Biarritz is on the Bay of Biscay's southern end, at least 400 miles south of Cherbourg. Not close, but not an insurmountable distance to travel, presumably by train if Wilson chose to do so. If the Philadelphia sailed from England and then on to Cherbourg, it is likely the ship's manifest would list all passengers that departed from Cherbourg as the last point of departure, hence no mention of any UK ports. If this is the case then Wilson may not even have got off the ship in Cherbourg when the ship docked there to pick up some more passengers. An interesting thread. John Lovell used ship's manifests to confirm the dates and ships of Dr Mackenzie's arrivals and departures from Australia and New Zealand in 1926, better than having the original tickets which might not give some of the information from the manifests.
While I can see that "Hugh Wilson" may be a reasonably common name, the specificity of the initial 'I' would reduce the likelihood of it being some other Wilson considerably.
cheers Neil

David Moriarty:

First of all, Wayne and I have supplied you and others with a good deal of information on this thread and the other Merion thread. One excellent example of that is the fact that there is no way any of this Merion discussion could even remotely be carried on intelligently without the two Wilson reports and a ton of pertinent information from those numerous "agronomy letters" which Wayne and I have supplied on these threads. You didn't have any of that stuff which has appeared on these threads and either did anyone else on this website.

The only reason I am mentioning any of this is because if you do not stop making snide remarks about me hiding information or deleting multiple posts from that other thread for the purpose of hiding information for any reason we really will stop helping out you or any of these Merion threads.

Again, none of this could be intelligently discussed and would've been over long ago if we had not supplied these threads with some really relevent information, particularly those Wilson reports and information from the "agronomy" letters.

You should acknowledge that fact and cease with the snide remarks about us hiding information. On the contrary we have supplied the necessary information.

The only reason Wayne and I deleted our posts from that other thread is we have to live in this town and there are a lot of people who were starting to make us aware that we must be idiots to even continue to discuss anything with you for about the last 25 pages of that other thread. After about 1,000 posts on that other thread I didn't notice a single person that either agreed with a thing you were saying or was frankly very interested in it. Whatever the case you were trying to make on the other thread you totally failed to do it.

This thread, on the other hand, has some very interesting information from you and I think you will be more than satisfied with what I have to say about much of it but that's not going to happen if you continue those snide remarks about me withholding information on here. Without the information Wayne and i have supplied this subject would be dead long ago.  

RJ:

As you can see in my first post on this thread we have never known when Wilson went to GB in 1910 (or even early 1911) or for how long he went. When I say we, it may be fairly safe to say I'm including the Merion history books and their writers.

Given that fact, David Moriarty's post above makes a number of points regarding various possible events in late 1910 and early 1911. Given the facts that were presented by both Wilsons in their reports and the fact we've never known exactly when Wilson first went to GB to study architecture or for how long, I could see how all the facts presented by both Wilsons could still be accurate given that those dates are close, as David Moriarty said.

I do know that Wilson had spoken to Macdonald about agronomy at some point before Feb 1, 1911 because Wilson mentions that in what may be the first or second of his hundreds of "agronomy" letters to Piper and Oakley. And that Feb 1, 1911 letter mentioning that Macdonald had told him to contact Piper and Oakley about agronomy also puts Wilson in Philadelphia on Feb 1, 1911.

Did perhaps Wilson go to GB on his first trip for Merion if not in 1910 after Feb 1, 1911?

If Wilson did not go to GB before the golf course went into design and construction in 1911, as David Moriarty is now suggesting, then clearly Alan Wilson's memory is not just faulty on a date when Hugh Wilson first went to GB (actually A. Wilson did not mention a specific date for that first trip so it could've been in either 1910 or the first half of 1911 if he went over there and came back ready to design and construct the course) but on a very fundamental fact of his brother's whereabouts for a considerable amount of time as well as a most important design and construction progression regarding the course and Hugh Wilson---eg that Wilson did not go to GB until AFTER the course was designed and consturcted. I say that due to this remark in Alan Wilson's report:

    "The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr Wilson was sent abroad to study the most 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 the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course."

We can see that Alan Wilson would have had to make a really fundamental mistake in the creation of Merion if he said that on Hugh Wilson's return the plan for the course was gradually evolved, if, in fact, Wilson's first trip abroad was AFTER the course had been built and seeded.

I did not know that Wilson went to GB in 1912 but that most certainly does not mean he did not go over there to study architecture before the course was designed and went into construction.

Frankly, it's not unusual to me at all that Wilson would go back to Europe over a year later.

Here's why. The East course had been built and seeded by September 1911 and allowed to grow in for one year. During that year of grow-in there obviously wasn't that much to do on the course if anything and frankly Merion was still playing golf at the Bryn Mawr course which was shut down on Sept. 12, 1912 and the new East course was opened for play two days later on Sept 14,1912 after growing in for an entire year.

What better time for Wilson to go back to Europe than during that year long grow-in period between Sept 1911 and Sept 1912 when the course couldn't be used or probably even much worked on?

Also the issue of Mrs Wilson and Mrs Colt and Harry Colt's mention of his move to a old village in Berkshire has been totally ignored. It remains interesting because Colt would've had to bring Mrs Colt to America for her to meet Mrs Wilson if Mrs Wilson did not meet Mrs Colt in England, and seemingly at the Colt residence. Of course, I suppose that all could've happened in the 1912 trip but if Mrs Wilson was with Hugh on that trip why does that manifest mention that Wilson was single (traveling alone)?

While David has found evidence for a visit to the UK by Wilson that seems to come after the course was built, it makes little sense to me that they would build the course first and only then send Wilson overseas afterwards to study the great British courses. Seems arse-about. There must have been an earlier trip by Wilson that David has not been able to find yet in the manifests, otherwise the whole thing makes little sense. As my scientist wife is fond of saying - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Keep looking David!
My 20 cents.
Neil

To aid in  the timeline, the February 1912 American Golfer states that “Harmony reigned at the 18th annual meeting of the United States Golf Association at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel, Philadelphia, on January 13…”

At that evening’s dinner at “Table 3” sat one “Hugh Wilson.”

Therefore any traveling that he might have done in 1912 must have been after that date.

David, your above documentation is terrific and interesting, yet there still remains that you have yet to PROVE that the Hugh I. Wilson on that manifest is THE Hugh I. Wilson of Merion.

It may seem most reasonable to accept it is him, but most reasonable doesn't usually cut it...

Sorry to be a pain, but if what you are proposing is true it will certainly be a matter of surprise to many. Find the proof...

Wow, what rampant speculation.

Philip, how can we be SURE that the "Hugh Wilson" attending the USGA meeting in Philadelphia on January 13th, 1912 was THE Hugh Wilson from Merion?   Isn't it obvious from David's accounts that he was in GB, or France (studying the great French courses) at this time before leaving on the Titanic...or, wait, no, the Philadelphia, just a few months later?

Would he have actually gone to France for only 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 months??   Why, that stretches the limits of plausibility, don't you think??

Even more intriguing is the fact that he went ALONE to France.   After all, wasn't Wilson married?  

Hmm...let me think...why did famous Philadephians like Ben Franklin go to France alone?   Could it possibly be??

Why, that would imply that perhaps Wilson went to visit the ladies of Paris under the clever guise of going on a golfing trip, perhaps with friends?   Who ever heard of such a thing??  I guess that's where guys went for that sort of entertainment prior to the establishment of Myrtle Beach on these shores.

But, it gets better.   Alan probably had to cover for Hugh posthumously, so he intentionally confused the dates to make it seem that the iniquituous trip overseas actually had something to do with the layout of the golf course at Merion, when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that he had already learned enough in the TWO FULL DAYS days he had spent with guru CB Macdonald to design a world-class course, especially since CB promised to visit two times during the next two years.   So, since Alan was probably in on the clever ruse, and to protect the chastity of the Wilson household, his accounts are more concealing than revealing.

And what exactly happened out at NGLA during those couple of nights and who exactly were in attendance?   Was the entire Merion committee there??  Was it just CB, or is it possible that Whigham and perhaps Dev Emmett were also there, waiting to inititate the unsuspecting, uneducated Philadelphians into the joys of free-thinking, strategic golf?  

The mind reels at the possibilities.  

What's more, once he returned to Philadelphia, wasn't it clever of Wilson to fool everyone into thinking that his adventurous trip overseas with the Parisian paramours had actually entitled him to some level of architectural respect, such that the Committee then asked him to design the West course at Merion within the next couple of months, and then tycoon industrialist Clarence Geist had Wilson down to design his Seaview course the next year, and then the city of Philadelphia had so much misguided trust in him that they asked Wilson to design their first public course the following year.   If they had only KNOWN the TRUTH!

And the, perhaps the most egregious fallacy;   for the next 13 years the unsuspecting membership of Merion let Wilson make wholesale changes to CB Macdonald's original design, and let him work with that Bostonian Flynn, all without a single word of advisement from the great CB, and didn't for a moment realize the truth of their great mistake.  They let him destroy the original ALPS 10th hole, and probably let him re-grade the REDAN so that instead of tilting front to back like every other redan in the world, it titled back to front!  What an idiot!!  

It's truly a wonder that the Merion course that stood when Wilson died in the 20s was, and is, the masterpiece that has stood the test of time to this day, given the lack of continuous input from the dynamic duo of Macdonald and Whigham.

But, is that the entire rest of the story, or will this saga continue to play out on these pages?

See tomorrow's issue of the National Enquirer, aka GCA, for the next chapter!  

 

As for the implication of this trip . . .  there is a strong possibility that this is THE trip; Wilson's trip to study architecture abroad.  And the implications of that are many; some of them are listed above.  

it is my understanding that there is very little information about when Wilson went to Europe to study architecture.  So far we have no information which would support a conclusion of multiple trips, much less a trip to study architecture in 1910.  

David,

Just so I am clear on this...if you please...is it your position that Hugh Wilson took one trip to GB to study architecture...and that trip was after he completed a full version (although admitedly not final) of the course he was appointed to build?

David Moriarty:

I don't see anything about the events and dates you cite in your post #93 that could not be supported by all the information we've supplied to date.

If Wilson didn't travel to GB in 1910 he very well may've done it in 1911 before the course went into construction in 1911.

As I mentioned above it appears certain that Wilson (and his committtee?) had been in touch with Macdonald before Feb 1, 1911.

If Wilson went to GB following that date he had plenty of time to study architecture over there and get back to begin the construction of the course which may've begun in May 1911. Do you really think that possibitity is what you've referred to as a 'time constraint'? I thought you just said he felt these were 'men of action'?

We could always do a date back-check on that possibility by going back over these agronomy letters to see if Wilson was in semi-constant contact from Philadelphia with Piper and Oakley during this app three month time period.

Wayne and I have also always taken note of this six to seven months that the Merion history books say Wilson spent in GB studying architecture. That just seems like an awful long time to us, particularly for a man with a job.

Perhaps the six to seven months that has been reported in the Merion History books is the combined time of two trips or perhaps even more to GB.

And why are you avoiding what Alan Wilson said about Hugh Wilson going to GB to study BEFORE Merion East was designed and built? There's no question at all that Alan Wilson reports that Hugh went to GB before the course was designed and built.

That's a pretty seminal event in the history and progression of the Merion course. Do you really think the guy's brother thought Hugh went to GB for perhaps a few months before the course was designed and constructed if he never did that?

Hugh and Alan weren't just brothers, they were very close and business partners too. I think of all people Alan was probably in a position to be more aware where Hugh was for perhaps a few months and when than anyone else in this entire saga.

Alan Wilson to Maybelle Gunch (the Wilson Insurance Co. secretary):

"Hey, Maybelle, I haven't seen Hugh recently, do you know where he is?"

Maybelle:

"You know Mr Wilson, come to think of it I haven't seen him in a couple of months either. I just can't imagine where that young man has gotten himself to this time."

David Moriarty said;

"5.   There are surprisingly few facts supporting the conclusion that a golf trip also occurred in 1910.  Without facts, we cannot conclude that the trip was in 1910, despite popular lore.  The A. Wilson date alone does not establish when the trip took place, especially when we consider that his account was written over a dozen years later."

David Moriarty:

First of all in his report Alan Wilson does not give a date when his brother went to Europe. Had he, or had anyone else ever supplied a date regarding exactly when Hugh Wilson first went to study architecture in GB I never would've said in my FIRST post on this thread that the exact date Hugh Wilson went to GB first has never been known vis-a-vis any of the previous Merion histories.

Again, Alan Wilson, in his report, does not supply a date his brother left on that first trip but what he does supply is this description which you seem to be continuously overlooking or almost completely discount and minimize;

"The land for the 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 the 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 the West Course.”

The KEY POINT for the purposes of your hypothesis IS NOT an exact date! The key point is the words “ ON HIS RETURN THE PLAN WAS GRADUALLY EVOLVED’! Does that sound to you like the plan for the initial design and construction of Merion East from the spring of 1911 to September of 1911 when the course was seeded and allowed a year to grow in was gradually evolved AFTER the golf course was built and seeded?? That’s completely illogical and I would like to think that not a soul on earth, even you, would make a leap of logic that preposterous. But, alas, it appears you already have.

I think you better come up with a better explanation of why Alan Wilson wrote that other than your explanation abov---eg  ‘The A. Wilson date alone does not establish when the trip took place, especially when we consider that his account was written over a dozen years later.’

Once again, the point is not the exact date that you just mentioned above, because Alan Wilson never even supplied a date in his report. The key point is he said the plan for the construction of the East course began to gradually evolve ON HIS RETURN!!!  How can you overlook a huge point in Alan Wilson's report like that or just discount it as you did by saying it was a dozen years later? Nobody who was not on the Construction Committee was as well aware of what had happened at Merion East than Hugh’s own brother Alan. And that's obviously why the first Merion history writer, Richard Philler, asked Alan Wilson to write that report.

Furthermore, as I said yesterday that you seem to have totally overlooked is that when Wilson went to Europe in 1912 the East Course was built and seeded and growing in. Perhaps you don’t realize it but in that state there isn’t much of anything to do on it during that grow-in year. What better time to go to Europe again and study architecture? Perhaps at that point Hugh realized he may have the opportunity to get involved in some other courses which of course he did later----eg Philadelphia Municipal, Seaview, Phoenixville Kittanset and of course Merion's West Course that would be designed by he and the "Merion Construction Committee" the following spring (1913).

This stuff sounds like the kind of professorial nattering and fueding that Dr. Richard Feynman used to rail about.  Too much guarding of research information to the detriment of the quest for knowledge.  Everyone wants attribution and glory of being the one to discover something.  I suggest collaboration, even if opposing therories are at stake.  Everyone's details will eventually lead to the truth.  The truth shouldn't belong to one entity to be discovered, IMHO.  I think that those interested in the subject and will read about the efforts will naturally appreciate all that contributed, and understand who worked hard on the project.

I am struck that within the above discussion, that no one is talking about the manner or then current process of doing something like developing a club and golf course from scratch.   I'm not aware of any of those old courses that were built with the idea in mind that once it is finished, it is not subject to extensive remodelling and tweaking after the intitial construction.  It seems every one of those old courses were rudimentary laid out, then refinded.  Tom Bendelow seems to have started many, only to have them completely reworked.  If an actual knowledgeable person like TB would have many of his rudimentary ones redone, why not automatically assume a fellow like Wilson's effort wouldn't be "expected" to be changed after getting job one done; opening is to some sort of play?

I would try to place myself in the role of the committee and  Wilson and ask myself, what would I do if I had an inspriation to develope a golf club and knew virtually nothing about the process in advance.  These sort of inspirations typically ruminate in a person's mind for perhaps years.  Maybe Wilson first had some thoughts on it even earlier than 1909-10.  Maybe he (like many of you would do) sought out the scarce information he could find in books and word of mouth much earlier, and let that blossom into more defined action as the idea grew.  Maybe he went earlier to GB as a total ignorant, didn't know exactly what he was seeing, went to one of the obviously pre-eminent authorities on the subject (CB and W) for more info to firm up his intended actions, was told he needed to go back to GB again after being schooled on what he missed the first time because he didn't know much, went back again and again.  

Why is it not possible that the intent all along is to get the course going, seeded, playing, and tweak it as the committee found flaws, knew there would be many in the early days, and readily realized that their work and study would need much more time and years to get to a place where it would be world class?

I just don't think that a neophyte to GC design and construction, would take on a one trick pony project and even dare to consider they would get it right on the first try and open the course to play on day one as a masterpiece.  That wouldn't be logical today or in their times, IMHO.  

The key point is the words “ ON HIS RETURN THE PLAN WAS GRADUALLY EVOLVED’!

Maybe gradual meant several years through the 1910-20? The context of those words written many years later could have assumed that the process was always understood to take several years of repeated study and trips back to GB, and meetings with the top authorites on the matter at the time, like CB and Crump and few others so motivated to develope that new crazy fad game called golf, and started from near ground zero in actual knowledge of "how to".

Sorry David, while I was typing my thoughts, my wife distracted me to something else... some of my stuff is sort of redundant to your comments.  but still....

"TEPaul,
"I havent responded to you many posts because I haven't had the time.  It is difficult for me to comment on the A. Wilson report because I do not have it, and you deleted it from the other thread.  I'd be glad to comment on it if you repost it, but it seems you have decided to take your ball and go home."

David:

Yes, I can understand that you haven't had the time recently. Things can get busier for some than others at this time of the year. No problem at all about not responding.

I realize you don't have the entire Alan Wilson report, or the entire Hugh Wilson report. You don't have any of the agronomy letters and any of their interesting information other than what Wayne and I have posted here, you don't have anything from the Merion archives other than what we've posted here, or probably much of anything from any of the Merion History books other than what we've posted here. You do have some magazine and newspaper reports, as do we, as they're accessible over the Internet and most of them have been in the Merion archives for years anyway.

You seem to have access to that ancestry website that costs a few hundred dollars a year and that turned up a few interesting things that we were not aware of but certainly changed nothing about an accurate interpretation of Merion's history. Perhaps it's Tom MacWood that's helping you out with that research tool. We've been aware for some time that he subscribes to it or whatever.

I'm not going to repost any of this stuff as I said above and as Wayne said earlier.

You say I've decided to take my ball and go home?

Well, that's a cute little colloquial way to phrase it but yes that's a good enough way to put our declining to help you out with our research material from now on. In our opinion, if you want research material you can go find it yourself as we've done over the last five years or so.

Have fun and good luck. We look forward to your article on Merion.
 

"But as for the statement ""ON HIS RETURN THE PLAN WAS GRADUALLY EVOLVED . . . ”  I find that quote to be much less compelling.  I think we are all in agreement that Merion went through substantial changes over the years.  Travis calls it a "rough draft" in January 1913; In his review, Tillinghast notes that many of the bunkers have not yet been added."

David:

You find that quote to be much less compelling do you? Why would I expect you to say anything different than that?

You think that we are all in agreement that Merion went through substantial changes over the years do you?? Did it occur to you that what's important here is what Alan Wilson was concerned with and writing about in his report and not necessarily what we are concerned about today? It appears Alan Wilson was writing about the beginnings of both the East and West courses.

This isn't exactly giving you additional research material on Merion East's creation, although you'd never be able to find this stuff but perhaps you should consider another snippet of info I'd be happy to feed you as the last little morsel bite you're gonna get, unless, A/ I decide not to take my ball and go home, or B/ That I decide to return again with my ball after taking my ball and going home. Either A or B seem somewhere between quite unlikely to highly remote at this point and under the premises as Max Behr was fond of saying.  

William R. Philler who planned to write Merion's first history in 1926 wrote Alan Wilson and asked him to write a report on the creation of Merion (the 'beginnings' of the two courses) for the history book and here's the first line of Alan Wilson's reply letter to Philler;

"Dear Mr. Philler:
                         You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West golf courses for use in the Club history,......"

Do you find Philler's and Wilson's use of the word "beginnings" less than compelling too? Is there something about the definition of that particular word you don't understand or can't bring yourself to acknowledge here and now?  

It looks like everywhere you turn with the nuts and bolts of your hypotheses you get shot down as dead as a smelt but that doesn't seem to stop you from constantly failing to acknowledge the obvious.