The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

Here you go...October 29th, 1905





Jeff,

Here's some more info from July 10, 1905

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

In re-reading your snippet from Scotland's Gift posted above (page 186) it clearly says he has the sketches in front of him before "continuing" his search for land.  He goes into detail on various sites and then mentions the Canal site offer.  This implies he was searching after the trip to GBI, and thus, perhaps that the first offer was in June 1906?

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

That's a terrific observation.

I think the timeline is starting to come more into focus.

There are still a number of outstanding questions, such as the relevance and location of the October articles, but overall I think we have a much greater collecive understanding of the origins of NGLA than we did prior.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Is it possible that the October articles were either premature, and/or reported a basic outline deal, with the paperwork taking another month and a half to complete finally?  It wouldn't surprise me.  As I have mentioned, I think we all have "time compression" issues when looking at the detailed issues of history. 

For example, we know the Civil War occurred from 1861-5, but there were a lot of lead up issues well before that.  While that is not the perfectly correlated example, things just take longer to develop than the final dates reported in contemporaneous accounts or history later.

[Andy Hughes]

Mike, thanks. So Dean Alvord=Shinneck Hills and Peconic Bay Realty? It was created to handle the 2600 acre parcel?

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

Precisely.

Jeff,

Its possible, but something still isn't ringing true to me and I'm trying to put my finger on it.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,

Is it possible that the October articles were either premature, and/or reported a basic outline deal, with the paperwork taking another month and a half to complete finally?  It wouldn't surprise me.  As I have mentioned, I think we all have "time compression" issues when looking at the detailed issues of history.  


Jeff,

I think I know what's bugging me about that explanation, and possibly why I'm having a hard time believing those October 15th, 1906  accounts were about the land of Sebonac Neck at all, and it's this;

In his book, CBM almost describes the land of Sebonac Neck as something of a consolation prize, and clearly not his first choice, although it may very well have been superior in the long run to whatever he was looking at initially.   After all, the proof in the pudding is pretty powerful in that regard.

Nevertheless, one of the things he tells us rather specifically in terms of timeframe is that he and Whigham rode over the course for 2-3 days on horseback and decided that it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price.   He doesn't state if those 2-3 days were concurrent, but one might imagine that's likely.

Then, he tells us the seller agreed to let them purchase 205 of the 450 acres and left open the exact placement, as CBM was given the opportunity to place it to best serve his purposes.

Then, he tells us they went back to "earnestly study" the land, looking for places where his classically derived holes might best fit, and so on, prior to actual purchase.  

Sooo....for those October stories to be about the course on Sebonac Neck, they would have had to do a lot more prior to seller agreement than just 2 days of horseback rides.  

The articles tell us the property had been mapped and then maps sent out to various foreign golf luminaries, and all sorts of planning activities had already taken place, all seemingly prior to getting seller approval.  

Do we think CBM romanticized his own story a bit about the horseback ride?   I really don't.    That part to me sounds like it's pretty concise.

And let's not forget that a full two months later, CBM now is securing the Sebonac Neck property where the exact boundaries were still not secure.

That December activity sounds much more like what CBM describes in his book as the seller agreeing to sell him the property under the assumption that he could place it wherever best suited his needs.  


***EDIT*** A bit of housecleaning on an earlier question.   CBM tells us he originally drafted his Founders Agreement in 1904 in SG, so that's the source.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,  

1.  I've wondered about that first sentence/paragraph as well.  One thing it accomplishes is a smooth transistion from the previous chapter in which CBM discussed the inception and preparation of the concept, including his 1906 trip abroad.  But your reading would be much more plausible of the sentence said that he "began" or "started" his search to find the property.  "Continued" indicates that he had already been searching before the trip, and that he was picking up the search after.   So I don't think that it is safe to assume that he is refering only to events that occurred after the trip.  
    For example, the first site he mentions is the Cape Cod site.  I don't think we can assume that he considered and rejected the Cape Cod site AFTER the trip abroad.   In fact, the 1904 letter mentioned that the site would be on Long Island, so the Cape Cod site had apparently already been rejected long before the 1906 trip.  
    Likewise, I don't think we can assume the Canal site WAS not considered and offer made until after the trip, especially since CBM told us that he decided to try and purchase the land within a few weeks of it having changed hands.

2. Also Jeff, as for your question to Mike, there is even some textual support for the notion that what was reported in October may correspond with CBM's description in Scotland's Gift of the developer agreeing that it would sell CBM any 205 acres out of the 450 acre parcel.
-- In both descriptions CBM and HJW had been over the land several times.  (Assumiing that riding it on horseback for two or three days counts as several times.)
-- In both descriptions the land is described similarly.  For example, the articles described the land stretching along Peconic Bay to a westerly point near Cold Springs inlet, and CBM described the land having a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay between Cold Spring Bay to the west and Bullshead Bay to the east.    Both also described the land as adjoining Shinnecock Hills, with the articles indicating that the land adjoined Shinnecock to the east and CBM not specifying.  The articles described the land as adjoining the SH Golf course land to the East; CBM described the property as adjoining SH Golf Course.

   Yet in Mike's answer to your question he would rather try to change the focus on even the possibility that this was the same land.  I can't say I blame him given that his entire argument about the land hinges on his UNSUPPORTED claim that no part of the SH Golf Club property was directly east of the land, even though he agrees that the land was adjoining!  ____________________________________________________________________________

Mike Cirba,   You seem to be suffering under the notion that you can just present anything you want as fact without support or basis, and it is my job to correct you if you are mistaken.   Not so. You need to back up your claims.  

You have repeatedly claimed that no part of the SH Golf Course land was east of the land CBM was considering.  You even posted a graphic on which you supposedly represented the SH Golf Course land.   Surely you didn't just it make it up to suit your argument, did you?   If not, then what is the basis for your repeatly stating this as if it were a fact?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Glad you brought that back up.

What is your source for contending that some portion of Shinnecock GC was north of the southern border of NGLA?  Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

As I said Mike, you cannot just make up whatever you want and leave it to me to clean up your messes.  You've claimed that no part of SH the Golf Club land was east of the land CBM was considering.  Back it up.   You indicated to Patrick you could prove your claims about the land.  So prove it.

I really want to understand how your process works.  Did you just make this up, or are you relying on erronious information?  If so, what information is that?   

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Very cool map, thanks for sharing.

As regards you land mass interpretation, I 'd respectfully disagree.   Shinnecock Hills did in fact, "adjoin" to NGLA's purchase, just as CBM said, but it adjoins to the south, not the east.    If the writer was looking for major landmarks to the east he'd have to be pretty blind not to see that the property they bought skirted Bulls Head Bay for a mile.

You've asked David several times to show where NGLA and SH were relative to each other in 1906.  Could you draw it out for us, since you seem convinced that you know that SH is south of NGLA.  My attempt is below, based on the 1916 map.  Was the 1906 northern boundary of SH significantly different than it was in 1916?  Based on my overlay drawing I'd still contend that NGLA could be considered to the west of of SH.  So, we'll respectfully continue to disagree.

He certainly wasn't imprecise about mentioning that the land of the purchase ran as far east as Shinnecock GC, skirted the railroad tracks to the south (the land CBM bought was over 1/3 mile from those tracks), and had its westernmost poiint "near the inlet between" Good Ground and Shinnecock Station.

All of these are imprecise.  Skirting is imprecise.  Near the inlet between to stations.  Did you know that the inlet reguularly moved around due to tides and winds.

I don't see that as a general description at all, and yes, if the writer considered Cold Spring and it's inlet to be part of a larger Peconic Bay to the north than I think that description locates the attempted purchase where I placed it.

IF the writer considered that, then maybe your interpretation could be right.  But it's a stretch to assume that.  Cold Springs Pond is pretty big; it would be a pretty obvious landmark in its own right.  And, the writer was a reporter, presumably reporting what he was told.  Or, do you think he was creatively writing the description of the location based on his own knowledge of the area.  

I also think it would be very, very odd for CBM not to have considered that land very strongly for the reasons I mentioned previously.   He could use the Shinnecock Inn to serve as a clubhouse, have long stretches along the water, etc...

Maybe he did consider it; that doesn't mean that he bought it in October.

We know accounts said he was looking at "Various Sections" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills and I'd frankly be shocked to learn that this wasn't one of them.

Back to your map...

Probably Jeff can best tell us if 20 foot elevation changes were good enough for field work, but it certainly does cast some doubt on CBM's claim that it had never been surveyed prior.    

Thanks again for sharing.


David,

Please show us precisely what land of the Shinnecock HIlls Golf Course was north of the NGLA southern border in 1906.

I have found no evidence of that whatsoever, so I'm asking you to please show us.

While we wait on David's response, where does your evidence show that that they were?  Mine is below.


.........................................

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I figured as much when you replied to Patrick the Shinny controlled land north of NGLA's southern border in 1906...its a baseless claim, correct?

[JESII]

You guys are ridiculous...post your ideas and let the conversation move along...

[JMEvensky]

You guys are ridiculous...post your ideas and let the conversation move along...

You have a very strange way of defining "conversation".

[Bryan Izatt]

And, Mike, speaking of descriptions of locations, how about the one in the following that you posted.  Where do you suppose Canoe Place Creek was?  The Shinnecok Canal was finished in 1892, so it presumably wasn't that.

Did it really adjoin Southampton to the east.  Any idea where the 2600 acres was.  Could you draw it?

And, what about the reporting of the size?  It's reported as 3000 acres, 2600 above water and 500 below water.  Which is right, 3000 or 3100?  Other reports say 2700 acres or 2000 acres.  

In my surfing I came across this quote from the Hamptons history:

"Bayles in his Sketches of Suffolk County describes Canoe Place:

    "low, sandy hills, overlooking bays north and south, and affording an unobstructed view of the bleak waste of Shinnecock Hills on the east."19

He goes on further to describe Shinnecock Hills:

    "Here and there a patch of some low growing shrub…are the only representatives of vegetation that dare venture an existence upon these hills…There are no trees here. Scarcely an apology for one is seen in the whole region. Nor do we see any evidence to support the conclusion that it was ever wooded, though it is possible that some parts of it were once…"20

These hills were such a desolate wasteland in early times that travelers thought twice about crossing them alone. Bayles tells of a popular tale of the 1870's concerning earlier times:

    "a traveler who challenged all the spirits to cross the hills on a stormy night…some found lying dead without a sign of violence except his tongue was pulled out and hung on a nearby bush".21"

Seems to match the oil paintings previously posted, and to be at odds with Macdonald's entangled view.  Not to mention that there was a "road" up into the property.

Can we believe anything we read.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I figured as much when you replied to Patrick the Shinny controlled land north of NGLA's southern border in 1906...its a baseless claim, correct?

Of course I had a basis.  I don't make baseless claims. That is your bailiwick.

But let's pretend I hadn't yet told you that.  What is your basis for insisting that no part of the SH Golf Club property was directly east of the land CBM was considering?

It is your claim.
__________________________________________________________________

Bryan, thanks for posting that.  Remember though  that we aren't necessarily talking about NGLA, we may be talking the larger parcel of land on which CBM eventually placed NGLA.  The land CBM was considering could well have continued further south than the actual land he chose.

____________________________________________________________________

Jim,  

I cannot post any support right now because it is inaccessible at the moment, and I don't feel like wasting my time reinventing the wheel to access it again just because Mike threw something out there that he is unwilling to support.   As foolish as his theory may be, Mike's entire theory about the land is based upon this claim.   This was supposedly what lead to his epiphany causing him to do an about face on this issue.  Surely he must have had some legitimate reason for believing as he does.

Is it really too much to ask this guy to back up his claims?    

[Mike Cirba]

David,

The whole premise of your explanation is flawed.

Those articles you posted from Oct 06 aren't talking about some large land mass that CBM was "considering" that included the entire 450 acres of Sebonac Bay.

Those articles talk about a specific, supposed land "purchased/secured" of 250 acres, and goes on to describe the landmark boundaries of that purchase.




You then try to take that article and tell us that the land in question is some massive land mass which includes well over 1,000 acres, with a western point 1.5 miles west of where they built NGLA.

That makes no sense if it's talking about the same property.   None.   

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

The Shinnecock Hills Golf Club course in 1916 was not the same golf course as Shinnecock Hills in 1906.

Here's a clue.

Do you think the proposed "North Highway" running across the south fork to Southampton would have cut right though either the existing Shinnecock Hills GC or the newly purchased NGLA?

Yet it splits right between them in this April 1907 publication.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  Quit the nonsense and provide your basis for your claims.   

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

You're great with this type of thing...my drawings suck.

Here's two images...note Patrick's famed "North Highway" and where Olmstead proposed it to go in 1907.

You may need to turn the drawing about 10 degrees to get true north/south orientation.

Thanks.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

I'm mystified by your last two posts.  I don't get the clue in the first one.  Is the red rectangle on the inset supposed to indicate that that is the SH course property?  How would you infer that?

What's the second post about.  Are A and B on the Google map relevant to anything? 

If the shaded area of the inset map is supposed to represent the 2700 acres mentioned in the puff piece, do you suppose it measures to 2700 acres?  Here's a clue - it doesn't. It doesn't measure to 2495 acres either, after you take out the 205 acres bought by NGLA.  Why would they have not shaded some of Sebonac Neck.  They must have known by then which parts CBM wanted.

If you're suggesting that I overlay the Olmstead Map on the topo, no thanks.  It doesn't show where the boundary of SH is, and it's not to scale.  Reminds me of a certain drawing from Merion.  And, that didn't turn out.

Should I infer from these two posts that you don't have any supporting documentation of where the SH boundaries were in 1906?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  

Are you really trying to get Bryan to chase your wild geese for you?  Surely you aren't basing all this on eyeballing that 1907 plan, are you?

What is your basis for stating as fact that none of the land controlled by SHGC was east of the land CBM was considering?

___________________________________________________________________
Bryan,  

Don't waste time with that overlay. (Or if you do it, at least put it on a DVD and sell it to him.)   Somewhere I have a rough overlay and that road marked North Hwy runs right across the 9th and 10th holes at NGLA.  

Sorry.  didn't read your post.   I hope Mike answers your last question so we can move on.  

Also, not that it matters, but that is not a puff piece.  It is an advertisement.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

The Olmstead Bros had no authority on the location of the North Highway.

It was already in existance prior to 1906.

The Olmstead Bros rendering is in 1907 long after the North Highway traversed the South Fork.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

The Shinnecock Hills Golf Club course in 1916 was not the same golf course as Shinnecock Hills in 1906.

Here's a clue.

Do you think the proposed "North Highway" running across the south fork to Southampton would have cut right though either the existing Shinnecock Hills GC or the newly purchased NGLA?

Why not ?

Today, both NGLA and Shinnecock are split by roads, and GCGC was split by roads.

For you to draw a conclusion based upon the speculation that a road couldn't cut through the golf course is absurd.[/b]

Yet it splits right between them in this April 1907 publication.

So what ?

GCGC was split by roads, as are NLGA and Shinnecock today.[/b]

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Hope your eyes are OK and you'll see the  pic below clearly.  It's from the Vanderbilt Cup race of 1906.  Winning average speed was just over 50 m.p.h.  Note that the race was over dirt roads, even though the road course was near Lake Success, much closer to NYC and civilization than the wilds of the Shinnecock Hills.  Good to know that the race drivers could have made it from NYC to SH in 1906 in under 2 dusty hours (if the car didn't break down).  Not to mention the lack of gas stations out that way.

I'll bet the North Highway was a real race track in those days.  No annoying cops and radar traps either, I'll bet.