What's missing in this photograph? Why?

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

That's an interesting article you linked onto your post #16 on the Valley from Golf Illustrated August 1926 and some cool photos but I don't think I have ever seen a competent magazine like that one make so many mistakes in a single article of mislabeling the holes of photos as well as their yardages. I don't think they got one of them right. I've never seen something like that or to that extent before. Unusual for GI. I think that fellow from New York who helped out Willie Park in Jersey had taken over as the editor from Max Behr at that point.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
I was searching for a photo later than the one from 1915 that showed the DA, and wasn't having much luck, when I happened to come across a small paragraph that gave the correct hole numbers and mentioned in what issue the mistake was located.    Serendipity at work.

[Tom MacWood]

The first image is Walter Travis's drawing of 10th hole circa 1915, when he devised a reversible scheme for the course.

The next three images come from a July 1923 article. That is the earliest I've been able to find the existence of the DA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul, et. al.

I don't believe for one second that the right side grassed bank had any stabilization problems.
Nor do I believe that one small segment wore out to such a degree that it evolved into the DA.

It sure would have some stabilization issues when that high traffic area got compacted enough so that no turf could grow on it.

"High Traffic"
You must be kidding.
The entire golf course didn't open for play until the summer of 1920.
In addition, aerial and ground photos show the DA in existance in 1925 and earlier.
So you're going to try to perpetuate a myth that the DA was the product of heavy traffic ?

Think about this.
Look at the photo.
If heavy traffic caused the middle to become a bunker, that would mean that the grass faces to the left and right of that bunker would have to accomodate increased traffic, accelerating and creating even more wear and tear on those areas, causing them to become bunkers as well.

But, we know that didn't happen.

In addition, the last thing a prudent superintendent would do if he wanted to stabilize a slope, was let a sand bunker just evolve on that slope.

Early photos show that the bunker is man made, clearly a constructed, deep pit bunker with steep sides, not a bunker created through casaul foot traffic.

Whom, in their right mind would walk down into a deep sand hole, then, back up the front side.

It's undocumented statements such as yours that perpetuate myths.

In addition, early photos show that bunker offset from the putting surface.
At one time, in the mid 60's that bunker was right up against the putting surface such that ball extracted from that bunker, onto the front of the green, would roll back off the green and down into the bunker.

I believe it was just prior to, or subsequent to the Walker Cup when a lip or mini-berm was added to prevent that occurance and probably to deflect surface water as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,  

I'll let you and TP duke this one out since I already have my mind made up and your exchanges are much more entertaining.  But keep in mind that you're essentially saying John Arthur Brown, President of Pine Valley and a member of the Club from 1918 until his death didn't know what he was talking about when he used that very article to summarize, in part, the planning and building of the course in the club history, in addition to Club records and his own memories.  

JMorgan, TEPaul will be the first to tell you that there are flaws/errors in the history of the club.

You would have us accept vague recollections, many, many years reomoved over photographic evidence.

John Arthur Brown died in 1979, , three (3) and twenty one (21) years before two of the histories of Pine Valley was published.

Plus, accounts from several founding members, including Simon Carr.  And then to dismiss all of these accounts because they are potentially "unreliable written accounts" on one hand while citing another written account derived from some of these same written accounts -- The Golden Age of Golf Design (in more than several posts to bolster your positions in other discussions, I might add) -- as if that book was delivered to your doorstep by Moses through Geoff, when he -- and no offense, he did what authors do -- got his information from these readily accessible, self-same sources ... you're speciously trying to fit facts into your own preferences if I do say so.  That Sayers quote is also in Club records.


The photographic evidence and physical facts are irrefutable.
As to Geoff's comment, he merely repeated the myth, and, if you'll read closely, he states on page 60, beneath a photo taken in 1925 or earlier,
"note the small sand pit in front of the green, which EVIDENTLY evolved on its own.

Look at that picture, circa 1925 or earlier (remember the entire course only opened for play in 1920) and tell me that that's not a man made constructed bunker.



Now look at the picture above, before the bunker was there.
Do you notice any difference in the topography between the picture above and the picture on page 60 in Geoff's book

The picture in Geoffs book shows a mound, a footpad into which that bunker was built.

And, it shows that bunker clearly OFFSET from the slope, not in it.

You can choose to accept undocmented folklore, I'd prefer to rely on the facts as documented by the photographic and physical evidence

[Patrick_Mucci]

There are a couple of maintence crew members there that are third and fourth generation employees. When I asked the older generation (before they retired) how the DA evolved, the answer was that it was created by a washout, the powers that be at the time liked it, left it and it then matured over time into the bunker we have today. Even with the modifications to divert water around it, it still washes out on a regular basis and I can't even imagine how bad it washed out when everything funneled to the front.

Alan,

That can't be true.

The photo in Geoff Shackelford's book, on page 60 clearly shows the DA bunker offset from the front slope and elevated on a minifoot pad

If someone could post that photo, you'll see how far off the grassed slope that bunker is.

In addition, look at the massive bunker left of the DA.
Why didn't that erode.

And if water was cascading off the green, down the bank, into the DA, why create a swimming pool as a hazard.

The explanations don't make sense and the photographic and physical evidence refutes the legends

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick M, the experience I have with sand sites is it is not the topography of the site that leads to sand movement, it is the wind blowing the sand that causes the biggest problems (granted an west-east slope will wind erode faster).  

Tim, Pine Valley is NOT known to be a windy site.


If you study the evolution of Dune formation, you will see how something vertically small, like Beach Grass, can be instrumental in catching and despositing blown sand.  My guess is that the trees were being planted to deminish the verocity of the wind and thus, it's erosive effect.
I think your guess is off the mark

Blown sand not only is a problem for the area it erodes from but can be detrimental to downwind turfgrass.  Much like the areas between bunkers and greens, sand buildup on turf can be a major factor in the turfs decline.

Tim, have you ever been to Pine Valley when the wind is blowing hard ?

Would you equate the wind at Pine Valley with the winds that sweep NGLA and Shinnecock ?

TEP, I wound tend to agree with you.  Just look at it from a Soils Mechanics point of view.  You have a situation where a steep slope abruptly changes to a much flatter slope.  Since we all know that water travels downhill and the steepr the slope, the faster it travels, it makes sense to assume that where a slope flattens, there will be a highly saturated area - more water entering than can leave.  Even after a rain event and the surfaces dry, there will still be subsurface water draining into that area due to the porous nature of the sandy soil.  And once the protective turf "carpet" has been breached, the combination of surface and subsurface runoff can move a lot of sand particles (which don't have the cohesion of clays) in a short period of time.

Tim, unfortunately you and just about everybody else are laboring under a false set of facts.
Namely, the LOCATION of the DA.
It was NOT in the bank, but offset from the bank.

If someone could post the photo on page 60 of Geoff's book you, others and that idiot savant would see the light and the error of your ways.

Look at the physical facts provided by the photographic evidence instead of listening to myth perpetuators.


And as to the assertion that tif foot traffic was an issue, the supt. would just redirect players, HUH???  To where?  That's pretty much the access point. Although I believe back left be used, golfers generally don't like to backtrack.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Thanks for the find.

Now we know that the entire course was ONLY open from 1920 and that the DA was there in 1923, hence the theory of excessive traffic causing erosion to that broad bank, resulting in the DA is erroneous.

Everyone seems to be uniformed about the LOCATION of the DA. 

It was OFFSET from the green and grass bank leading to it

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim:

It appears the majority of the original instability problem with Pine Valley was related more to water than to wind. They had a couple of rain events early on (even some of the dates are mentioned and are part of the record of the club) did a lot of damage to the course. But since Pat Mucci (now apparently our new geology expert) doesn't believe any of it perhaps it never happened and is no more than Pine Valley myths or lies. It seems to me there are a few on this website who believe many of these significant clubs and their memberships did a whole lot of purposeful lying or just making up of stories out of whole cloth.  

TEPaul,  I have a suggestion for you.   Look at the photo of the DA on page 60 of Geoff's book, then perhaps you'll finally understand that bank stability, traffic and drainage had NOTHING to do with the creation of that bunker.

In fact, if someone would post the picture below, with the picture on page 60, you'll see for yourselves how the myth is destroyed.

Physical and photographic evidence clearly demonstrate the absurdity of your position.

Whether that highly unusual and famous bunker first began as a sand depression or semi-pit due to water collection or whatever (even if it was orginally turfed on top, I certainly can tell you at some point the club definitely turned it into a formal bunker. Check out its steep earthen sod vertical walls. That part of it is certainly not something that could occur naturally on that massively sandy site.

You don't even know where the original bunker was located, nor do you understand that it was in a mound, an elevated footpad, NOT into or at the base of the bank pictured below.

You're wrong on this issue and the photos prove it.

Why do you defend maintaining the status quo over revealing the truth ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Look at this photo from the same time period. The bunker has the the tallest face of any photo shown so far and it really looks to be right against the front of the green, even though it's on the 'pad'.


http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1926/gi255c.pdf

You'll find it on the third page, middle right photo, and it's not labeled correctly, but you'll easily know which one it is.
Blow it up to 200% and you'll see how it is attached to the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Please look at the 1925 photos of Pine Valley that appear in Geoff Shackelford's book on pages 53 and 66, along with the others
Where are the trees that were allegedly planted to "shield" the fairways?"

Pat:

If you're really interested in the evolution of Pine Valley and particularly the tree planting program that they referred to as "stabilizing the course" what you need to do is learn how to do research and that pretty much requires reading and understanding the historical information in that evolution. Apparently you're doing neither for some reason.

Producing two 1925 aerial photos with excellent clarity, is both research and evidence of Pine Valley's physical state at that time.

The aerials on pages 53 and 66 are from 1925. The "stabilization program" took place between 1927 and 1932 in which 3,000-5,000 trees PER YEAR were planted. For starters have you actually considered that 1927-1932 comes AFTER 1925 and not BEFORE?  

Tell or show me where 5,000 trees per year were planted, for several years, using the 1925 aerial as your starting pont.

Then, look at the 1938 aerials, when your alleged 5,000 trees per year would be 11 to 6 years old, and show me where they are.

Seperate fact from fiction by identifying the difference in the 1925 and 1938 photos.

By the way the trees planted in that "stabilization" program were seedlings and obviously very small when they planted them. They cost $6.00-$8.00 per 1,000!!

That's 3,000-5,000 trees planted PER YEAR and according to the club 70% of them took. That would be 10,500 to 17,500 trees or are you going to say you don't believe that either?

Let's see, should I believe my eyes, or your say so ?   
The 1938 aerial/s don't seem to confirm your position.

Of course I never said that was the last time Pine Valley planted trees, it wasn't, but we are talking now about that "stabilization" program between 1927-1928 that Warner Shelley mentioned in his Pine Valley history book.


Let's not take either of our words for it.
Look at the 1925 photos, look at the areas you feel needed stabilization, look at the 1938 photos, do the 1938 aerials confirm of refute your contention ?

By the way, Warner Shelley would probably know first hand as he was probably there then. I remember him and he lived a good long life but he was a member at PV for close to 60 years.

I've been over all this with you a number of times in the past few years. It's from Pine Valley's own history and records but if you choose not to believe it that's your problem and not mine or Pine Valley's.


I don't believe it because the photographic evidence doesn't support it.
You insist on trying to ram this down everyone's throat without producing a shred of documented evidence, while at the same time dismissing documented aerial photographs that seem to refute your contention. 

For your own sake you should probably henceforth just keep quiet on this issue instead of opening your mouth which just shows how uninformed you are despite my constant efforts to point out the history of the course.

Unlike you, I'm not going to perpetuate a myth or myths about the golf course.
Photographic evidence takes precendence over vague third party recollections.
When you look at the photo of the DA in Geoff's book, on page 60, you'll see how wrong you are about its location, function and genesis.

With the help of Jamie Slonis's historic aerials I was also able to prove you wrong about the 12th hole and how invasive trees became long after the alleged massive tree planting program.

I'd prefer that the truth be known rather than perpetuate a myth in order to endear myself to the goling community 

"TEPaul wants you to believe his theories versus your own eyes."

I'm sure there's nothing wrong with your eyes or anyone else's on here, but first to understand this evolution it helps to get the chronology right on the evolution.


The dated aerial photos provide the proper chronology, you just choose to ignore them to suit your purpose/theoris 

"Since when does perfectly level ground need stabilization?"

Level ground? Did you say you've actually been to Pine Valley? If so, is it your obsevation that Pine Valley is all level ground?

Are you saying that # 7 isn't flat ?
# 1, # 6, # 12 ? and to a slightly lesser degree, # 9 ?
[/size]

On some of the ground that may be fairly level where trees were replanted may be some of those areas that Crump originally cleared to look at prospective hole corridors but never used. I've explained where some of them are to you before too but I guess you didn't understand that either.

I've also explained to you where some of the very unlevel ground is where sliding sand necessitated stabilization which was done with trees or terracing and vegetating the terracing.

Then it should be easy for you to identify the areas where 5,000 trees were planted for six straight years .... shouldn't it ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
Look at this photo from the same time period. The bunker has the the tallest face of any photo shown so far and it really looks to be right against the front of the green, even though it's on the 'pad'.


http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1926/gi255c.pdf

You'll find it on the third page, middle right photo, and it's not labeled correctly, but you'll easily know which one it is.
Blow it up to 200% and you'll see how it is attached to the green.

Jim,

I'm not so sure that the photo you posted pinpoints the location of th bunker.  It's rather dark which mutes the relationship of the back of the bunker to the bank.  The lighter photo that Tom MacWood posted provides a clearer, more detailed image.

I think you'll get a better, more accurate comparison with the image provided by Tom MacWood and the original image JMorgan posted.

A few things are evident, namely that wind and foot traffic didn't create the bunker

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

You're acting the fool here. None of this exists in a vacuum of time or space. A picture is but a warped viewpoint of an infinitesimally small moment in time. You've been tripped on this before and will continue to be tripped up on in the future so long as you are under the false presumption that a picture is actually worth a thousand words. 

Haven't you considered maintenance traffic, golfer traffic, et. al adding up over the years? Do you know how soil compaction works? How traffic and environmental factors in that area add and compound each other? I don't know, but my theory is based in understanding the most basic soil scientist would have.

Fact is, you get years of build up and then one large event occurs that breaks the camel's back.

Then you get an idea for a bunker - and you follow through on it.

We cannot have a rational discourse if you are going to continue to take statements out of context to fit your paradigm.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You're acting the fool here. None of this exists in a vacuum of time or space. A picture is but a warped viewpoint of an infinitesimally small moment in time. You've been tripped on this before and will continue to be tripped up on in the future so long as you are under the false presumption that a picture is actually worth a thousand words. 

I haven't tripped on any photos.

Haven't you considered maintenance traffic, golfer traffic, et. al adding up over the years? Do you know how soil compaction works? How traffic and environmental factors in that area add and compound each other? I don't know, but my theory is based in understanding the most basic soil scientist would have.

Kyle, please, if anyone's acting the fool, it's you.
You want us to believe that in three years or less use, from 1920 to 1923 or earlier, that foot traffic was so heavy that it cause compaction on a STEEP slope leading to the erosion of the bank which evolved into a bunker.

It's an absurd theory.

And, if foot traffic was so heavy on an approach 45 feet wide, wouldn't it be even heavier on the same slope only 30 feet wide ?
Wouldn't the creation of a bunker in the slope compress and narrow the traffic area causing even more compaction ?
The answer is unequivically YES, and, if that's the case, it would accelerate erosion on the narrower bank, causing bunkers to evolve at the flanks of the newly created bunker.

Your facts and your logic are seriously flawed, as is your theory and conclusion.

Fact is, you get years of build up and then one large event occurs that breaks the camel's back.

What are you talking about ?
Have you read what you've typed ?

Then you get an idea for a bunker - and you follow through on it.

Then, why didn't the process repeat itself at the flanks, which would have experienced even more traffic, compaction, erosion, etc., etc. ?
Your theory has no merit.

We cannot have a rational discourse if you are going to continue to take statements out of context to fit your paradigm.

I didn't take anything out of context, I relied on your written words.
Your theory doesn't fly for a number of reasons, don't take it personally, you just have your facts and your logic wrong.

[TEPaul]

"With the help of Jamie Slonis's historic aerials I was also able to prove you wrong about the 12th hole and how invasive trees became long after the alleged massive tree planting program."


Pat:

You definitely never proved me wrong about anything on #12. Perhaps you think I said the 1927-32 "stabilization" program at which time 3,000-5,000 trees per year were planted in which 70% took were planted within any bunkering. I never said anything like that at any time. The trees covering those bunkers on that hole were obviously planted later or grew in there later.

It has always been my belief that PV should remove all the trees within or blocking the shot angles of the bunkering on the course period. I do not believe any of that was done during that 1927-32 "Stabilization" program.

The problem with you is you're just not familiar with the detailed history and evolution of that course and it keeps showing in almost every post you make on the subject. You get very confused very easily about what actually happened out there, when and why.

I've done thiis hole by hole before on where trees were planted to cover those areas of the course where Crump considered hole corridors and such which were never used but apparently you missed that too.

Again, I would recommend removing all the trees within bunkers and surrounding their shot angles. I would not recommend going back to 1925 because that was before those areas that were cleared for hole corridors that were never used were replanted and before the club's 1927-32 "stabilization" program. There is no reason to remove the trees in either of those areas, but if the trees were removed within and surrounding bunker shot angles the course would be just fine, and to the left of #12 is one of those areas. If they took those out the green or a large part of it could be seen from the right tee at least and more so than now from the back tee. I would also recommend taking all the trees out about 40-50 yards deep on the left side of #13 because the record shows Crump wanted players to see the flag from the tees. I would also recommend removing enough trees all along the right of #6 to show the green from the tee. I think both of those holes done that way would serve to visually confuse or unsettle the player somewhat on those tees.

I would not recommend taking the trees out that block a straight approach from the very left side of #11 because I think those trees serve a very important strategic function on the tee shot.

[TEPaul]

I think the 1923 article photo on Post #77 is the earliest I've seen of the DA too.

Now the differences in that photo from the first photo on Post #3 should be analyzed. I've assumed the first one on Post #3 is from 1921 for various reasons in that photo but who knows?

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

The only thing wrong with my theory is that you don't agree with it.

You're assuming a few things here:

First: That the attitude and attention paid to the bank before and after the creation of the DA was the exact same (Or, in other words - nothing was learned about how to maintain that area).

Second: That the superintendent/membership actually cared about the maintenance of the area (I never said the DA was created as a way to solve the problem of compaction, merely that it was created as a result of the problem).

Third: That the creation of the DA bunker was not part of a more holistic maintenance process for that area. (Build the bunker, restabilize the area - move forward. I think we can all agree that more effort is put into maintaining bunker surrounds than grass banks).

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
What that photo does show is a bunker that is flashed up more than in any other photo so far, and you have to have a backer to do that.

[Rick Sides]

If I had to guess when the D.A. developed, I would have to guess between 1920 and 1923.  If you look at JMorgan's first b&w  picture from post 3, that picture was taken between 1915 and 1919. I can tell that because this photo was published in Pine Valley's History by Warner Shelly on page 50 and it also appears in Harry Colt's book, Essays on Golf Course Architecture, published in 1920.  In this picture I really don't see the D.A.  However, in Tom MacWood's b&w photo from 1923( post 77) you can see the beginning of the D.A.  As I stated earlier, it is not impossible for a hole like the D.A. to develop naturally on a plateau green in a short period of time with sandy soil and heavy rains.  I told the story earlier about a bunker/hole that has developed, also on a plateau par 3,  at my home course in the last two years from the heavy summer rains.

[TEPaul]

"If you look at JMorgan's first b&w  picture from post 3, that picture was taken between 1915 and 1919."


Rick:

Trying to pin down the date on that first photo from the tee on post 3 has been really confusing and confounding me.

At first I thought that massive amount of sand behind the green might've been when they redesigned the 17th hole and redid the green to Alison's specs and that would've been in 1921 but now I think it must have been taken as Crump was building the original 17th green. That had to have been in early to mid 1915 as three more holes (#11, #16, #17) were opened for play in the first half of 1916. Plus one can clearly see various trees along the left side are much smaller than the photograph from the tee that appeared in the August 1923 issue of the USGA's Bulletin (photo in post #77). The difference in growth of some of the same trees looks to be about 7-8 years to me.

Now, if that is true that the first photo in post #3 was taken in 1915, then that would probably mean the first photo on the initial post was very likely taken towards the end of 1913  or the beginning of 1914 as there is good deal of difference with the front bunker between those two photos. The first is clean sand flashed right to the green surface and the second has some grassing on the face with a good sized sand mound at the base of it. That might've been the result of that clean sand flashed face in the first photo coming down shortly after it was constructed. We can also see in later photos of that front bunker that the sand mound at its base is gone.

Since the first photo on the initial post that shows no DA is that early I suppose it's quite likely that the DA began to appear due to some kind of depression and was therefore turned into a formal bunker, perhaps by Crump and the crew as early as late 1914 or early 1915 or as late as say 1922 (we don't seem to have any visible photos of the DA between that one first photo that doesn't show it and the 1923 photo that does show it).

However, I should point out that very little if anything was done to the golf course architecturally between Crump's death in January 1918 and the 1921 Advisory Committee with Alison in early 1921 other than to try to maintain the course's condition which frankly wasn't that successful in the year or so after Crump died. Actually Flynn came in to work on the course's condition for perhaps six months in 1919 and Hugh Wilson became the green chairman at that time.

I also note that Alison's only 1921 suggestion for that hole says: "It is suggested that the banks which partly hiade (sic) the bunkers (plural) in the front of the green, should be removed." That would lead me to believe the DA was already there when Alison made that suggestion for #10 in his comprehensive plan for PV.

[Rick Sides]

Tom,
I would have to agree with you from looking the trees maturity that the first picture was taken perhaps during Crump's time and the second is probably no later than 1919. 

[TEPaul]

Rick:

If that is true it seems to me the DA was probably formalized into a bunker during Crump's time or shortly afterwards and I think it would be inaccurate to assume or conclude Alison recommended it, not to even mention the fact his report on #10 never said or suggested such a thing.

It seems to me what Alison suggested on #10 was to remove or reduce that bank between the tee and the green that hid the front bunkering or probably the DA on the right side. That certainly is what he said in his report----again he mentioned front bunkers and not a single bunker which was all that was there before the DA.

I might also point out that it does not seem they did much or anything with that bank or rise between the tee and green even by 1923---as the photo in the USGA Bulletin in Aug 1923 essentially shows the same bank or rise. However in later photographs it seems to have been reduced quite a bit more and the path also seems to go downhill from the tee in that area other than sort of uphill in the earlier photos.

It would not be unusual if this work was done over time. There are actually a few other items from the Alison plan the 1921 Committee approved but either never did such as the front left greenside bunker on #4 or did much later such as the redesign and rebuilt of the 8th green to Maxwell's plan, not Alison's.

Actually the entire evolution of the two 9th greens is pretty interesting. Alison recommended moving that green to the right and he designed the present right 9th but to keep the left green in play until the right green was ready for play. The committee accepted that suggestion with the idea of putting a drinking fountain where the left green was with a view of the valley but eventually they chose to keep the left green and had Maxwell redesign it.

[Rick Sides]

Tom,
That's really interesting stuff about the 9th green(s) evolution.  I imagine back then when the trees were not behind the green(s), as they are today, that would be a great view of the valley below and a suitable spot for a drinking fountain.

[Tom MacWood]

If I had to guess when the D.A. developed, I would have to guess between 1920 and 1923.  If you look at JMorgan's first b&w  picture from post 3, that picture was taken between 1915 and 1919. I can tell that because this photo was published in Pine Valley's History by Warner Shelly on page 50 and it also appears in Harry Colt's book, Essays on Golf Course Architecture, published in 1920.  In this picture I really don't see the D.A.  However, in Tom MacWood's b&w photo from 1923( post 77) you can see the beginning of the D.A.  As I stated earlier, it is not impossible for a hole like the D.A. to develop naturally on a plateau green in a short period of time with sandy soil and heavy rains.  I told the story earlier about a bunker/hole that has developed, also on a plateau par 3,  at my home course in the last two years from the heavy summer rains.

Good find...from the looks of the other PV pictures in the Colt book my guess is those photos were taken closer to 1915 than 1919. I agree with you, I don't see the DA in that photograph.

[Rick Sides]

Tom M,
I  too agree that it's closer to 1915 because if you look at the Colt book, the other photos are also from around 1915 like the famous picture of Tilly and the lady on the 5th tee was from 1915 I believe.