CB Macdonald and Merion

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
Tillinghast did note Macdonald's assistance in 1/1913. I don't have a copy of the article but my notes state 'Macdonald's great assistance'. I'll see if I can get a copy of the article.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Tillinghast did note Macdonald's assistance in 1/1913. I don't have a copy of the article but my notes state 'Macdonald's great assistance'. I'll see if I can get a copy of the article."

Tom:

I'd certainly like to see that article. In a way, though, if Tillie said 'Macdonald's great assistance' and just left it at that it really is a shame, as no one will ever know specifically what that could ever mean.

As far a I'm concerned if that's all it says it could be referring to Macdonald's great assistance to all of them involved on that committee when they went to NGLA to visit him and got that crash course, which clearly Hugh Wilson and all of them gave Macdonald great credit for.

[Craig Disher]

It's not clear that AWT made those statements about Macdonald in 1913 - unless "Hazard" and "Far and Sure" are the same writer. In the Jan 1913 issue of American Golfer, it's the columnist "Far and Sure" that makes comments about the new course at Merion. It's interesting that for several months the column on E. PA golf is written by F&S, not Hazard. Maybe someone knows why this is so - or maybe AWT used different pseudonms so his views couldn't be tracked so easily.

As early as Dec, 1910, Hazard wote that Merion purchased the land for the course and that R.E. Griscom from Merion hosted C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who both viewed "the new land to be admirably suited to the requirements of the game."

In May, 1911, Hazard gives an update:

"The new course of the Merion Cricket Club is nearing completion in the planning. During the month Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald and Mr. H. J. Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects. Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion, seven of the holes equaled any in his country, and as our first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction."

Hazard stopped writing for a few months and in Oct 1912, just after Merion opened, F&S made a report after opening day.

He said the course was "constructed under the direction of Hugh I. Wilson, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, R. S. Francis, and H. Toulmin."  

and

"Some of the famous holes abroad have been reproduced and the course abounds in water and road hazards, although many of the pits and traps remain to be built."


Hazard returned to AG in Dec, 1912, but said nothing about Merion.

Then, in Jan, 1913, F&S reported that he played a couple of rounds with Howard Perrin and Hugh Willoughby and reported

"Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen..."

"To my way of thinking, some of the greens would be better if they were more undulating, but on the whole, they are very satisfactory... It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems conceived by the construction committee headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson . Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which he used.  For example, an attempt to reproduce the Eden green at St. Andrews has been made on the 15th and in my opinion, it has resulted in one of the few failures. The hole in question is a two-shotter and the sloping green is so keen and barren of undulations that the player is forced to 'skittle' his approach in fear of getting above the hole.  Many of the imported ideas of hazard formation are good, and the grassy hollows of Mid Surrey have been well introduced.  On some of the sand mounds I noticed the growing of something which looked suspiciously like the bents of Touquet. However, I think the very best holes at Merion are those which are original, without any attempt to closely follow anything obvious. The 7th, 12th, and 16th are gems. The 7th naturally demands an accurately placed drive or the pitch from the left can be very trying. I am told that there have been some objections to the 12th and this should immediately stamp it as a good one.... Other holes, even in their present condition are good. The 3rd is a fine drive, the 9th is another; the 10th is very interesting and likewise the 13th, although the green for the latter may possibly be a trifle large for the length.  The 14th offers a corking dog-leg drive of the road. But the 16th! - it is the 16th which especially appeals and lasts longest in the memory."

The critique sounds like it could have come from AWT.

This material from AG is all very interesting but pretty inconclusive as far as CBM's role in the design. My reading of it suggests that the AG writer(s) felt that Wilson and his committee were primarily responsible for the design. CBM's visit in May, 1911, during the planning stage, seems to have been to validate the plan that Wilson had developed.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Craig
All very interesting. I must have missed the December 1910 report. It is difficult to say what Macdonald's exact role might have been, obviously some kind of advisory role to the committee, but advising on what is hard to say. It is interesting that Macdonald and Whigham seem to visit as a team, although in January 1913 it is made clear it is Macdonald who was aiding the committee.

It looks like the first mention of Wilson is October 1912, but in the January 1913 article it also seems clear that Wilson - as head of the construction committe - was the central figure behind the plan or creating the problems as the author writes.

On the other hand it appears Macdonald was on site in the Spring during the planning stage. It is reported that after their visit that the course is nearing completion in the planning.

[TEPaul]

Craig:

Thanks so much for those Tillinghast reports (was F&S Tillinghast? Hazard was).

They're interesting but certainly not specific on MacDonald unfortunately. It's important to know, however, that Merion was not completed in the same form it's in today. In that way the course could be looked at as somewhat a work in progress for maybe 20 years. Some, such as Bill Kittleman, claim the course wasn't completed in it's present form until probably the early 1930s.

Initially, the routing progression was somewhat different on the front nine. This is not to say the routing of the course was altered exactly (only partially), just the progression of how the routing was played on the front nine but this initial progression apparently was given up quite early.

It's also important to note that in the early stage when that report was written (1913) various holes were somewhat different than they are now.

#1 was redesigned.
#2's green was moved back maybe 75-100yds
#6's tees were reoriented
#8's green was redesigned
#10 was redesigned on the second half
#11 was redesigned
#12 was redesigned
#13 was completely moved and redesigned
#14 green was redesigned.

It would appear #15 green may have been redone at some point as calling the present green an Eden green is surely a stretch, certanly given the green-end bunker scheme today. It certainly must have been a far more precipitous back to front green back in 1913 judging from Tillinghast's description since although it's dangerous to putt from back to front today given that early description and the differences in green speeds between then and now something about it's surface must have changed.

But the contribution of Macdonald, whatever it may have been, is vague to say the least. And every other source and report now available that credits Hugh Wilson with the design of the course is definitely not altered or brought into question in any way that I can see by those Tillinghast's reports.

As for the Mid Surrey hollows and Le Tourquet grasses mentioned in those 1913 reports--it's probably instructive to note the immense agronomic experimentation and alterations that went on from 1912 into the 1920s all probably contained in that enormous 1200 letter correspondence of Hugh Wilson's. That enormous file deals almost exclusively with the agromomics of Merion practically on a weekly basis from 1911 until the winter of 1925 when Wilson suddenly died.

Given how amazingly comprhensive and detailed Wilson was with the agronomy it's mystifying and a real shame that nothing appears to be left from the important architectural creation phase of the golf course but we're hopeful that we or Merion still might find all that and then if he was even as remotely comprehensive with recording the architectural creation as he was with the agronomic part of it I would certainly expect it would tell all and answer almost any questions.

Simply finding Wilson's apparently extensive European trip notes, sketches and planning maps alone would be a real mother lode find, in my opinon.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I suspect Far & Sure was Travis. He was editor of the magazine and was known to have a number alias. Willoughby and Perrin were talented local amateurs from Phila CC and Phila Cricket. The fact that he got the timing of Wilson's overseas trip wrong would point away from Tillinghast. It would not be surprising for Travis to complain the greens were not undulating enough. Le Touquet was famous for the use of bents in their bunkers which became one of Merion's trademarks.

[Craig Disher]

TE
You're right about the early course being a work in progress and nothing like what it has become. A picture from the 1913 article shows an early version of #9 from the tee. The mounds around the green are identified as "experimental."

[Mike_Cirba]

Craig;

I didn't know that Rees was around way back then?!  

Seriously, thanks very much for providing the article and accompanying pic.  Merion is one of the courses that seems to have evolved for the better in a lot of ways over time, instead of being an "instant hit", largely through the work done by WIlson, Flynn, Valentine(s), Kittleman, et.al.  To see it in a very raw state, as your pic shows, just makes one appreciate the collective genius of what came after all the more impressive.

Interestingly, this is what the 9th hole looked like shortly after Gil Hanse/Bill Kittleman's bunker restoration in the 90's.  As many of you know, the bunkers have since been completely rebuilt from scratch.  

[Paul Turner]

The mid-surrey mounds!  It really was a fad for a while.

[TEPaul]

What exactly is this "Mid Surrey" influence? Some call it mounds but Tillinghast as "Far and Sure" (or was that Travis) called that look he thought he saw at Merion "Mid Surrey grassy hollows". If it was hollows that either of them thought they saw in 1913 it doesn't seem to me they lasted at Merion. If they were mounds I could see it maybe a tiny bit but not really.

I think Paul Turner is correct that that look may have been a bit of a fad for a short time in that early (pre 1910 era) and then just faded out of use. I don't think it was much different really from the briefly popular idea or experimentation with "aplinization" that a few of those designers were trying, probably relatively briefly.

If you've ever seen some of the early ideas of "alpinization" used by possibly Tillinghast briefly or even some of the early European designers as well as some of the Americans, you can see why its popularity might have been brief--although some might deem it cool and quirky today I can't see how anyone could deny it was rudimentary looking--definitely a vestige of an early era of some remarkably rudimentary general architecture in America.

I say that for a couple of reasons. We just saw it in that early photo of Merion's #9 with the rudimentary and clearly man-made mounds on the left. And Craig reports they were considered "experimental". It's also known that Crump or Colt were considering some "alpinization" on PVGC's #3 hole down around the green (particularly on the right). And then the idea was given up.

We can also see from documentation from PVGC as well as Merion that some of the architectural work was considered,  particularly by Crump but maybe Wilson also, as "temporary" and maybe that was somewhat synonymous with "experimental". There were a number of things about the creation of PVGC that're very well documented that Crump deemed as "temporary", and obvoiusly "experimental"; things that he had every intention of going back eventually and changing. Some were done after he died, some weren't. Probably the most famous of those features at PVGC was the "pimple" on the 18th green. To Crump, it was a "temporary" feature until he could figure out another way of accomplishing what it was there for and used for!

It shouldn't be lost on any of us that some of these very significant courses of that era were intended to be real "works in progress" even if that may have taken years and even decades which in a number of cases it did. It should also not be lost on any of us of the enduring significance of the golf courses that were purposely developed and created that way.

PVGC
Merion
Myopia
Oakmont
NGLA
Pinehurst #2

And it should not be lost on any of us either that 5 out of 6 of those courses were built by so-called "amateur" architects. Obviously, one of the primary reasons that particular modus operandi (long term work in progress) could be followed so well by those "amateurs" designers is in most cases they were essentially the architect and the client rolled into one man. Obviously Donald Ross at Pinehurst #2 would be the exception.

If you ask me, given MacKenzie's treatment at ANGC and probably his relatively early departure we just might throw ANGC into that group too.

And finally those seven courses in some circles still today are considered to be in maybe the top tier of architecture in the world.

And this may not even have been an odd or coincidental happenstance! Actually found within that huge agronomy correspondence of Hugh Wilson's with Piper and Oakley there were a few letters discussing if this "modus operandi", this long term work in progress method (given that it was feasible) would not, in fact, be the BEST method to create true quality architecture and a true quality golf course. This wasn't idle chatter either. They were discussing it in the context of recommending this method as almost a "scientific" method or at least an "ideal" method and modus operandi. I will admit that much of what they were saying may have centered more on agronomy than architecture itself but it's certainly clear to me from that correspondence that they meant both.

The great irony in the cases of Merion and Pine Valley is that both architects died before the work was completed. What if they'd lived? What would their courses have finally and eventually turned out to be had they both lived good long lives? Both died in their mid forties!

In the case of Pine Valley there are some real clues remaining! But even knowing them, apparently no one today thinks they should ever be attempted now. And, I, for one, agree.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

JH Taylor designed Royal Mid Surrey and when Wilson and Crump were making the rounds it was the focus of much attention. Revolutionary, contraversial, admired and criticized. The course was built on very flat land and to introduce interest Taylor constructed his humps and hollows, a network of mounds, some extremely large, meant to emulate the seaside links. It evidently impressed Crump, Wilson and Tillinghast because the trio tried to work RMS's 'alpinization' into their Philadelphia area designs, all around the same time.

Horace Hutchinson's critique of the course was tempered, possibly because Taylor was a protege of sorts. Darwin was less diplomatic in 'GCs of the British Isles' 1910. "The Old Deer Park {RMid-S} is a pretty spot, but the course does not at first look attractive; its disadvantage may be summed up in two adjectives--'flat' and 'artificial', nor do the course's enemies forget to make the fullest use of them. Flat it is--as flat as a pancake, as may be seen at a glance, and the bunkers which are now innumerable as the sands of the sea, have been raised one and all by the hand of man. So much is certain, and on such a course there is a limit to our powers of enjoying ourselves; we cannot hope for the exhiliration that is born by the sea and sandhills and, in a minor degree, of fir-trees and heath." In around 1914 Taylor was back to the drawing board and tried to make his RMS features more natural.

I'm not sure I'd characterize 5 out of the 6 amateur projects--some of those guys built a number of courses and/or recieved serious help.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Paul,
Plase go to the IN My Opinion section and click on my name. You will then see a pretty strong article ands some minor images by JH Taylor himself on the mounds of Royal Mid Surrey.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Here is that old thread.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

It's good to see these old threads again--thanks for producing it. But I'm not sure your exact purpose in doing that. If it's to establish some new facts about Macdonald's contribution to Merion East, I think we've been over this before. There's no question at all how grateful Wilson and his entire committee was to Macdonald for his advice given during those two days spent at NGLA prior to Wilson traveling to Europe for at least six months of constant architectural study and hole drawing.

All the history books of Merion and all the old material left there give Macdonald a great deal of credit for doing that during those two days at NGLA. Wilson and the committee and the club portray those few days as a remarkable "instant education" in golf architecture from C.B Macdonald. But the fact remains Wilson spent those six months in Europe doing his own thing and doing his own drawings. There's nothing I've ever seen to say that Macdonald directly helped him with that or told him what to do---other than perhaps to give him some recommendations of where to go.

There's no question at all that the way Wilson and the Merion committee applied what Wilson saw and what he drew in Europe is far different in the way Merion East was designed and constructied compared to the way Macdonald applied what he found and drew in the way NLGA was designed and constructed. In a nutshell if the holes and designs of Merion are duplicate or even concept-copy holes or even features from Europe Wilson and his committee hid that and that fact extremely well at Merion East---and in that lies one of the most significant architectural differences between a course like Merion East and one like NGLA because Macdonald did not do it that way at NGLA!

If there's some new and different material out there, believe me, we'd all love to see it. But I don't see any purpose in rehashing old material that we've all seen and discussed before. You have a funny way sometimes of just rerunning old material as if it's new and as if we never answered your old assumptions and conclusions which we have on this thread over a year ago.

If there really is something new--I'd love to see it no matter what it says or indicates about who did these courses, generally or specifically.

[T_MacWood]

TE
This thread relates to the thread about passing down legend. This thread illustrates the difficulty and challenges encountered when questioning the status quo.

Many of these legends are now common knowledge....we are comfortable with these legends....it is clean and simple. Introducing other facts that may alter our perceptions often results in discomfort and a negative reaction...especially from those emotionally invested in the legend.

[TEPaul]

"TE
This thread relates to the thread about passing down legend. This thread illustrates the difficulty and challenges encountered when questioning the status quo."

Tom MacW:

You see, I see this differently than you do, as usual! This thread and the answers to you on this thread and the other thread you just started about passing down legend does not really lllustrate the difficulty and challenges encountered when questioning the status quo, it illustrates the difficulty and challenges encountered in challenging the status quo as you try to do with nothing to back up your challenges except some 90 year old magazine articles that everyone saw back then and many are aware of now that're just very general and do not indicate what you seem to think they do.

"Many of these legends are now common knowledge....we are comfortable with these legends....it is clean and simple. Introducing other facts that may alter our perceptions often results in discomfort and a negative reaction...especially from those emotionally invested in the legend."

If someone actually produced some real facts that Macdonald (and Whigham) came down here to Philadelphia for the purpose of helping immensely on the architecture or even the entire design of Merion East, I've no doubt at all that the club and members of Merion would probably be extremely happy to find that out. Most at Merion understand that one couldn't do much better in America at that time than Charles Blair Macdonald in architecture, the man who'd just produced that first great hallmark course in Southampton, The National Golf Links of America!! (Or was it actually Devereaux Emmet who was responsible for NGLA, as some off the wall researcher from Ohio has recently been trying to prove?).    

The only reason I can see that you'd say Merion would resist accepting the fact of Macdonald's architectural input here as shattering a legend (Wilson), is because this sounds better to you than admitting that no one really agrees with the research material you've offered because it's nothing new and really says nothing new  about Merion East.

[T_MacWood]

"If someone actually produced some real facts that Macdonald (and Whigham) came down here to Philadelphia for the purpose of helping immensely on the architecture or even the entire design of Merion East..."

Who said anything about 'immensely' or the 'entire design'? I simply said they advised the board, something they've never been given credit for depsite the overwelming proof. The fact that you and Wayne become so defensive when this is put forth, is an illustration of my point about legend. It is taken as an afront to the Wilson legend, but as far as I can tell it does nothing to lessen his historical role.

Sometimes you have to rely on logic (and multiple sources that make the same basic claim--like McD & HJW advising & visiting), you can not possibly answer every possible question (as far as I know there is plan with any man's name on it)....too many years have gone by.

For example what of the original design is Wilson's and what is the result of Griscom, Francis, Lloyd and Toulim's imput? Afterall it was a committe effort...shouldn't these gents be given some credit? Should we refrain from giving major credit to Wilson for the original design if we can not answer this question completely? I don't think so.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

The things you're beginning to say about Wilson, about Merion and now about Wayne and I being defensive are really just funny. The thing about you is you really have no idea about this thing you call the legend of Wilson that you think Merion is protecting so jealously and defensively. The same can be said about the way you think PVGC guards George Crump to the exclusion of others. I was hoping I'd never need to say this to you but it's true you've never even been here--you've never even seen either of those golf course and probably know virtually no one from either of them, is my understanding. So where do you get these ideas of yours that they're doing the things you say they are? I've lived right here for 25 years and been to both those places hundreds of times and know a ton of people at both. The things you say about both those clubs from your odd little magazine research perch in Ohio is just not the way it is----as much as you want to make it that way for some unknown reason!

It's just terrible to have to say this but I think Pat Mucci is right about you!  

[Donnie Beck]

Tom and Pat agree on something ??   I guess there is a 1st time for everything

[TEPaul]

No, seriously, Pat and I agree on many things, maybe most things and even to do with golf architecture---we both just have a very hard time admitting it!

And with Tom MacWood I don't want him or anyone else to think any of this discussion is personal--it isn't. I'm not even disgreeing with some of what he's proposing--I'm just telling him, as I have for a year or more, that in my opinion, he isn't even coming close to proving anything here and he shouldn't act like he is. We just look at the material he's produced that's been around for years very differently as a lot of people seem to!

[George_Bahto]

I've spoken (written) of this before but it might fit into this discussion. It is a portion of Whigham's eulogy of his father in law that appeared in Country Life (hwe ws editor in cheif for about 25-years.

I have never been able to come up with more info than this, from this brilliant man, part of the family who certain would have known the facts.

Of note is the portion about Seth Raynor and his "involvement" - certainly not the design - of Merion.

the title of the eulogy is of course, where I got the title of my book.


*

The Evangelist of Golf
by H. J. Whigham

Country Life
September 1939

Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him.

So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans.

Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect. He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read the contour maps he had brought from abroad. Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country. Having helped lay out the eighteen great holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography.

The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club, of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars. From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses. And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps.

strange indeed

[TEPaul]

" I simply said they advised the board, something they've never been given credit for depsite the overwelming proof."

Tom MacW:

This is just another half-assed remark of yours. What do you think that means? They (Macdonald and Whigham) advised the Board? What Board? Would that be the Board of what was then the Merion Cricket Club which was the cricket club (only tennis and cricket) and the Merion golf course that was a golf entity within the Merion Cricket Club? See you probably never even realized that. Or do you mean the "committee" that was appointed by the Merion Cricket Club to look into moving the Merion Cricket Club golf course from Bryn Mawr to Ardmore that consisted of Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, Francis and Wilson? They were the same "committee" that apparently all traveled to NGLA in 1910 to meet with Macdonald that's so well documented in the Merion history.

I was just rereading the five page report Hugh Wilson himself wrote at the behest of Piper in 1916 about the entire creation of the Merion East golf course. Have you ever seen that report of Hugh Wilson's, Tom? The entire first paragraph gives elaborate credit to Macdonald for those two days he apparently gave the entire "committee" at NGLA an education  in golf architecture before Hugh Wilson set off for six months of architectural study in Scotland and England. The remainder of that report only talks about "we" doing the golf course from the spring of 1911 until mid-September when the course was grassed, not to open for a year! Why, if Wilson gives him so much credit for that would he withhold it if Macdonald did more on site? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Do you think that time at NGLA just might be the time so many have given credit to Macdonald for including that entire committee, Wilson and Merion and many others too probaby including what was meant in many of those magazine articles? If Macdonald and Whigham came to Philadelphia and looked at Merion and pronounced it a good site with some apparently very fine holes do you really think that constitutes something deserving of any real architectural attribution when the rest of them apparently spent many months creating the course daily and then Wilson and Flynn spent years following that changing, developing and perfecting it! Do you really think Wilson or anyone else at Merion would have or should have given them real architectural credit for saying the site looked good and some holes did too?

You talk about "proof" of Macdonald and Whigham coming to Merion and giving advice. Proof of what advice, Tom? That's all any of us are asking you to produce and no magazine article you've produced to date gives that proof of what thay advice was.

This is no real difference from your inability to come to terms with the things that Crump was doing daily at PVGC for five years after Colt left in 1913. You once basically implied he was there during that time to watch the grass grow on Colt's routing and design. That's just total garbage and most anyone can understand that. And you actually talk to me about looking at this stuff with Logic? Where in the world is your logic and your common sense? You just continue to deny the obvious and I think you do that because I don't think you have any real feel for the way things were done back then out on those courses architecturally or even how they're done today for that matter. You just read these magazine articles, admittedly knowing nothing about Merion and you see something like that and think it deserves real architectural attribution.

Hell, I went out to Rustic Canyon before construction one time for a couple of days and probably gave Geoff Shackelford and Jim Wagner some advice that they asked mr for for some reason about a couple of holes. And the next thing I knew there was this story going around that I'd helped design those holes. That was completely untrue---I just basically agreed with some of what they seemed to want to do and maybe helped them make a decision. How do you know Macdonald and Whigham did any more than that?

You don't and nothing you've produced about Macdonald and Whigham's advice or contribution to Merion East says otherwise. It's time you come to grips with that fact and stop wasting everyone's time here. If you come up with anything more conclusive and specific I guarantee we'd love to hear about it and so would Merion.

[TEPaul]

George:

If you don't mind me saying so the use of Seth Raynor at Merion East in 1912 is by all means a real possibility. But you should certainly admit that Seth Raynor, at that time, was basically just an engineer from Southampton LI with no more training in developing a routing and design of a golf course than any other engineer with no previous architectural experience. Macdonald has said fairly clearly that Raynor was instantly impressive at translating a design into construction analysis and process. We all know how that would work. But design the golf course or its routing at Merion at that early time? I don't think so.

There's no question he may have translated earth moving requirements from a contour map and a design plan given to him as he obviously did at NGLA. Macdonald never said, that I'm aware of, that Raynor had anything to do with ROUTING OR DESIGNING NGLA though. Translating Macdonald's routing and design ideas into a construction process would be more like it, don't you think?

However, if Raynor was in fact lent or used at Merion East for his engineering expertise we would certainly like to know that! Although we cannot prove anything at all at this point it has always been our assumption that it may have been Howard Toomey who was used at Merion East as the engineer on that architectural construction project. Why do we suspect that? Because the principals who put up most of the money to build Merion East were railroad magnates! And guess what Howard Toomey's profession was? He was a Philadelphia railroad construction engineer! Does that sound like a logic connection since he was clearly around Merion East from very early on? There's no question of that as he shows up in many of those 2000 agronomy letters we have between the Wilsons and Piper and Oakley between 1913 and 1927!

[George_Bahto]

Tom: I certainly don't think that SR had anything to do with the design - no way

Am I wrong, or wasn't Flynn ill during some period of the East construction?

If so perhaps SR went down to help with construction or as you say engineering probs if there were any

I can really buy into that

.....  in no way do I take anything way from the Flynn-man and the wonderful courses!!

I'm continually amazed at how these great men often helped each other - advice and otherwise

do you see it happening often today??  does Faz ask advice from Pete??  or visa versa - hah

[T_MacWood]

TE
I just got back from the golf course and haven't had a drink yet...you obviously have a huge head start on me and I have no hope of catching up...but perhaps I can respond later (to your latest rant) after a glass or two of vino.