1931 aerial. You'll notice in the red ellipsis at the bottom, the tall dark pines between 15 and 16. Those were visible in the ground level picture. In the middle two ellipses are smaller, most likely new plantings of pines on either side of the 13th fairway. In the red ellipsis in the upper right are tall dark pines. They look tall even though they are further in the distance.
In the green ellipses are what look to me like smaller deciduous plants. Smaller than even the new plantings alongside the 13th fairway. I think they are brush or very stunted oaks. In any event, not tall compared to the pines circled in red. I think that that is just brush, similar to what was in the foreground of the ground level picture. Certainly no tall pines in any of that area.
Cue for Patrick to deny, deny, deny.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PVDalin1931AerialSouthEndZoom.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PVSouthEndPinesandScrub.jpg)
Note the dense forest on the north side of the railroad tracks.
Notice the height of the trees. No dwarf pines or oak are there.
You relied on one quote, probably repeated elsewhere, describing the site erroneously. If you weren't in brain cramp mode you'd recall that I presented three or four quotes that were similar re stunted and dwarf from different sources.
The photos show how very tall those trees were.
Picture yourself riding on the train and looking north.
You couldn't see a thing through that dense forest.
Looking south, what you still don't understand, is the massive intervening landform that blocks your view for a very long stretch.
And, that landform that blocks the view goes up and down just like rolling hills would. The rolling hills are parallel to the tracks as well as perpendicular.
There are perhaps only two locations where a passenger wouldn't have his view south blocked by the higher landform to the south.
Wow, this is progress! At least there are two places where a view into the property at some angle is possible.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV18th1917overlayGEGLV.jpg)
Take a look at the dense forest, comprised of tall, mature pines and oaks. You know you're looking at another area.
[/b][/size][/color]
The current towering pines vs the original stunted oaks and dwarf pines (or was it the other way aound).
The early pictures posted don't reveal any dwarf pines or stunted oaks.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Pine Valley,
but, then again, that's to be expected as you've never seen the property.
Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?
At least there were some 30 to 40 foot pines back in the day.
Why are you so emotionally invested in the impenetrable forest dogma?
Let's just chalk it up to photo graphic evidence combined with contemporaneous eyewitness accounts by AWT, Carr and others.
Does the forest below look "thin"
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=5299&DMSCALE=25.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=718&DMY=112&DMTEXT=%20pine%20valley&REC=16&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
What's amazing to me is that YOU the one emotionally invested in claiming that there were open, views, unobstructed by landforms, trees or underbrush, when you've never been to Pine Valley and have no understanding of the terrain, especially as it relates to views from the railroad tracks.
Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?
Is it not possible in your world for people to have different interpretations of things and events?
If TEPaul or Jim Sullivan or Archie Struthers had a different interpretation I'd be more prone to give their interpretations more weight as they're familiar with the topography and vegetation.
As far as I can tell, Jim doesn't seem to agree with you. Archie seems wise enough to not even engage with you. Maybe TEP will be enticed back to debate the point with you, but I'd guess not. Besides, even he wasn't at PV in the 10's.
But you have absolutely NO personal experience. You don't have a clue as to how the land south of the RR tracks looks from the RR tracks, especially as you're heading east. Your understanding of the land form is minimal at best.
Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?
[/quote]
-
Certainly looks like their tree planting program was a roaring success. And all before you got there.
And, tell us again how similar it is today with how it was in the beginning.
I'd be happy to.
Note the dense forest behind the green on # 3.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV3rdHoleGI1915.jpg)
You know, because you've tramped all the ground there, that that is at the opposite end of the property from the 14th.[/size]
Now you're telling us that there was an enormous difference in the dense forest and thick underbrush depending upon where you were on the property.
That conflicts with Carr's account and other accounts.
But, if you want to go to the Southeast end, Tillinghast himself described it as dense forest and underbrush so thick that the land was hidden from the mortal eye. Why are you denying Carr's and AWT's contemporaneous eyewitness descriptions ? Answer that question. [/size][/b]
Here is a zoom of the 14th area from the 1931 aerial. You'll notice in the red ellipsis at the bottom, the tall dark pines between 15 and 16. Those were visible in the ground level picture. In the middle two ellipses are smaller, most likely new plantings of pines on either side of the 13th fairway. In the red ellipsis in the upper right are tall dark pines. They look tall even though they are further in the distance.[/size]
You have to learn to differentiate Cedars from Pines.
Look at the land at the end of the bridge. That's the area in question isn't it.
It's dense forest.
Why circle land far removed from PV in the upper right, as you've done, presenting it as if it's land and vegetation similar to what was found at Pine Valley. That's being intellectually dishonest.
In the green ellipses are what look to me like smaller deciduous plants. Smaller than even the new plantings alongside the 13th fairway. I think they are brush or very stunted oaks. In any event, not tall compared to the pines circled in red.[/size]
They look and are tall because they stand alone, not amongst hundreds or thousands of other trees IN the forest.
I think that that is just brush, similar to what was in the foreground of the ground level picture. Certainly no tall pines in any of that area. [/size]
You think it was "JUST BRUSH".
Despite contemporaneous eyewitness descriptions from AWT, Carr and others.
You have to think it's "just brush" to justify your idiotic position.
Your contention that there were no Pine trees at Pine valley, only deciduous trees with some randomly planted new pines, is bizzare to say the least.
I wonder why they didn't call it "Oak Valley" ? Or "Brush Valley"
Contemporaneous descriptions state that it was pineland, yet you, who has never set foot on PV declare that there were no Pines, except for a few newly planted ones.
How do you account for the fact that Shelly, who first played the course in 1925 and became a member in 1928, stated that "The course was laid out in the sandy PINE Country" ? Surely Shelly knew the difference between pines and deciduous trees didn't he, or are you claiming that AWT, Carr, Shelly
How do you account for the fact that in excess of 22,000 trees were removed, just for the first 11 holes ?
A description of the site was reported two days after his death.
"And out of the MASS of underbrush, scrub oak and PINE...he visualized and built what promises to be the best golf course in this country"
An early photo, taken from the 5th tee toward the 5th green shows a landscape dominated by tall pines.
Were they just brought in for the photo shoot ?
How do you account for the fact that in 1964 when I first played there, the course had pine trees everywhere.
Did someone sneak in the week before and plant tall, mature pine trees ?
Remind us again, how many times have you been on site or within a mile of the course.
Cue for Patrick to deny, deny, deny. [/size][/color]
No position you take on the course and ground at Pine Valley is rooted in personal observation.
TEPaul even admonished you for jumping to false conclusions due to your lack of familiarity with the site.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PVDalin1931AerialSouthEndZoom.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PVSouthEndPinesandScrub.jpg)
Note the dense forest on the north side of the railroad tracks.
Notice the height of the trees. No dwarf pines or oak are there.
You relied on one quote, probably repeated elsewhere, describing the site erroneously.
If you weren't in brain cramp mode you'd recall that I presented three or four quotes that were similar re stunted and dwarf from different sources.
We know from the NGLA thread that many of those "different sources" were merely unsubstantiated repitition of previous quotes.
The photos clearly show tall dense pines, but, your agenda just won't let you see them.
The photos show how very tall those trees were.
Picture yourself riding on the train and looking north.
You couldn't see a thing through that dense forest.
Looking south, what you still don't understand, is the massive intervening landform that blocks your view for a very long stretch.
And, that landform that blocks the view goes up and down just like rolling hills would.
The rolling hills are parallel to the tracks as well as perpendicular.
Is that statement based on your personal, first hand, observations and experience at Pine Valley.
Some of the landform that blocks the view south does NOT go up and down as you allege.
How did you come to that conclusion ?
How much of the blocked view was created by the tracks being built below grade ?
When it comes to understanding the landform at PV, you're a fraud.
You've never seen it, you've never walked the tracks and looked south.
You don't understand the blocking nature of the landform and the vegetation, yet you argue on, out of ignorance.
There are perhaps only two locations where a passenger wouldn't have his view south blocked by the higher landform to the south.
Wow, this is progress! At least there are two places where a view into the property at some angle is possible.
It's not progress, I've stated that from the very begining.
Try improving your reading comprehension before you make false and/or incorrect statements.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PV18th1917overlayGEGLV.jpg)
[/size][/color]
Take a look at the dense forest, comprised of tall, mature pines and oaks.
You know you're looking at another area.
I'm looking at Pine Valley, that's the course we're discussing/debating isn't it.
How convenient for you to state that I'm looking at another area ON THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY when you brazenly circle in red areas FAR REMOVED FROM THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY
[/b][/size][/color]
The current towering pines vs the original stunted oaks and dwarf pines (or was it the other way aound).
The early pictures posted don't reveal any dwarf pines or stunted oaks.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Pine Valley,
but, then again, that's to be expected as you've never seen the property.
Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?
Oh, so now it's your contention, that prior to 1960, it wasn't densely grown in ? ? ?
Then why did AWT and Carr and others, in 1912 and thereafter describe it as dense forest with thick jungle like underbrush ?
Dense forest and underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye ?
You are a FRAUD.
You continue to make wild, grossly incorrect allegations absent a shred of evidence.
And worse, you hold yourself out as an expert on the property despite NEVER having seen it in person, let alone walked or played it.
At least there were some 30 to 40 foot pines back in the day.
Why are you so emotionally invested in the impenetrable forest dogma?
Let's just chalk it up to photo graphic evidence combined with contemporaneous eyewitness accounts by AWT, Carr and others.
Does the forest below look "thin"
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=5299&DMSCALE=25.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=718&DMY=112&DMTEXT=%20pine%20valley&REC=16&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
What's amazing to me is that YOU the one emotionally invested in claiming that there were open, views, unobstructed by landforms, trees or underbrush, when you've never been to Pine Valley and have no understanding of the terrain, especially as it relates to views from the railroad tracks.
Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?
I thought that you were more intelligent than that.
How quickly you forget the lesson in reforestation that I provided you.
For you to state, that Pine Valley wasn't densely grown in is so incredibly disingenuous, so stupid that it defies imagination.
Were Carr, Tillinghast, Shelly and others lying about their descriptions of the property.
Might I suggest that you switch to discussing topics where you have an inkling as to what you're talking about.
Is it not possible in your world for people to have different interpretations of things and events?
If TEPaul or Jim Sullivan or Archie Struthers had a different interpretation I'd be more prone to give their interpretations more weight as they're familiar with the topography and vegetation.
As far as I can tell, Jim doesn't seem to agree with you. Archie seems wise enough to not even engage with you. Maybe TEP will be enticed back to debate the point with you, but I'd guess not. Besides, even he wasn't at PV in the 10's.
Desperate men do desperate things and you're desperate.
Jim has been proven wrong on a number of issues regarding PV.
For you to speak for Archie is the height of arrogance.
As to TEPaul, he's free to do whatever he likes.
But, none of that has any influence on your lack of knowledge on this subject.
You're like a scorned woman, looking for anything to strike back on.
But you have absolutely NO personal experience. You don't have a clue as to how the land south of the RR tracks looks from the RR tracks, especially as you're heading east. Your understanding of the land form is minimal at best.
Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?
Your ignorance knows no bounds. Keep repeating that PV was only densely grown in by the time I played it, it makes you look like a fool
[/quote]
-
Bryan,
No,
I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction.
I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
You KNOW it wasn't a pre-clearing photo.
That's obvious from looking at the photo, and, I believe the caption that accompanies the picture does NOT mention pre-clearing, but rather pre-construction in that area. Would you post the caption. In addition, in your reply, you admit that clearing is evidenced in the photo on # 17, yet you state that the photo is pre-clearing.
Sure, there is clearing in some parts as I described above. In other areas I've identified I think it wasn't cleared. Why are you so gung-ho on playing gotcha?
Bryan, do you expect me to allow you to make incorrect, false or conflicting statements and not bring them to everyone's attention.
You're amongst the first to jump on everyone else for errors, intentional or innocent.
Why do you want differential or special treatment ?
I thought that you would understand that I was talking about the foreground around the 14th hole. How silly of me to think that you would understand.
What you fail to recollect is that I stated that the only one of two locations from which AWT might have sighted the property without obstructing terrain was by the 17th tee, but, that view, as the Eastbound train emerged from behind the large white landform that blocks any views south, would have been of the swamp.
So, Crump could see across the swamp in your opinion? And, looking across the swamp obliquely, he could look up the hill to where 17 would end up?
Absolutely NOT.
This is where you total lack of familiarity with the land causes you to make false claims.
You are BLINDLY invested in trying to prove that Crump had an unencumbered view of rolling hills, valleys and pasture lands.
I've asked you, dozens of times, to point out Crump's location when he made his alleged sighting, and after dozens of requests, you still can't identify the location nor the rolling hills, valleys and pasture land he allegedly spotted while sitting in an eastbound train doing 60+mph.
YOU were the one who said that there were "one of two locations from which AWT might have sighted the property without obstructing terrain". If one was the swamp, what would he see past the swamp or to the north of the swamp? Who ever said "unecumbered view" - that seems to be a straw man argument that you, not me, put up. My only argument with you is that there was NO place where Crump could have seen into the property and that he couldn't have notice the rolling nature of the parallel land form.
Secondly, as I look at the photo it seems to me that it's NOT taken from the ridge on # 13 or the tee on # 14, but, from a point well below those elevations.
Who said it was taken from the ridge on 13 or the 14th tee? Seems fairly obvious to me that it was taken from somewhere behind the current forward tee. Maybe just back from the sandy path that is there today.
There is no sandy path running across the hole, there today.
Thirdly, you know the land's been cleared in the top photo in the foreground because there's a white path running across the picture, and there are no trees.
Hmm, a path equates to clearing. That path looks like it still exists today. This is weak, even for you.
You just don't understand the landform or the configuration of the course, yet you persist in making declarations, declarations that are incorrect.
There is a path there today - it's on the aerial. Jim has seen it in person. Why do you deny it?
Now, that's nice convoluted logic - there are no trees, therefore it has been cleared. That's even weaker. There are no trees on the Old Course. I guess it was cleared.
In desperation, now you're comparing the site at TOC with the site at PV.
Face it, you're lost and don't know what you're talking about.
I know, Mike Cirba would claim that the white path was the railroad tracks, but, we already know he was wrong on that call on the 6th hole.
The second photo looks like 1922 So you've said. What's your source.
Pine Valley.
That's really helpful. ???
Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.
The part in the foreground, the island, the part along the RR track embankment. All this around where the 14 green got built.
I'd certainly agree that the island is pre-construction. Wow, something we agree on!
Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.
But, we know that his story was a complete bogus myth, so who would rely on that description. Of course, all 184 acres must have been uniformly densely forested. How silly of me to think otherwise based on a picture.
Except that AWT's story is corroborated by Carr and many others.
If you look at aerial photos from 1922 and 1925 you can see that all non-golf areas are uniformly, densely forested, as they also appear in aerial photos from 1931, 1938 and subsequently.
You have an agenda and believe what your agenda tells you that you have to believe.
Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.
Not obvious to me. The underbrush in the foreground looks virgin. The island and the area along the tracks looks untouched. Why would they have cleared this section? They didn't figure out the routing over this end for years. Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.
That's NOT true.
Why would you make that up about the routing ?
Just go back and look at the original stick routing and the red/blue topo.
The stick routing is dated March 1913 and I believe the red/blue topo around May of 1913, I believe a full year earlier than the photo you posted
They always had holes designated for this area.
To refresh your memory, here's the red/blue topo.
How can you state that they hadn't figured out the routing, it's on the red/blue topo, along with the lake.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4404668772_1e782b51ac_o.jpg)
Well, actually I was thinking of the Colt plan. As you might notice, there are no holes down in the southern end of the property where the 14th eventually ended up.
Your question was to the effect, "why would they have cleared there" The answer is because they were going to put holes there.
Then you respond, out of context, by leaping backward in time.
The top picture referenced was taken AFTER the lake was created.
You may remember we discussed that event and date.
You may also remember that AWT stated that Crump discovered the 13th hole, based upon the view.
I maintained that the "view" was the view of the lake.
Once Crump had his "light bulb" moment, the die was cast, and # 13 and 14 became a reality.
In the top photo it appears as though they were at various stages in clearing # 15, 16 and 17, and perhaps behind # 14 green.
Jim has been trying to pin down the "light bulb" idea for the 13th. Do you agree with his timeline?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Colt_PV.jpg)
Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.
So you now contradict yourself again, and admit that it's NOT a pre-clearing photo as your caption above the photo states.
why wouldn't they have cleared 17 all the way back to the 17th tee and over to 16 green and perhaps over behind # 14 green ?
how else would they get to # 14 green if not from behind it, from the west ?
Oh, Patrick, get over yourself. I've described the areas that I think are cleared and those that I believe are not.
NO YOU DIDN"T.
In the caption to your top photo YOU STATED that it was pre-construction and PRE-CLEARING.
It was only AFTER I brought it to your attention that you changed your description.
It didn't occur to me that you would fixate on the post-clearing areas in the picture. I gave you more credit than that.
Why are you trying to play this gotcha game. How does this in any way advance the yardsticks? What have you added to our collective understanding since you started the topo thread?
It's very simple, I'm preventing you from MISREPRESENTING the facts.
You can't make irresponsible, erroneous statements and expect them to go unchallenged.
Do you want to present the truth, or what best serves your agenda ?
The answer seems obvious to me.
OK, my first statement was not clear enough for you. Amend it in your brain to include "some areas in the foreground and the right where the 14th green would end up are pre-construction and pre-clearing. One point for you. I suspect anybody else who read it understood the point, but, I hope it is now clear to you.
In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.
How do you suppose they got the horses and steam winches into the swamp to pull the tree stumps?
Very carefully and probably from access and an access road running parallel to the railroad tracks.
Even today that path/road is in use.
Both photos YOU presented seem to indicate it was put into use early on.
Are you being obtuse or don't you understand this either? I meant into the middle of the swamp - to pull the trees that you think were there. Wouldn't they sink under their own weight? Or was it a shallow swamp? Or, maybe trees just pop out of the muck.
But, this isn't where the swamp was marked on the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article. If it was swamp before it formed the pond in the picture, then I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of clearing needed.
Oh, now the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article is your bible. How convenient.
Do you mean the map that had the trees running through the middle of the fairways, tees and greens ?
How do you decide what is garbage and what is gospel truth?
Mostly the same way I decide when confronting a medical problem, with FACT based EVIDENCE.
You were the one who conveniently gave credence to an obviously flawed schematic that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
I don't need to know how you decide, since it's obvious.
You decide based upon whether or not it fits your predetermined agenda.
OK, another piece to throw on the erroneous scrap heap.
How about the red/blue topo.
How about the fact that the lake as pictured is the low lying area of the property, (read swamp)
Being from Canada I doubt you have a clue as to what swamps in New Jersey look like.
Trees are in abundance in them.
To be enlightened, Google "the great swamp nj" or go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Swamp_National_Wildlife_Refuge
Nice to see you're actually doing some research. Did you have some momentary doubt you needed to check out. You do recall that when I pointed out articles about the history of fires and logging in the Pine Barrens many months ago, that you laughed them off as not applicable to PV. Let me just play that back to you.
You're so desperate that you're trying to apply a general occurance to a specific site.
If Pine Valley had been ravaged by fires, why would Tillinghast and Carr, two contemporaneous eyewitness accounts, describe the site as dense forest with jungle like undergrowth, dense forest and thick undergrowth so visually impeding that the land was not visible to the mortal eye.
Again, you misunderstand the point. I gave you a general "fire" site. You give me a general "swamp" site. Either may or may not apply to PV.
You've been proven wrong, over and over again, and in desperation, keep throwing nonsensical arguments/issues into the fray in order to cling to your championing of the myth. Over and over again you've tried to deflect facts with conjecture. It won't work. You're lost, you've never studied the terrain and vegetation at Pine Valley, yet hold yourself out as an expert, making erroneous claim after erroneous claim.
Granted, you make only one dogmatic conjecture.
The more you post about Pine Valley, the more I'm convinced you really know less and less about it and just want to take the opposite side of the debate, which is fine, but, get your facts right before you make declaritive statements.
I have no idea why you are so emotionally attached to such a insignificant point.
If it's so insignificant why are you, Cirba, Brauer and other misguided individuals so emotionally attached to claiming that Crump "First" saw Pine Valley from an eastbound train, speeding at 60+mph. That from that train, from that chance glimpse, he saw, rolling hills, valleys and pasture land ?
I don't recall anybody except you saying "First" recently. Why are you still fighting that battle? Several of us have tried to show you evidence that Crump could have seen rolling hills. You have dogmatically rejected it all. The only one who said Crump saw "pasture" was Brown. I guess we can throw that on the erroneous scrap heap too.
OK, if that's your claim, where was he located when he had his "chance glimpse" and saw those features ?
And, where are those features ?
You're the expert, those should be easy questions for you to answer,
UNLESS, in your heart of heart, you realize that there are NO rolling hills visible from the RR tracks.
There are no valleys visible from the RR tracks and there is no pasture land visible from the RR tracks.
Especially, on a "chance glimpse" from a speeding eastbound train doing 60+ mph.
That's an awful lot to take in on a "chance glimpse", especially when the terrain blocks much if not most of the land south of the tracks and the trees and underbrush block the rest, with the possible exception of the swamp, which most wouldn't call ideal land for golf.
We've already answered that. Look back.
What would he have seen through that small crack over the swamp if not a hill?
Remind us again, how many times over how many years have you been on site ? Remind us again, how many times you were on the site between 1910 and 1914.
The same number of times that you've ever been there.
-
Patrick,
To clarify a couple of points before ending:
Now you're telling us that there was an enormous difference in the dense forest and thick underbrush depending upon where you were on the property.
I didn't say enormous. Yes, I think there is a difference between the north end and the south end. The north looks like more dense pine and the south looks like more dense brush to me. I know you don't agree. I agree to disagree.
The early plans make it clear that Crump was steering well clear of the swamp. Look at his Stick routing, the Colt plan and the Blue/Red Plan.
All of the early iterations avoid the swamp.
They do NOT.
Please, go back and re-analyze the blue/red topo more carefully and you'll see the interaction of the holes with the swamp area.
None of them have the 14th in the final configuration.
The following are questions. No agenda. Who drew the blue topo? When? Who drew the red topo? When? Was the Colt plan before, at the same time as, or after the red and the blue? Did Colt draw the Colt plan?
How do you account for the fact that in 1964 when I first played there, the course had pine trees everywhere.
They were reported to have planted 10,000 (or more) trees - pines presumably. Based on the 1950's picture of the 14th hole it looks like it was quite a successful pine growing program a decade before you got there.
_________________________________________________
Time to draw a close to this silliness. You willfully misunderstand many of my points. Clearly you won't stop doing that. You've called me erroneous, a moron, disingenuous, a liar, a fraud, arrogant, desperate, ignorant and on and on. Enough is enough.
You allow that there are two spots where Crump may have been able to glimpse into the property. That's good enough for me.
-
Back to a more productive topic, I hope.
The following two early (undated) pictures of the 5th hole could give us some sense of the earth moving that was undertaken in the construction of the course. The first picture show a close-up of the green. The large bunker along the upper side appears to have been gouged/scraped out of the side of the ridge. The sand removed appears to have been used to create the green.
The 1913 topo suggests that this area was originally a relatively uniform slope down to the stream/pond. The second picture shows a green benched into the side of the hill. It must have take quite a volume of fill to level the natural grad off to create the relatively level green. To me it looks like more fill was likely required to level the green than would have been immediately available for gouging out the bunkers. Perhaps they brought it in from other parts of the property.
The tie-ins certainly aren't as elegant as some of the preferred designers around here would come up with today.
Interesting knob in the front bunker. Did that survive?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/EarlyPV5thGreen.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PVEarly5thHole.jpg)
-
Bryan,
What's the old joke about mud wrestling a pig? Sooner or later you realize the pig kind of likes it? Hopefully, this thread will wrap up, and I am sorry it turned into the typical gca.com trainwreck for you. Not sure how Patrick's recent insults go down with Ran's plea for a more civil discourse, or even Pat's own off line call for more civil discourse?
Like you, I have seen more than a few contemporary photos, with some uncleared areas that still allow views of the tracks, nearby houses, etc. As usual, Pat pounds a literal interpretation of some of Tillie's words rather than looking with his own, sadly, diminished eyesight. We know what we can see with our own eyes, so its a complete time waster to listen to Patrick's take. About half the 12 pages were wasted on that, I think,
Thanks for posting those new (to me) pictures of the fifth. While its a lot of fill by those old standards, it doesn't look like a lot more than say a typical CBM green from NGLA, eh?
-
Patrick,
To clarify a couple of points before ending:
Now you're telling us that there was an enormous difference in the dense forest and thick underbrush depending upon where you were on the property.
I didn't say enormous. Yes, I think there is a difference between the north end and the south end. The north looks like more dense pine and the south looks like more dense brush to me. I know you don't agree. I agree to disagree.
It's not that I disagree with you, which I do, but Tillinghast disagreed with you about the south end (probably more east vs west than North vs south).
It was Tillinghast, based on his contemporaneous eyewitness account that declared the forest to be so dense and the undergrowth so thick that the land was hidden from the mortal eye. And, that was years after 1910-1912. I know you won't accept my word for it, but, why won't you accept Tillinghast's
The early plans make it clear that Crump was steering well clear of the swamp. Look at his Stick routing, the Colt plan and the Blue/Red Plan.
All of the early iterations avoid the swamp.
That's ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.
WHERE DO YOU THINK THE 16TH GREEN WAS SITED ?
They do NOT.
Please, go back and re-analyze the blue/red topo more carefully and you'll see the interaction of the holes with the swamp area.
None of them have the 14th in the final configuration.
The 14th wasn't the sole area of the swamp.
Look at the 16th green and the fairway leading to the 16th green.
It's immediately adjacent to the swamp/lake
The following are questions. No agenda. Who drew the blue topo? When? Who drew the red topo? When? Was the Colt plan before, at the same time as, or after the red and the blue? Did Colt draw the Colt plan?
You know the questions that can be answered and the questions that can't be answered, so why play more games ?
How do you account for the fact that in 1964 when I first played there, the course had pine trees everywhere.
They were reported to have planted 10,000 (or more) trees - pines presumably. Based on the 1950's picture of the 14th hole it looks like it was quite a successful pine growing program a decade before you got there.
And, why do you think they planted all of those trees ?
Could it be because they cleared well in excess of 22,000 trees just on the first 11 holes they crafted.
_________________________________________________
Time to draw a close to this silliness. You willfully misunderstand many of my points.
I didn't misunderstand any of your points, willfully or unintentionally.
I know how to read and my comprehension skills are more than adequate.
Clearly you won't stop doing that. You've called me erroneous, a moron, disingenuous, a liar, a fraud, arrogant, desperate, ignorant and on and on. Enough is enough.
You allow that there are two spots where Crump may have been able to glimpse into the property. That's good enough for me.
One location may have allowed for the view of a worthless swamp.
Hardly the ideal land for golf.
The other, only because of the respective elevations, but, at that spot, one has to account for the dense forest and jungle like underbrush described by Carr. At 88+ feet per second, it's counter intuitive that a clear view of "rolling hills, valleys and pasture lands" would be visible to anyone.
What's been comical about this discussion is the position you've taken on what can and can't be seen from the tracks when you've never been on site.
Imagine if I was to tell you what you could and couldn't see on your home course, when I never set foot on the property.
I wouldn't begin to present a visual analysis. Yet, you've rendered your opinions on the visuals, rather emphatically, without ever having been on or near the property.
We both know how grossly flawed that type of non-fact based analysis can be.
I thought that you originally agreed with Mike Cirba when he declared the white path/road was the RR tracks.
I think that undermined, if not destroyed, your credibility on the subject of the terrain at PV.
I'm sure that we'll agree and disagree on a number of subjects in the future.
-
Jeff Brauer,
After the emails that you sent, for you to have the nerve to criticize anyone for a lack of civility is a joke.
You engage in the very behavior you chastize.
That's as phoney as you can get.
Stop whining and stop criticizing behavior that you routinely engage in.
As to those two pictures, I know my eyesight is poor, but all of those trees look like....... Pine Trees.
I can't see any/many deciduous trees.
Do you think they moved them for the photo op ?
Those Pine Trees in that second picture sure look tall, very mature, certainly not recently planted.
Maybe they touched up the photo ;D
-
Pat,
Do you think the sandy path itself is evidence that some portion of the 14th hole has been cleared as of the taking of that first picture?
-
Wow, how did I miss this Train Ride? :o
Nice to see that the status quo on GCA was still static during my long absence. ;D
Hey, speaking of trains, any train buffs out there who know what they called those particular cars that George Crump and his friends are stepping out of?
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/558/18126407493_ff46f9061c_b.jpg)
-
The last car of typical passenger trains was usually the observation car, with a rounded end or perhaps just a platform.
I think this was on an interurban line, and they would probably not have anything like that. They probably had a bar car, sometimes in the middle of the train so all patrons could access it.
-
Jeff,
Do I see a window in the back of that train?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation_car
Not that they wouldn't have availed themselves of the Bar Car. ;)
-
Mike,
Google interurban rail cars. That is what it really seems to look like, and I do think the line was an interurban, and the engineer would have been sitting on the other side of that door on the right, if they got out of the front of the train, and both ends usually had a engineers seat, because they didn't turn the trains and the engineer needed to be at the front going back.
From memory, there were three lines from Camden to AC, and I guess since this was a winter golf trip, we don't know which rail line they were on, standard or interurban.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=interurban+rail+cars&qpvt=interurban+rail+cars&qpvt=interurban+rail+cars&FORM=IGRE
-
Jeff,
You're definitely the train expert, thanks. The train they are on in the picture shows them disembarking in Atlantic City in 1909, so this was likely the type of train they would have regularly taken.
I think it's likely that they would have had more than a side view in such a car, but also would be able to look out the back to see the land they had just traversed. Would you agree?
-
I think they would have had their eyes focused solely on their smart phones......I hesitate to say more in this crowd.
-
I think they would have had their eyes focused solely on their smart phones......I hesitate to say more in this crowd.
Ha!
Are you sure it's a train at all Jeff? ;)
-
I agree. An interurban
-
I think they would have had their eyes focused solely on their smart phones......I hesitate to say more in this crowd.
Ha!
Are you sure it's a train at all Jeff? ;)
Yes, pretty sure. I actually have spent more time on various railroad history than golf architecture.....
BTW, if you think it gets mean here, go on a railroad forum and start a thread on exactly what shade was the "real" boxcar red. (Hint, there are many different answers, depending on railroad, paint shop, and how long the car had been out in the weather, but that doesn't stop them from arguing just how much the Kodachrome may have altered the color in a photo.....
-
Jeff,
And here I thought golf course architectural history was the only thing worth going to cyber war over. ;) That does not bode well for the future of mankind.
-
I vaguely recall a photo in the archives of Macdonald and Crump, with a map of the property - showing a lake and grove of trees the background.
Early records suggest the original boundary lines offered for purchase included Clementon Lake, now the home of Splash World amusement park.
Not sure what that means or how conclusive - given the fact Harry Colt traveled through Ardmore on his way to Clementon, prior to construction of Merion.
It would seem that had Crump's acquisition of the original property been accepted, the intended location of the clubhouse would have been along the shores of Lake Clementon.
-
Not sure what that means or how conclusive - given the fact Harry Colt traveled through Ardmore on his way to Clementon, prior to construction of Merion.
I think Colt is normally thought to have first visited Pine Valley in the spring of 1913, whereas Merion East was constructed in the spring and summer of 1911 (and seeded in September 1911.) Perhaps you are thinking of the west course which was constructed in the Spring of 1913.
-
Gib,
Yes, Harry Colt first visited Pine Valley in May of 1913, towards the middle of the month if memory serves.
While Merion East had opened in fall of 1912, the course was anything but a finished product and Colt may have advised on how best to incorporate some of the ideas from abroad that were Merion was hoping would be implemented over time. He likely would have visited the West course as well, which was under construction at the time. If memory serves I think Hugh Wilson brought him to see Seaview too, which was also under construction. I believe Colt returned to England around the end of the first week in June.
-
. . . Colt may have advised on how best to incorporate some of the ideas from abroad that were Merion was hoping would be implemented over time.
I always find it entertaining when Mike just makes shit up. He seems to give Colt more credit at Merion than he does CBM, which is more than a little ironic.
-
Perhaps you are thinking of the west course which was constructed in the Spring of 1913.
Most likely. I am led to believe that Colt designed Merion West.
-
. . . Colt may have advised on how best to incorporate some of the ideas from abroad that were Merion was hoping would be implemented over time.
I always find it entertaining when Mike just makes shit up. He seems to give Colt more credit at Merion than he does CBM, which is more than a little ironic.
Or, they could have just talked about the weather and the wives? Or perhaps David Elvins is correct that Colt stopped by to design Merion West that had been in planning for the past five months and was being constructed at the time?
After all, what did Robert Lesley know?
-
Where exactly did Robert Lesley indicate that Harry Colt helped design Merion East? I know he credited and thanked Macdonald and Whigham (along with Wilson's Committee) in his 1914 Golf Illustrated article, but I don't recall him ever mentioning Colt's involvement.
-
I vaguely recall a photo in the archives of Macdonald and Crump, with a map of the property - showing a lake and grove of trees the background.
Early records suggest the original boundary lines offered for purchase included Clementon Lake, now the home of Splash World amusement park.
Not sure what that means or how conclusive - given the fact Harry Colt traveled through Ardmore on his way to Clementon, prior to construction of Merion.
It would seem that had Crump's acquisition of the original property been accepted, the intended location of the clubhouse would have been along the shores of Lake Clementon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally made up this twaddle off the top of my head, specifically to see how long it would take before an argument over Colt and Merion broke out. The only person who picked up on the joke was Tommy - it must have been the remark about PV clubhouse placement. ;-)
A vaguely recalled photo in the archives of Crump and Macdonald? OMG . . . . . . . and you guys beat on Phil Young. Harry Colt had a hand in Merion West? I've played enough Raynor and Colt to have a pretty good idea whose style shows up on the West Course, and it was not Colt.
However, it also proved Tommy's assertion - opined last Saturday at Paco's Tacos - identifying a certain lurker, who immediately emailed me not five minutes after that post.
-
Gib,
I was pretty clear it was a hoax from the time of your first post yesterday, but thought I was losing my sanity as our resident crack researchers on both sides of the continent bit and started to chew. Another Foulpointe moment, and testament apparently to your credibility around here.
Now if only you hadn't perpetrated the fraud on my thread which started out more than three years ago with somewhat noble intentions to consolidate the stories/myths/legends of the discovery of Pine Valley. :'(
-
Gib,
CBM and Whigham did visit Pine Valley and had some nice things to say. I wouldn't be surprised by a pic so I'm not sure we're quite in Ian Scott-Taylor diary-land. ;) Colt visited Merion and if they didn't ask him his thoughts they'd be idiots and they weren't idiots, despite how they are sometimes portrayed here. ;D
-
Gib,
I am so used to baseless nonsense being written about Merion, Pine Valley, Macdonald and Colt, that it didn't phase me in a bit. See Mike's desperate attempt to include Colt in the design of Merion East, for example. He is correct though about CBM's visit to Pine Valley. CBM even gave some suggestions but apparently only some of them were followed. Also, I think they must have competed in the Lesley Cup, so a photo would not be out of the question.
As for emails from TEPaul, I probably got that one too, I am sure, but I try not to read them. I've asked TEPual to quit emailing me time and time again, but he just can't help himself. Pretty creepy if you ask me.