[Paul_Turner]

Tom

A pleasure, I'm glad you like the image.  And yes, I can print this out.  We can also optimise to emphasise one or the other routing plan in the merged image.  It should be sharp up to about A3 size.  (Could I negotiate a look at the Colt booklet )

I wonder why the contours are so much clearer on the stick map?  You can see the Colt plan has a fold in it, so it was probably a working plan and carried into the field.  Perhaps the contours just faded from use, but I think they were always quite faint because Colt has drawn his blue pen over the major contours to emphasise them.

If we take that line on the 18th as the fairway centre, wouldn't the left hand portion of that fairway be blind from a tee on the 10th green?  I don't know the course as well as you, but if you look at the old photos I sent you of the 18th ( the image from the 18th tee and the reverse image), I think it looks that way.   Imagine chopping the current 18th fairway in half, but having more fairway, beyond, below and to the left of the cliff (i.e in the direction between the 9th green and the clubhouse).  A tee shot down the left portion of that fairway configuration (a dogleg) would fly up and over the current 10th tee and down the far side!

I'm still thinking about the timelines of various holes.  One other point to consider is that the unattributed drawings are from before Aug 1915.  We know this because of that Travis article on the reverse Pine Valley course, which reproduces some of them.  I assume that these were all drawn at the same time and are one set.  From those drawings, the 13th is right and so is the 15th.  No 12th for some reason which is a bit strange, and the 14th is that cape hole.  But combining this info with the dates of the old photos from Colt's scrapbook, I think the course was pretty much done by 1916.  Which was what I was driving at, on some of the earlier posts; why did things drag on so long in getting 18 holes in play?

Actually, Travis calls those drawings- "engravings" which is a bit odd. (I don't think I included a copy of that paragraph when I gave you the photocopies at Alpine).

[T_MacWood]

TE
I'm not that concerned with Tillie's characterization of the approach as a #2 as 3- or 4-wood. His description of the hole is very much like it is today.

On the other hand he describes the 7th as "a long well placed drive must carry an enormous dip through which flowes a stream of clear water. The second is a high shot with a mashie (5- or 6-iron) if the drive has been hit well....the remaining holes are yet to be cleared, but the work will be pushed hard."

There is no stream out toward the current 7th or the practice course.

The 6th was a par-5. The tee would have been pushed back 150-200 yards from its current position due to the placement of the very short #5. It appears the green was also closer to the tee than it is currently (there is evidence of this on the working topo). The only dip and stream is behind the 6th green.

This hole would have created difficulty with the routing; it would have been very awkward to get back over to where the current back nine sits. I also believe he may have been wandering off the property. These maybe reasons why it doesn't appear on the working drawing.

If you look in Shackelford's Golden Age page 66, in the aerial you will see what looks to be a cleared swath through the trees in that direction.

[Paul_Turner]

Toms

I think you both agree on that potential 7th hole!  You've both spotted the same clearing.

I also don't understand why there would be any plan to go in that direction!  It's almost going off the topo survey and is a complete dead end.

Is it possible that the par 5 6th that Tillie describes is that dogleg left hole, up from the original 5th greensite to a green near the 10th green?  But then where would the 7th he descibes be? Is there a stream nearby?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW said;

"If you look in Shackelford's Golden Age page 66, in the aerial you will see what looks to be a cleared swath through the trees in that direction."

Tom;

That's exactly what I've been saying for months now and a couple of times on previous posts on this thread. If you went straight out in the same direction #6 goes you'd cross a gorge and stream and come to that clearing on p. 66. Plus that fact exactly conforms to what Tillinghast was describing on that walk in the winter of 1913. It really isn't possible for a hole described like that to turn back towards #3 or the cluhouse.

Paul:

I agree, using various events to create timelines things should fall into place and become much clearer as to what happened when and by whom and for probably what reasons.

Eleven holes opened officially 11/7/1914. These were 1-9, 10 and 18. In the first half of 1916 holes 11, 16 and 17 came into play bringing the course to 14 holes. But you asked what could possibly have taken Crump another 1 1/2-2 years to work out the details of 12-15.

There could be a couple of logical reasons for that. WW1 was obviously progressing and the US was about to get into it and things everywhere golf-wise were logically slowing down and being put on hold.

Another reason and one I think may be the most likely is the 14 holes of PVGC that were in play actually created a 14 hole course that played so easily as an 18 hole course by playing 1-9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 and then 1-4 again and you're right at the clubhouse having played 18 holes.

It could explain some other things as well that affected holes 12-15 when they were finally built. But I think the reason 12-15 took so long to get built was Crump was clearly having a hard time deciding on the details of those final four holes (since he did have such a preconceived idea about the balance and variety of the course and where various things should occur and clearly 14 holes constructed and in play doesn't leave a lot of latitude in how to finish off the four remaining holes). That's was I call sort of constructing yourself into a corner or a box).  

But nevertheless, as confused as he may have been in exactly how to finish off those final four holes a lot of time pressure was probably off of him because the 14 holes in play played so well as an 18 hole course.

  

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

I think the 1st is interesting on the superimposed image, as it's just about the only hole that has some fairway outline shown.  The stick plan shows a sharper dogleg than the Colt plan.  But I think the current 1st is a slightly sharper dogleg than the Colt drawing.  I think this makes sense because the Carr/Smith report, states that Crump wanted the fairway bunker to eat more into the fairway and therefore make the dogleg sharper.  He wanted a dogleg that was like the 1st at Hoylake.  From my memory the angles of the 1st holes at PV and Hoylake are almost indentical, and the length is exactly the same.  Crump did visit Hoylake on his trip, and Colt loved the course, he heavily redesigning it in the 1920's (although not the famous 1st).

I wonder if Crump and Colt corresponded through the building of PV?  Would be great to find out.  The fact that the firm of Colt and Alison was called back to finish the course design, suggests that maybe they did.  (I know that Crump sent Colt that photo book).


Did Crump own that land for the experimental 7th going in the opposite direction?  It's off the contour plan, so it doesn't make much sense to me.

[TEPaul]

"Did Crump own that land for the experimental 7th going in the opposite direction?  It's off the contour plan, so it doesn't make much sense to me."

Paul;

I don't know that he did but I really don't know what the parameters of the original 184 acres he bought were. However, it certainly may have been possible that he could have used that land anyway for potential golf holes as he may have had an arrangement with Sumner Ireland to do so. After all it was considered by some to be pretty God-forsaken land anyway and we do know that at most just a few years hence he picked up another 400-500 acres of Sumner Ireland's land which certainly includes the area where that clearing is (the 7th hole that Tillinghast apparently described). That land now is where PV's short course begins.

That potential hole that Tillinghast described doesn't make much sense to me either or to the way the PV routing came to be but then the clubhouse may not have been sited either in the winter of 1913. But if he was going out that way with the 7th hole and he had an idea where the clubhouse would be (where it is) he certainly would've had a hard time getting back to the clubhouse with a 9th hole from there if that was something he wanted to do (returning nines). But it may not have been because PV did end up without returning nines anyway.

It's a fascinating progression those five years of Crump's from the winter of 1913 to the winter of 1918 when he died. I don't know that anyone will ever figure out what all happened and exactly by whom but it appears we now have the potential to get a lot warmer on the subject.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()