Paul:
You just said this;
"The evidence to this point (routing and hole details) is easily enough to give Colt equal credit. How many dozens of posts have you made, on GCA, implying that Crump alone is the architect of Pine Valley? (If it was a clear cut as you claim, we wouldn't have had discussions of Encyclopedia Britannica proportions.)"
I'll just start right there with this remark of yours in an attempt to set this entire PVGC/Crump/Colt discussion between us straight mostly in an attempt not to rehash all the minute and detailed discussion of PV/Crump/Colt between us at this point.
The evidence to this point (routing and hole details) is most certainly NOT enough evidence to give EQUAL design and archtiectural credit to Colt.
You made a case for what you think Colt might have done on that course and I made a case for what I think Crump might have done on the course. That's a good basis to have a discussion or even a good debate about how PV came into being in detail.
But you've proven very little if anything. It's your assumption only and your assumption without proof does not make a valid conclusion. Neither does mine.
And so what I've been advocating all along (which you seem to have missed) is a commonsense review of all the detail that's known about PVGC's exact and detailed creation by reexamining the evidence of it. At this point neither one of us has been able to do that completely--not by a long shot, in my opinion. What we've both done is reevaluate SOME of the evidence. There's other evidence surely neither you nor I have even seen.
Some of that evidence I came up with on my own and some you came up with on your own. Now that evidence has to be reevaluated to try to get to the truth of who did what and when to whatever degree that ever may be possible at this point 85-90 years later.
What evidence did either of us come up with that's particularly relevent that may change the understanding of who did what from what it's been for 90 years.
1. As far as I can tell I'm the first person to realize the significance of that date on both topo routing maps. And frankly although that might seem like a very small point to most it's in fact huge. That alone can start to set some early timelines which can possibly go a long way to proving who came up with various things and when. Obviously whatever can be basically proven as to have been arrived at prior to Colt's arrival at PVGC that got built have to go to Crump (unless it can be proven that someone else prior to Colt may have influenced Crump!). Once Colt arrived things become much harder to attribute to who between them came up with them obviously.
2. The blue lines on the routing map. As far as I can tell I might be the first person in 90 years to have even noticed the significance of those blue pencil lines on that routing (and hole design) topo map. I thought John Ott told me about those blue and red lines and the distinctions and the significance of them but he says he didn't. He says I told him. How did I even conclude that the blue lines were Colt? Simply by comparing the well known remark of Crump's about Colt's placement of #2 green and then noticing that the blue lines on that topo routing map shows clearly that green right where Crump is known to have said he didn't want Colt to put it, and where Crump definitely did not want it (that's the well known "No good" remark by Carr attributed to Crump in the 1921 remembrances). So that right there gives anyone interested in the details of the creation of PV (particularly the routing) a blueprint (no pun intended) to look for which one of them may have come up with what first.
But do all the blue lines on that topo routing map prove that the ideas of all the blue lines were Colt's? Of course not. Commonsense would tell anyone there could be a whole variety of reasons why that might not be true. What if Crump just told Colt where to draw some of those blue lines, particularly since anyone can see that Crump appeared to be a very poor golf architectural drawer? What if Colt was simply drawing the blue lines onto the hole bodies (basically the routing, or parts of it) of some of the things that Crump had come up with before Colt arrived? Are you telling me that these things are impossibilities? I sure hope not since Crump had very likely been all over that land with a fine tooth comb up to a year before Colt arrived. What do you suppose he might have been doing out there all that time previous to Colt's arrival? Do you think he was walking around looking at the sky if he was so dedicated to the idea of a golf course there--an idea, by the way, that was his originally.
So that's the beginning of the commonsense PROCESS that should be used to do all this accurately, in my opinion. And that process has by no means been exhausted by either of us by a long shot. Trying to prove things in that vein in favor of Crump is simply establishing various things that were written about the routing and hole designs previous to Colt's arrival that ended up getting built. To me that can begin to prove various things in favor of Crump vs Colt. And that's just a start
And that entire process should be continued in detail regarding all that happened in detail following Colt's departure. Following that same process for approximately the next five years of Crump's involvement there which was the remainder of his life can also probably prove various things eventually.
Following what happened architecturally in the ensuing years after Colt's departure (Colt spent a week possibly two at PV in 1913 and as far as I can tell never returned to PV or even America again) as Pine Valley continued to get slowly built can prove much about some of the evidence you seem to be using to make conclusions about what Colt did.
Such a piece of evidence would be that article by Father Carr in the summer of 1914. That article does appear to give a huge amount of credit to Colt. And I'd give a huge amount of credit to Colt too if the course had been finished in the summer of 1914 but it hadn't by a long shot.
So what does that mean? It means to me that anything that diverges from what Colt left that's not similar to the way the course got built definitely isn't Colt's--it's someone else's and considering how all those that visited PV following say 1914 tended to give Crump credit for the course culminating at his death in early 1918 certainly means a good deal to me.
So when you use a piece of evidence such as Carr's 1914 article in GI to establish architectural attribution and do this research justice you simply have to look beyond 1914 long after Colt left and certainly look at how much Carr's own remarks (as well as W.P Smith and others) begain to diverge from that 1914 article of Carr's in the ensuing years to certainly 1918 when even at that point the course wasn't finished.
And telling me that I'm bluring something bunker-wise is ridiculous. I'm not bluring anything. I know that golf course really well from being around it for 15 years and I know when I see numerous Colt blue line bunkering that was never done what that means. And I know how to analyze aerials against plans at any particular point too. And I also know when I see Crump's red lines much of what that means too---that's the way he wanted the course built and that's the way it was getting built. To the degree that Colt's blue lines may be under Crump's red lines means to me some varying degree of collaboration between Crump and Colt.
And what you've producted so far that is very valuable to analyze all of this from is that overlay of the two topo routing maps, particularly if it can be proven that the early one was just Crump's hand. That will undoubedly turn out to be a very valuable research tool and vehicle if and when it can be compared against whatever else may be found, textual or drawing, in the archives or elsewhere.
And again, you said this;
"....How many dozens of posts have you made, on GCA, implying that Crump alone is the architect of Pine Valley? (If it was a clear cut as you claim, we wouldn't have had discussions of Encyclopedia Britannica proportions.)"
I believe Crump, from what I can see so far Crump should be considerered the primary architect of Pine Valley (and I'm by no means alone) but not without probably the most extensive collaboration with others that the world of architecture has ever known, and maybe by a mile. But even with all that collaboration, in my mind, at this point (in the research process of the creation of PV) Crump deserves to be considered the archiect and certainly the architectural "editor"--a feeling shared apparently by others who were there such as Tillinghast, Thomas, Hunter, the Wilsons, Travis, Travers etc etc. And if you choose to use some magazine article that clearly says otherwise at least do this discussion and this research process justice and make sure the article is after 1918 when Crump died.
But I've by no means said that I ever felt Crump did everything alone. Actually I wrote a 3,000 article in the April issue of the Philadelphia Golf magazine about the Philadelphia School of architecture primarily concentrating on the "school's" collaborative theme and primarily revolving around PVGC (the mother of all architectural collaboration) that is about the opposite of architects working alone.
So I'm not saying Crump was alone at all, as you keep implying I did and am--there were numerous people he involved himself with but if the archtiectural attribution of Pine Valley does go to a single man I believe it goes to Crump and not Crump and Colt equally as you apparently do.
But my real point is none of this has been truly proven at this point, not by you and not by me, as you think it has and say it has, and whether it's mostly Crump, Crump and Colt equally, or even mostly Colt that's what I would like to find out eventually.