Grantland Rice on Pine Valley in 1916

[Rick Sides]

That article is dated March 1913.  Does anyone know Colt's exact visit?  I think it was May of 1913.  If that's the case, it looks like most of the front 9 was laid out before Colt even got there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

TEPaul formally apologized to David, Tom and myself via a group email, and I thanked him for that.

We're still awaiting your formal apology on GCA.com.


Patrick,

Your arrogance here is only exceeded by your ignorance of the subject matter, which is typical of your track record in these historical discussions.
Mike, that's a direct quote from a post I made.
At the very least you should have foot noted it, lest you be accused of plagiarism.

The photograph I posted was never in the Philadelphia Inquirer, but was a photo of the original Colt map itself.

I was aware of that from the begining.
It was your partner in crime who wasn't aware of it.
That's why he was kind enough to send me an appology and also retracting his error.

The person who purchased the map and then donated it to Pine Valley asked me to remove it from the thread as he no longer participates here and I respected his wishes.  

Ahhh, Lord Voldemort, he who cannot be mentioned.

But, that's not what really happened.

Lord Voldemort claims that he and six others purchased the Colt Map from a bartender in Clementon, NJ when the bartender put it up for bid on EBay.
Then, after purchasing the Map, Lord Voldemort had the image improved/digitized and gave it to PV with copies to six individuals including TEPaul.
Lord Voldemort claims that he told all six NOT to share or distribute the map.
Yet, you somehow got a copy and posted it on GCA.com.
Am I correct so far ?

Subsequently, you were asked to remove your post of the map, which you did.

Subsequent to that, Tom MacWood posted a map that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer and you and TEPaul and Lord Voldemort went ballistic, accusing Tom MacWood, David Moriarty and myself of nefarious deeds.

When Tom MacWood indicated that the map appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and that Joe Bausch had posted it four (4) years ago in a thread he initiated, complete with the map, you, TEPaul and Lord Voldemort had egg all over your faces.  Especially since you all actively and repeatedly participated on Joe Bausch's thread.  You tore into Tom MacWood, but didn't utter a word to Joe Bausch.  What an absurd example of hypocrisy and double standards

How am I doing ?

Then, I told TEPaul that he owed David, Tom and me a profound apology.
TEPaul, to his credit, appologized for his ill advised attack on the three of us.  To date, you haven't, in fact, you refused to, citing a lame excuse of 16 or 18 months of rancor.
TEPaul had been mistakenly confused by Paul Turner's request and thought that Tom MacWood had posted the Bartender's and/or Lord Voldemort's image.  It was an innocent mistake, but, the diatribe he engaged in was not.  But, again, to his credit, he appologized for his error/s

What's lost in this issue is that Colt's Map became part of the Public Domain when the bartender posted it on EBay.
It further worked its way into the Public Domain when you posted it on GCA.com.

This is simply a map, not a secret formula on how to construct a nuclear device or CBW.
A map that PV didn't seem too concerned about as they must have known its place of residence, unless local members, staff and caddies ceased frequenting bars.

Is that so difficult to understand and respect?

I understand it, I just don't agree with it.

You rail on about letting the process of discovery continue yet you are the same person who casually dismissed all of the contemporaneous news articles written about NGLA because they don't jive with your beliefs and mythology of how that course was designed and built.  


The articles were inaccurate.
Even you dismissed them.... selectively
You didn't mind discussing and disecting the origins of NGLA, in fact you started that thread.
But, god forbid there's discussion about Merion or PV and you, TEPaul and Lord Voldemort immediately want to stifle the discussion and terminate the thread.
But, fortunately, it doesn't work that way.

You talk about the value of historical discussion but what actual facts, evidence ,or research have you either uncovered on your own or even bothered to read here?

None, I choose to rely on any and all accounts as espoused by you, TEPaul and Lord Voldemort. 

You were rude and insulting to me throughout the NGLA and other threads, calling me a liar, as did David, and now you have the nerve to suggest I owe you both an apology??  

You did lie.
What should I call you, "Honest Abe"
I called you disingenuous, Jeff Brauer said that was tantamount to calling you a liar, not me.

You owe me one, frankly, as Brauer and others pointed out.  

You LIED, I didn't.

And you called me a liar, but when I asked you to cite where I lied, you remained silent, unable to produce an iota of evidence.

As far as waiting for my apology to you and David...don't hold your breath.   

TEPaul, a gentleman despite his views on architecture and politics,  apologized.
While I asked you to apologize, I never expected that you would, so I was never holding my breath.

[Jeff Taylor]

I am getting the feeling that this is not about golf course architecture. If not, then what? Sorry to interject as I am not worthy, but there seems to be a lot of great information that could be gleaned but for some reason is not being offered or agreed to.
Why is this history so precious that it cannot be talked about in the open?
An interested observer wonders why.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I've wondered about the same thing.

Especially when the parties involved had no problem discussing and disecting NGLA's history.

But, somehow, any golf course in the GAP is off limits.

[Tom MacWood]

That article is dated March 1913.  Does anyone know Colt's exact visit?  I think it was May of 1913.  If that's the case, it looks like most of the front 9 was laid out before Colt even got there.

That would be true if the holes being described matched the holes as built. Two of the holes match, the others do not. Two holes does not make a front nine.

[Tom MacWood]

The first plan is from July 1913, and the second was published January 1914.

Among the differences:

* the second drawing uses roman numerals
* the swamp is identified in the second drawing
* the 7th doglegs in the second
* the yardages are not in scale in the second, they do match what is drawn, in particular the 14th is listed at 390 yards but looks to be a par-3 on the map

I believe the 390 yards is a misprint, and it should have read 290 yards. Simon Carr listed the hole as a short iron approach like the 8th and the two par-3s. 390 yards would not have been a short approach in 1914. I'm not aware of any Colt designs that had less than four par-3s so I doubt he would have approved. It appears another change to the layout was made shortly after that 1/1914 article. A lake was proposed where the swamp is indicated, and the 14th was converted into a duel par-3/par-4 as indicated in the Travis drawings. The 14th hole went through more changes than any hole at PV. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

20-20 hindsight makes # 14 seem like it was destined to be the downhill connector.

The change in elevation between the upper and lower 13th fairways and the 14th green, 15th tee is dramatic.

The falloff left of the 13th fairway down to the 15th fairway is steep and deep, so 14 seems to be a natural fit.

Therefore, it surprises me that the hole had so many iterations, especially since it appears to be the last par three crafted.

[JESII]

Pat,

I believe the 14th green is the lowest point of the property and was probably marshland until they figured out to damn it...so seeing that green where it currently sits might not have been quite as obvious 100 years ago.


Tom M,

The first 4 seem to match the description pretty well I thought...no?

[Mike Cirba]

That article is dated March 1913.  Does anyone know Colt's exact visit?  I think it was May of 1913.  If that's the case, it looks like most of the front 9 was laid out before Colt even got there.

Rick Sides,

Yes, you'd be correct in your understanding that the routing had been worked on for several months before Colt visited.  Holes 1 through 4 in their present configuration, hole 18, and probably some others (tough to tell by the description) were already conceived.

We also know that Colt wasn't involved prior because Tillinghast tells us that he may come over during his visit.   Of course, someone may try to claim that Tilly wasn't close enough to what was going on to know for sure, just like they tried to tell us that Tillinghast didn't design Shawnee.   

[Mike Cirba]

Do we know for certain who actually drew those maps?  

Paul Turner, if you're still about...is that Colt's drawing style?

[JESII]

I believe the 390 yards is a misprint, and it should have read 290 yards. Simon Carr listed the hole as a short iron approach like the 8th and the two par-3s. 390 yards would not have been a short approach in 1914. I'm not aware of any Colt designs that had less than four par-3s so I doubt he would have approved. It appears another change to the layout was made shortly after that 1/1914 article. A lake was proposed where the swamp is indicated, and the 14th was converted into a duel par-3/par-4 as indicated in the Travis drawings. The 14th hole went through more changes than any hole at PV. 

Tom,

Why wouldn't it be 190 yards? The drawn hole sure looks like a par 3 to me on that map.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom M,

The first 4 seem to match the description pretty well I thought...no?

The first two seem to match exactly, the next two are close, but with a couple of significant differences. That Alpinized 3rd was a long par-3 to a green located to the right and further on from the present green. That change would place the tee of the 4th on line with the present third green - in essence straightening the dogleg.

In some of the oldest photos of the 3rd you can see evidence of the Alpinization to the right of the present green before it was eventually removed.

[JESII]

Seems close enough to me for the holes to be considered planned considering the time frame. Did the fourth green come down to pretty much the same spot it eventually ended up?

[Tom MacWood]

I believe the 390 yards is a misprint, and it should have read 290 yards. Simon Carr listed the hole as a short iron approach like the 8th and the two par-3s. 390 yards would not have been a short approach in 1914. I'm not aware of any Colt designs that had less than four par-3s so I doubt he would have approved. It appears another change to the layout was made shortly after that 1/1914 article. A lake was proposed where the swamp is indicated, and the 14th was converted into a duel par-3/par-4 as indicated in the Travis drawings. The 14th hole went through more changes than any hole at PV.  

Tom,

Why wouldn't it be 190 yards? The drawn hole sure looks like a par 3 to me on that map.

I agree, it does look like a par-3. And I'm certain Colt intended it to be a par-3 of around 200 yards (and he drew the map) so you may be right. But at some point in 1914 it was converted into short par-4. In a 12/1914 Tilly describe the 14th as a mashie approach like the 7th, 8th and 15th. Simon Carr described it the same way in 1/1915. And they both said the course had only three one-shot holes.

[Tom MacWood]

Seems close enough to me for the holes to be considered planned considering the time frame. Did the fourth green come down to pretty much the same spot it eventually ended up?

Hard to say if the tee is back twenty yards; I can't imagine getting an iron to the present green in 1913.

[Mike Cirba]

Seems close enough to me for the holes to be considered planned considering the time frame. Did the fourth green come down to pretty much the same spot it eventually ended up?


Jim,

Yes, the first four holes, perhaps some of the others on the front nine (it's tough to tell from the description exactly), the 18th hole.

That's at minimum 28% of the course routing before Colt arrived.

Then throw in significant changes to 7, 12, 13, 14 and we're up to about half the routing.

Throw in virtually all the bunkering schemes, the green internals, etc., etc, and like the man said, pretty soon you're talking real money!    

[Tom MacWood]

Do we know for certain who actually drew those maps?  

Paul Turner, if you're still about...is that Colt's drawing style?

Yes, it is Colt's drawing style. All you have to do is look at the original plan you posted before removing it. They are both the same style, which explains why so many were complaining when I posted the Inquirer map. They thought they were one and the same. The Roman numerals were Colt's style too. The original Inquirer map, or one very similar to it, is hanging up at PVGC with red and blue scratchings on top of it.

[Tom MacWood]

Seems close enough to me for the holes to be considered planned considering the time frame. Did the fourth green come down to pretty much the same spot it eventually ended up?


Jim,

Yes, the first four holes, perhaps some of the others on the front nine (it's tough to tell from the description exactly), the 18th hole.

That's at minimum 28% of the course routing before Colt arrived.

Then throw in significant changes to 7, 12, 13, 14 and we're up to about half the routing.

Throw in virtually all the bunkering schemes, the green internals, etc., etc, and like the man said, pretty soon you're talking real money!    

Mike
In previous posts you claimed Crump routed those early holes...what evidence do you have to support that?

How do you explain the majority of the contemporaneous reports (Tilly, Travis, Travers, Carr, Rice, Colt, Alison, et al) giving credit to Colt?

[Tom MacWood]

Seems close enough to me for the holes to be considered planned considering the time frame. Did the fourth green come down to pretty much the same spot it eventually ended up?

When Colt inspected those early holes the 5th was described as a short blind par-3 to a green just over the water. I'm not sure where that places the tee, or the previous green.

[Mike Cirba]

The total length of Pine Valley course is
about 6,700 yards. It is not a sluggers
course in any sense, except in the opinion
of those who fix their standards by parlor
golf played only with a mashie and putter.
The following is an analysis of the shots
up to the green, based on the supposition
of good driving from each tee:
3 brassey approach shots, at holes 4, 16,
18.
4 cleek approach shots, at holes 1, 6, 9,
13.
4 midiron approach shots, at holes 2, 11,
12, 17.
4 mashie approach shots, at holes 7, 8,
14, 15.
The one-shot holes are: No. 10 for a
short iron, No. 3 for a long iron, No. 5,
full shot with a wooden club.
This arrangement give a full, well-balanced
variety of approach shots as anyone
could wish, and they are skilfully distributed
over the round.   - Simon Carr, Club Secretary 1914

At the time, 11 holes were opened for play, the other 7 still being developed.


Tom MacWood,

Where do you see the description of Crump's proposed 5th hole being blind?   The sixth hole also sounds much like today's only longer, which would make sense if the 5th only went halfway up the hill.

[Mike Cirba]

Yes, it is Colt's drawing style. All you have to do is look at the original plan you posted before removing it. They are both the same style, which explains why so many were complaining when I posted the Inquirer map. They thought they were one and the same. The Roman numerals were Colt's style too. The original Inquirer map, or one very similar to it, is hanging up at PVGC with red and blue scratchings on top of it.


Tom,

I'd agree that both maps were produced by the same hand...that's pretty self-evident.   I'm asking if there are other examples of Colt's drawing style that can be viewed for comparison, especially by an expert in Colt like Paul Turner.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Where do you see the description of Crump's proposed 5th hole being blind?

Crump's proposed 5th? I think this may be the forth time I've asked you in the last day or two...without response I might add. How you do know those early holes were laid out by Crump? What evidence have you found? I thought it was a group effort; 18 investors designing 18 holes, with a committee having final say.

You just posted a June 8, 1913 article the describes the 5th as short and blind. Bizarre isn't it?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I keep reading that article over and over and can't find where you're seeing the 5th as blind?

It says;

"Another one shot hole is the fifth, and a medium iron will find the green in the lap of the hill across a small valley through which flows a stream of water."

Am I missing something somewhere else in the article?

[Tom MacWood]

My mistake, that short blind fifth was Huntingdon Valley.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Gotcha on the 5th, understood...thanks.

Tillinghast reported the following in April 1913, well before Colt's arrival;

The new Pine Valley Golf Club at
Clementon, New Jersey, which promises
to offer the most notable course
in the vicinity of Philadelphia, has a
force of workmen removing trees and
underbrush and gradually the tract is
being opened to view. As the work
progresses the first favorable impressions
become deep rooted convictions,
for the land is remarkable indeed.
Everything indicates that the fond
hopes of the builders will be realized.
Already seven of the holes are
opened up and rapidly cleared fairways
being prepared for Spring seeding.
Several of the greens are ready
for preparation.


In June 1913, Tillinghast wrote;

Mr. H. S. Colt, who is in the States
at present, is expected to visit Pine
Valley to review critically the work
already outlined.