Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .

« **Reply #225 on:** January 03, 2007, 08:21:29 AM »

Where are our ship manifest guys when we really need them?

I want to find out exactly when and for how long George Crump went to GB in 1910 to return at the end of the year or perhaps in early 1911. I know he was over there so where is his ship manifest listing? How reliable is the Ancestery.com? Or do you think maybe Crump and Baker flew over there on the SST in 1910. Does Ancestary.com list jet airplane manifests in 1910 too?

I'd also very much like to know when Harry Colt left the States in 1913 to return to England. Was PVGC basically his last stop in the USA in June 1913? It's important to figure out where he was in July 1913 because of the date on our PV Colt course drawing. Come on you manifest boys you had your vacation, it's work time again! Get crackin'

« **Reply #226 on:** January 03, 2007, 09:20:37 AM »

Here's the real "what if" question on the creation of Merion East---

If Charles Blair Macdonald had really wanted to get involved in laying out, designing and overseeing the constrution of Merion East in 1911 would the club have let him?

What do you think??

I sure as hell know what I think!

For some odd reason Wayno doesn't like me to mention this but I said months ago I think if Hugh Wilson and his Construction Committee and probably the likes of Rodman Griscom and Robert Lesley had just used a little more commonsense and ingenuity and bought that semi-castle down behind #6 green and stocked the place with about a dozen of Philly's finest showgirls and turned it into a high class "on course" brothel (Hen House) they coulda got Macdonald to layout, design and construct them a total C.B. Macdonald "signature" course that would've been very different from what that golf course is or ever was.

« **Reply #227 on:** January 03, 2007, 11:26:08 AM »

OK, I will admit to not having read this entire thread (who could?) and almost none of the other Merion thread. But.

Despite the abuse and sarcasm rained down on DaveM, hasn't he shown it to be likely that Wilson's trip actually took place after the course was originally built? Doesn't this go against the commonly repeated story? Why is this not of greater interest?

« **Reply #228 on:** January 03, 2007, 11:36:42 AM »

Quote from: Andy Hughes on January 03, 2007, 11:26:08 AM

OK, I will admit to not having read this entire thread (who could?) and almost none of the other Merion thread. But.

Despite the abuse and sarcasm rained down on DaveM, hasn't he shown it to be likely that Wilson's trip actually took place after the course was originally built? Doesn't this go against the commonly repeated story? Why is this not of greater interest?

Andy,

If the manifests that David brought to light are complete and have been reviewed accurately, then that is exactly what this suggests.

Where we part ways is that David sees this as indication that Hugh Wilson and the committee couldn't have possibly done anything to build the initial Merion course without the expertise of CB Macdonald & Whigham, since WIlson didn't yet have the benefit of what he learned overseas.

I don't make that assumption, especially since William Flynn (who had already designed a course in NE) and Fred Pickering (who had constructed a number of courses previously) were all part of the team.

« **Reply #229 on:** January 03, 2007, 11:52:18 AM »

"Despite the abuse and sarcasm rained down on DaveM, hasn't he shown it to be likely that Wilson's trip actually took place after the course was originally built? Doesn't this go against the commonly repeated story? Why is this not of greater interest?"

Andy:

For a couple of basic reasons. The first which you can see on my first post on this thread is that none of us ever knew when Wilson actually went over there before hand anyway. We had no record at all of when he went over or even for how long although this timeframe of 6-7 months has always floated around, and we don't know why. Merion has never known. They've said 1910 probably because that's before the course went into construction in the spring of 1911, and Alan Wison said Hugh's first step was to go to GB. That report has been in the archives forever.

I don't know that this means he didn't go over there before the 1912 trip or couldn't have but even if he didn't we don't think it makes any difference.

It is definitely not hard to tell that David Moriaty was essentially trying to develop some "a priori" or "a posteriori" string of logic to support some "hypothesis" of his that if Wilson didn't go to GB before the course was built in 1911 that must mean that Wilson and his Committee might've had to depend on M&W more than anyone ever thought--that essentially Wilson and his Committee were too much the novices to have done it basically on their own.

Moriarty even stated on here that I said that if Wilson didn't go beforehand it meant that I felt they couldn't have done it as they did which was a complete lie and I called him on it.

I never said such a thing and I've never believed it. The fact is whether he went before or after they just did what they did anyway and his discovery that Wilson went in 1912 doesn't change that fact at all, in my opinion. Moriarty said what he did about how he thought I felt just to try to catch us in some contradiction.

The thing I feel guys like Moriarty suffer from is they don't understand that era well enough and they just can't understand how the likes of Wilson and his committee or even Crump could've done the things they did starting out with so little inexperience.

The fact is that whatever Moriarty et al thinks their lack of experience was, which certainly may've been true, Wilson and his Committee, Pickering and Flynn and Valentine et al just did it anyway. Wilson's experience or lack of it really isn't being questioned here particularly since he wrote 4-5 years later that had they known one half of what they didn't know in the beginning they probably wouldn't have done the project. But they didn't know half of what they didn't know and they just did it anyway.

This is what was so fascinating and remarkable about people like Wilson and Crump and Leeds and Fownes and those like them. They just did it anyway. One could probably accurately say the same thing about Macdonald when he began NGLA with a group of amateurs.

What Moriarty's discovery of that 1912 trip really did for me though is help explain a little more clearly where that ages old rumor came from that Wilson went down on the Titanic. He sailed from Europe about two weeks after the Titanic sunk.

« **Reply #230 on:** January 03, 2007, 11:52:23 AM »

Mike, was the original Merion as laid out before the trip to England/Scotland (again, assuming the manifest Dave posted actually 'proves' things) anything to write home about? Or was it a basic yawner with maintenance issues that needed salvation soon after seeding?

At what point was Merion actually considered a quality course?

« **Reply #231 on:** January 03, 2007, 12:05:54 PM »

Quote

The first which you can see on my first post on this thread is that none of us ever knew when Wilson actually went over there before hand anyway.

Tom, if nothing else, DaveM has perhaps supplied some basis for you to know when Wilson went? I would think that would be of great interest to you.

Quote

and Alan Wison said his first step was to go to GB. That report has been in the archives forever

Does it now look like Alan Wilson might have been wrong? And if so, what else may he have been wrong about? Does it not trouble anyone even a little that he was Hugh's brother and might not have been the most impartial chronicler?

Quote

The fact is that whatever Moriarty et al thinks their lack of experience was Wilson and his Committee, Pickering and Flynn and Valentine et al just did it anyway.

I would agree a lack of experience is not a guaranteed bar to creating a quality course, as Old Tom and Kirkaldy and Crump and Fownes and all the rest certainly showed.
But there has been this romantic story of Wilson going off for a few months to the home of golf and coming back with reams of drawings and whatnot and creating a masterpiece with what he learned and saw. And now it looks like that might not be exactly what happened.

« **Reply #232 on:** January 03, 2007, 12:07:19 PM »

"At what point was Merion actually considered a quality course?"

Andy:

From those who have really known Merion (Kittleman et al) they consider that Merion (and Flynn) felt Merion East was truly finished between 1932 and 1934. However, it was obviously considered to be a quality course much earlier than that, probably right from the beginning. They generally didn't hold National championships on courses they didn't think were quality courses. They held the US Amateur at Merion East in 1916. That tournament field included a 14 year old phenom out of Georgia by the name of Bob Jones.

« **Reply #233 on:** January 03, 2007, 12:13:48 PM »

Quote

They generally didn't hold National championships on courses they didn't think were quality courses.

Tom, would you then think it possible that the course Wilson and the rest created was potentially basic/nothing special and things started to change after Wilson's supposed later trip to GB?

« **Reply #234 on:** January 03, 2007, 12:14:53 PM »

"Tom, if nothing else, DaveM has perhaps supplied some basis for you to know when Wilson went? I would think that would be of great interest to you."

Andy:

It is of real interst to me. What it means to me I think I explained above. What it may mean to David Moriarty or what he may be trying to make it mean, however, could be something we just don't agree on. Frankly David Moriarty has been most unclear about anything he may mean on this thread and the other one and that is probably why he's been asked on here by numerous people about twenty times just what it is he means by any of this. He keeps saying he means to show that Macdonald or M&W may not have been given the credit they deserve by some on here but he's never said what he means by that. None of us, certainly not Wayne Morrison or I have ever denied that Macdonald and Whgam advised Merion and Wilson and his Committee on the project. We have seen all those reports that have been mentioned on here for years and we have never denied any of them.

« **Reply #235 on:** January 03, 2007, 12:20:47 PM »

"Tom, would you then think it possible that the course Wilson and the rest created was potentially basic/nothing special and things started to change after Wilson's supposed later trip to GB?"

Andy:

I've already said that Merion East was a golf course whose architecture evolved over a period of more than twenty years.

But no, I do not think it started out as 'basic/nothing special' and I think you'll be pretty hard pressed to find anyone even back in the beginning who described it as "basic/nothing special".

Like Pine Valley that shortly followed Merion East I think Merion East was basically sort of world famous almost right out of the box. Pine Valley had become world famous even before eigtheen holes were opened.

« **Reply #236 on:** January 03, 2007, 12:25:05 PM »

Andy,

The answer is, Yes DM has found something of interest in this conversation. For what it's worth however, Philip Young has asked several times if it can be confirmed that this is THE Hugh Wilson on the manifest. From a scientific perspective, that seems very reasonable.

The difficult thing about this whole conversation is addressed in your question a couple posts ago..."At what point was Merion actually considered a quality course?"

By all accounts the course was a work in progress from day 1. What was on the ground on September 14 1912?
2. If in fact Wilson went overseas in the early part of 1912, what changes were made immediately?
- keep in mind the course would have been seeded for 6 months or more and would have only had a few months to heal up prior to opening day if Wilson returned on that ship.
3. How long was a trip across the ocean in 1910 or so? One month...one week? Any ideas?

« **Reply #237 on:** January 03, 2007, 12:29:41 PM »

"Does it now look like Alan Wilson might have been wrong? And if so, what else may he have been wrong about? Does it not trouble anyone even a little that he was Hugh's brother and might not have been the most impartial chronicler?"

No, Andy, it does not. We still can't really prove that Hugh Wilson didn't make two trips or more over there including one before the course was built.

Some on here can act like this is a courtroom and the testimony of these people back then is being put under cross examination but that's not really our interest or technique. That's probably the way Moriarty is trying to treat this---in other words if some inconsistency can be found in something Alan Wilson ever said that must mean that everything he ever said is suspect. I don't feel Alan Wilson is on trial here or even should be treated like some hostile witness in some courtroom. Let the lawyers on here get into crap like that. They seem more interested in showing us their legal skills anyway than getting at the truth of the matter.

We leave crap like that to amateur litigtors like David Moriarty. If you want to buy that technique then by all means do.

To me there is only one real issue in either of these threads that have gone on so long and that is what is precisely the meaning of M&W "advising" Merion?

I just feel the record from both of the Wilsons' reports spells that out in all the detail any of us will ever need.

« **Reply #238 on:** January 03, 2007, 01:50:24 PM »

Quote

For what it's worth however, Philip Young has asked several times if it can be confirmed that this is THE Hugh Wilson on the manifest. From a scientific perspective, that seems very reasonable.

JES, I agree and did not mean to say DaveM had proved it conclusively.

Quote

How long was a trip across the ocean in 1910 or so? One month...one week? Any ideas?

I searched online, and found one of the giant steamships could cross the Atlantic in 'just under a week' in 1910.

« **Reply #239 on:** January 03, 2007, 01:59:53 PM »

Quote

What it may mean to David Moriarty or what he may be trying to make it mean, however, could be something we just don't agree on.

.
Tom, take DaveM out of it. It seems interesting in its own right that one of the cherished Merion stories may not be accurate. Of course, that may not mean anything of substance in the long run.

Quote

Like Pine Valley that shortly followed Merion East I think Merion East was basically sort of world famous almost right out of the box.

How do you think the credit for that should be parceled out? Do you think Hugh Wilson would have been capable at that point of creating a course worthy of world fame, before he had made a trip to GB?

Quote

We still can't really prove that Hugh Wilson didn't make two trips or more over there including one before the course was built.

Yes, that does seem to be an issue. But is there any reason other than Alan's written history that would make you think Hugh made a trip overseas before Merion was built?

Quote

I just feel the record from both of the Wilsons' reports spells that out in all the detail any of us will ever need.

But how can that be Tom? Certainly we have all potentially learned something very new with DaveM's discovery that might cast doubt on what had been accepted wisdom for all these years.

« **Reply #240 on:** January 03, 2007, 02:00:16 PM »

Thanks Andy, that's amazing if you ask me.

The reason I asked is probably obvious...It has been posed that Wilson was at a dinner here in the states in mid-January and if he were on that ship back on May1, a one month crossing would have limited his time overseas to late February at the earliest through Late April at the latest. A one to two week crossin gives a good bit more time.

I think this is an interesting thread.

« **Reply #241 on:** January 03, 2007, 04:16:22 PM »

Oh David...stop it...please...you win.

Ok everyone...

Let's get out your history books and expunge the name of Hugh I. Wilson and summarily replace it with the name of CB Macdonald (and HJ Whigham as well) as the original designer of the great course at the Merion East Golf Club.

Your logic is impeccable, and your conclusions iron-clad.

Those three days that Macdonald spent (1 at NGLA, 1 at Merion pre-construction, and 1 post-construction) provided Wilson and the Committee all they needed to know, and they might as well have been marionette puppets, unable to act or think on their own without CB pulling the strings.

The fact that the course itself includes absolutely none of the template holes that Macdonald and his disciples built on every one of their courses over 25 years is meaningless. Don't look at that boogy man behind the curtain, folks, because the bunker in front of the 10th at Merion was called an "Alps-like feature". Better yet, perhaps that renegade Wilson and the Comittee just summarily expunged all the traces of Charley's reiterative hole copies out of pure jealousy at his immense genius.

Forget that after the post-construction site visit, there was never any further record or Macdonald coming with 100 miles of Merion in word or action, despite the fact that the course was worked on for the next 20 years, the West course was built in the following year, and Hugh WIlson became so celebrated as the (FAKE) architect of Merion that he was asked by industrialists like Clarence Geist to design their courses. Same with the city of Philadelphia, and then he was asked by Pine Valley to complete Crumps plans for the final four holes. It was all a clever ruse, folks.

Let's forget that Max Behr said in 1914 that WIlson at Merion studied architecture and course construction like no one before. Tillinghast was clearly in on the Philadelphia plot, as well.

And that Alan Wilson. Why, in David's words, he was absolutely "PLEADING" after the death of his brother to revise the true story of Macdonald's brilliance and put his deceased brother in the spotlight instead! What a cheap play on everyone's emotions, especially since ALL of the key players were still alive when he wrote this!

David, you're right, you win, and let's change the permanent records to reflect that.

Hugh WHO?

« **Reply #242 on:** January 03, 2007, 04:29:55 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on January 03, 2007, 04:20:40 PM

I think Shivas knew what I meant my "pleading the case," At least he ought to.

Nothing Behr or Tillinghast said contradicts a word of what I have said.

Mike, do you even remember the last time you posted something truly substantive and accurate? I dont.

David,

It's ok...really. You win.

Charles Blair Macdonald designed the Merion East Course, with likely a huge assist from HJ Whigham.

He just forgot to ever state it to anyone, anywhere for the next 29 years, despite the fact that Merion had hosted numerous national championships over that period and became one of the most famous courses in the world, and despite the fact that people they both knew well like Tillinghast made clear that the usurper Hugh Wilson actually designed the course. Oops...just a slip in CB's memory, I'm sure.

Thankfully, HJ Whigham saw fit to set the record straight after everyone had died in 1939 and the world had more serious things to worry about than golf.

More thankfully, you came along 65 years later and now we all know that truth.

Thanks.

« **Reply #243 on:** January 03, 2007, 04:30:42 PM »

David,

First off, welcome back.

Second off, you have the time to research and write those three posts...what, about 2 hours?...and no timeline yet.

Quote from: DMoriarty on January 03, 2007, 04:00:53 PM

Quote
Considering Alan Wilson's line that "the very first priority was to send Hugh Wilson overseas to study...", why would we not assume he would get on the next one going that way?

1. Hugh Wilson indicated that he went later, in 1911, after the Merion formed the committee and after the committee visited NGLA.
does this mean all of what HW wrote is to be taken as fact?
2. Travis puts the trip in 1912.
Yeah, the summer of 1912. Returning in late April is hardly summer.
3. Despite comprehensive records of all overseas arrivals, there is no record of a trip in 1909-1911.
Only you can speak on this as I have not looked into these records at all, nor do I plan to. I do have a hard time believing "all overseas arrivals" are documented in your research material.
4. There is no evidence anywhere that Wilson took two trips to study architecture.
5. Hugh Wilson played in the Merion Club championship in October or November 1910.
I live in Philadelphia, you can count on a Club Championship being played prior to November 1.

« **Reply #244 on:** January 03, 2007, 04:39:37 PM »

Quote

"There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both "Homemade". When it was known that we must give up the old course, a "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds"--composed of the late Frederick L. Bailey, S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton. H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chariman,--chose the sites; and a "Special Construction Committee" designed and buit the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, ---both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick---twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the Special Construction Commitee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E.Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr, Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.
The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course whch was done the following year."

What is the basis for saying that Flynn and Pickering and their experience was a factor in the original design of Merion? I am not disputing it, but Alan Wilson appears to be saying otherwise.

Quote

Perhaps you can see why I increasingly find my time is better spent reading and researching than trying to convince the TE Cirba twosome of anything.

David, honestly, I'd prefer to stay well away from what has evolved between you and TEPaul and others, all posters I respect greatly ironically. A pity that much of this thread has become distracted because, like JES, I think this is actually quite interesting and I have never even been to Merion! There does seem to be some possible friction between the view of Merion as a good, Open-worthy course right off versus Travis's review and Wilson's possible overseas trip after the initial go.
At the same time, a view of Merion as initially a rough draft would also suggest that CBM and Whigham, whose assistance seems to have all been given early on, deserve little credit for what later became a quality course. Or do I have some timing wrong there?

« **Reply #245 on:** January 03, 2007, 04:49:46 PM »

About the timing of the US Amateur 4 years after the opening of Merion East...I can be pretty certain that scheduling was nothing like it is today. The US Open has been awarded out to 2013...7 years out. I would be surprised if these events were scheduled earlier than the preceeding fall during a "scheduling" meeting. So, the initial product would have had little bearing if there were substantial changes made in those first two or three years.

« **Reply #246 on:** January 03, 2007, 05:18:21 PM »

Quote from: Andy Hughes on January 03, 2007, 04:39:37 PM

At the same time, a view of Merion as initially a rough draft would also suggest that CBM and Whigham, whose assistance seems to have all been given early on, deserve little credit for what later became a quality course. Or do I have some timing wrong there?

Andy,

Thanks for attempting to stay above the fray.

Your statement above is correct, obviously. One thing we do know is that the course was well enough regarded that it hosted the US Amateur (the biggest US tournament at that time) in 1916, and probably would have had to have been selected a year or two earlier, at least.

Also, as regards Flynn and Pickering; although they didn't "design" the course, Flynn already had designed a course in New England and Pickering had constructed other courses previously. Having their "in the dirt" knowledge would have been very valuable to the Committee and I can't imagine that they didn't function as construction experts on the project.

One thing curious that I question was Macdonald's raving about what a wonderful site the awkwardly shaped, narrow, street-crossing, 115 acre site on clay was. Huh?

Isn't CB the guy who looked all up and down the eastern seaboard for many years trying to find the ideal site for his "ideal course", and of course insisted it be built on sandy loam where he could emulate the great links courses he admired?

At the time, there would have been another 10000 farmland sites within 10 miles of Philadelphia at least as good, or probably better than the site selected. What did Macdonald even look at when he determined that the course where the road had to be crossed multiple times, where there was an ugly, cliffside quarry up in the corner, where there wasn't enough width on one side of the road to accommodate a long par four across it, where the land sort of sloped down into a bowl (which I'm quite sure was a bog at that point), where the natural soils contained as much sand as the Brazilian rainforest....what about the property would a discerning fellow like Macdonald think was "ideally suited for golf and the playing of same"??

« **Reply #247 on:** January 03, 2007, 05:25:53 PM »

"Tom, take DaveM out of it. It seems interesting in its own right that one of the cherished Merion stories may not be accurate. Of course, that may not mean anything of substance in the long run."

Andy:

A cherished Merion story??

I think the point of the story is Hugh Wilson went to Europe to look into architecture over there. I don't see that not being accurate. As I said a few times on here to my knowledge the dates he went and the amount of time he spend over there have never been very well known to Merion. This entire subject on here is sort of making a mountain out of a molehill, in my opinion. As to who it was that created Merion East and West I don't see changing at all after about 40 pages of these threads.

"Yes, that does seem to be an issue. But is there any reason other than Alan's written history that would make you think Hugh made a trip overseas before Merion was built?"

Andy:

Not really.

"But how can that be Tom? Certainly we have all potentially learned something very new with DaveM's discovery that might cast doubt on what had been accepted wisdom for all these years."

Andy:

I don't know how many times or in how many different ways I can get this across to you---I just don't see that at all. David Moriarty has made no discovery at all that I can see that would change the fact that Merion East and West was laid out, designed and built by Hugh Wilson and his Merion Construction Committee. David Moriarty can say anything he wants about his discovery that since Wilson was in GB in 1912 that means that everything about the creation of Merion East and West is now changed as to who did it, that Wilson was such a novice in 1911 that there was no way he and his committee could've built the course etc but I don't see that changing anything. The fact is he and his committee did lay out, design and build that golf course beginning in 1911 and that's just the way it is.

But you fellows can think whatever you want to about it. I don't see that changing anything at all either.

« **Reply #248 on:** January 03, 2007, 05:27:54 PM »

Quote from: Andy Hughes on January 03, 2007, 04:39:37 PM

The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England.

On his return the plan was gradually evolved[/color] and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course.

Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912.

The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course whch was done the following year."

Quote

Andy and JES II,

Travel across the Atlantic usually took 7 days or so, depending upon a few variables.

Alan Wilson's writings seem to clarify the timeline.

Why would he state that the land was purchsed in 1910 and that HIW was sent abroad as the FIRST step in the design process ? Especially if he didn't go until two years later, when the golf course was already routed, designed and constructed ?

It doesn't make any sense.

Do we know that the HIW listed in the Manifest of the SS Philadelphia is THE HIW ?

If so, why couldn't he have sailed overseas on a prior trip ?

In 1910 ? 1911 ?

The problem with David's theory, is that he's using the flawed logic that Tom MacWood often used. That is, drawing a conclusion and stating that if you couldn't disprove the conclusion that it must be true.

Alan Wilson stated that the FIRST step in the creation of Merion, subsequent to the purchase fo the land, was for HIW to sail overseas.

He further states, that when HIW returned from overseas, the plan was further evolved.

He then states that construction began in 1911 with completion in 1912.

Why does a name, in a ship's manifest in May, 1912, departing from Cherbourg, France carry more weight than Alan Wilson's writings ?

One is a single snapshot, but one frame, while the other is a chronological summary of the project.

Was HIW in the witness protection program for two years ?

And why is it that a trip to France in 1912 would preclude a trip to the UK prior to that ?

David Moriarty,

I've asked you three times. Why did you state that HIW would only travel on vessels of the American Lines ?

How do you know that ?[/color]

« **Reply #249 on:** January 03, 2007, 05:33:36 PM »

Pat,

I'm not sure about the motivation for your last question, but most trans-atlantic steamers stopped in France before making the trip across the atlantic from England.

Even the Titanic.

News:

TEPaul

TEPaul

Andy Hughes

Mike_Cirba

TEPaul

Andy Hughes

Andy Hughes

TEPaul

Andy Hughes

TEPaul

TEPaul

JESII

TEPaul

Andy Hughes

Andy Hughes

JESII

Mike_Cirba

Mike_Cirba

JESII

Andy Hughes

JESII

Mike_Cirba

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Kyle Harris