[Bryan Izatt]

David,

The blow-ups show more detail.  You must have had a pretty good original to work from.  Feel free to tell us what you found informative or strange in the picture.  Do the informative parts help place the picture?  Do the strange parts bring into question the location being the 4th fairway? 

The only thing that struck me was that the left side appears to be a shallow ravine while the right side appears to be a deeper depression.  That would be consistent with a view from the 6th fairway. 

It might work better as one picture that has a width of 3200.  A little scrolling doesn't hurt, as long as there is no text in the post to refer to.

 

[DMoriarty]

I'd hoped we were done with the hypocritical, self-serving, and IRRELEVANT salvos, but I should have known better. Patrick, please do yourself and the rest of us (and maybe even Brauer) a favor and ignore it.  The post reflects none too kindly on him, so why bother?  He says he is done, so don't give him an excuse to keep polluting the thread. Or if you must respond, take it offline where it belongs.
_______________________________________________

Bryan,

You mentioned you tried to do an overlay of the two pics and they didn't line up, and suggested they were taken with different focal length camera's.   Possible, but it is also possible that they were taken with similar cameras but one was cropped.   It looks to me like the pic with the man was taken from ground level while the pic with the logs (as seen in the Shelly book version) was taken from a bit further back and well above.  If so, the foreground wouldn't line up, but as we moved back through the picture things would get closer to lining up.    

I have tried the overlay and the background lines up nicely.  Here is the 2nd pic sitting on the 1st with the horizon and previously discussed reference points highlighted on the second.   I've also guestimated an approximate ridge line on the second, although it is tough to tell with the trees.


Here it is with the picture removed but the highlights remaining in the same spot.

As you can see, while the background match is pretty damn close.

The difference in the foreground doesn't concern me all that much.  The first photo has always looked like it was taken from an elevated position and the second obviously was not, so I guess I wasn't expecting any sort of match for the foreground.
_______________________________________

Bryan, As for the photos, while I agree the right looks deeper, I don't think it looks nearly as deep as it should either on the right or on the left.  I think we have just been assuming the depth based more on expectations than anything else.  

I'd be glad to post a 3200 pixel wide picture. (Mine is actually a wider than that.)  But where can I host it?  

[DMoriarty]

Here you go, Bryan

[JESII]

David,

How much above the 167 feet ground elevation do you think the camera would have to be to make seeing this much of those distant ridges make sense?


Regarding my view on the May picture of the man with the hat; I see a quick dropoff immediately past him and then the ground running gradually away to those pine trees just beyond the sandy patch to the right of the man. I think the trees there block the train tracks and the ones to his left are coming up the hill and closer to the camera. I would ballpark the trees immediately next to his left side at 150 yards from the man.


The only clue I've found that the pictures are from different angles is a dark line running up and down through the sandy patch on the distant hill. In the 6th fairway photo it runs nearly striaght up and down while on the 3rd tee photo it runs at a pretty good angle down and to the right. This would move the camera's perspective to the West assuming we are looking North.

[JESII]

In the low left corner of the top right section of this picture...

[JESII]

And just right of the dead center of this one...


wrong one...

[JESII]

This one...top half of this one, just right of center.

[DMoriarty]

Hi Jim,

I am not sure exactly to what you are referring regarding the apparently sandy area in the background.  I've copied the two sandy areas from my master overly and removed the guidelines and altered the tone of each to try to bring out the details in each pic. The 2nd pic below is the one with the man.  Can you clarify the differences you see?



Obviously the two images are not identical, but I think at least some of what we are seeing are different trees and folaige toward the foreground obscuring our view of the sandy area.  This should differ between pics because trees had been cleared, and the photos may not have been at the same time of year.  

You seem to agree that, while the angle might be different, we are looking at the same sandy area.    If so, then I don't think it possible for one of the photos to have been taken from the 3rd tee while the other was taken from the 6th hole.  

In both pics, there are trees partially obscuring or almost obscuring the sandy area.  If the man is standing on the 160 foot 3rd tee, then how could trees 70+ feet below him obscure the view of this area?   And very similarly to how the ridge line obscures the view in the first pic? The first pic has an intervening ridge that is 150+ feet high!   There is no significant land mass between the 3rd tee and the distant hills that would create this perspective is there?  

Now I if both pics were taken from the 3rd tee that might explain what we are seeing, but you see the first as downhill and the second as uphill!  Yet the sandy are is in the same relationship to both the foreground and the background in both.

[DMoriarty]

David,

How much above the 167 feet ground elevation do you think the camera would have to be to make seeing this much of those distant ridges make sense?

It is difficult to say, but I don't even think it a close call.   Extending the lines out from my example above, and assuming we are seeing at least 40 feet of vertical rise in the background on those pics, my guestimate would be 200ft elevation minimum, So the camera would have to be 35+ feet above the ground at least.   That is figuring only the first pic.  If the second pic is from the same spot generally, then even higher.

[JESII]

Meant to get to these questions sooner but didn't have a chance.

Regarding the sandy patch across the tracks; yes I think they are the same. The difference I see is the dark line running down through it. On the right one (the picture with the man) I see a dark line dropping through it that, if we could edit out the tree partially blocking it, would be about 1/3 in from the left side. That line runs from about 11:00 to about 5:00...maybe 10:30-4:30.  In the left hand photo I see a dark line in a similar area running alomost straight up and down. Again, I wish I could draw and post it but I haven't learned that yet...

If I'm correct about that line, this would imply a camera angle to the left for picture with the man in it because we're looking at an upslope over there.

Regarding the terrain, I see a real difference on the ground in the front and middle ground. The 3rd tee picture doesn't drop off as much and the mid terrain doesn't appear to slope back up whereas the 6th fairway picture seems to drop for an extended period and then rises back up before rolling over the next ridge. I don't see a similar mid-range ridge in the photo of the man with the hat.

[JESII]

Jim can you refresh my recollection as to when they discovered the 13th?  

I wonder if that could be the highpoint from where the photo was taken?  Third tee and thirteenth tee would be an easy mistake.

Remembered this one too...

There was a January 1915 article discussing the discovery of the hole and how it forced the following hole to be reduced from a par 4 to a par 3. There was also an article a month earlier which quoted Carr as having the 14th as a par 4. I understand there are fluctuations in the timing of getting some of these things to print and I don't think these articles were in the same publication so there's no argument for a consitent delay there, but I'm pretty sure Carr knew what was going on.

The 13th could be the high point if it's definitely not the 3rd. I'm not there, but I'll look at what the 13th could show...how would that impact our agreement that the distant sandy patch is consistent? How about the white structure (house?)?

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is my version of the May 3rd Tee and Brown 6thFW picture.  It took some skewing to get the two artifacts in the distance to match, suggesting that the two pictures were not taken on the exact same line, nor from the same elevation.  Although the horizon and the two artifacts align, the man in the hat is hovering over the middle of the ravine.  I don't think that this is indicative that one or the other pictures were taken from higher up in the same location.  




The simplest and most logical explanation of the two pictures is that they were taken as the captions say they were, one from the elevated 6th fairway and the other from the 3rd tee.  Below is a GE elevation profile from the 6th FW over the 3rd green and on to the far ridge across the RR.  The 3rd tee is displace a little left of this line, which could accoiunt for the skewing required to get the two artifacts to align.  6th FW shot would only be able to see a little bit of ridge and all of the trees on top of it in the distance, over the 4th FW ridge.  The 3rd tee photo would show continuously the land down the 2nd, across the RR and up the ridge.  Perhaps the dark tree line in the middle of the photo is the tree line along the RR and Atlantic.

[DMoriarty]

The 13th could be the high point if it's definitely not the 3rd. I'm not there, but I'll look at what the 13th could show...how would that impact our agreement that the distant sandy patch is consistent? How about the white structure (house?)?

I am of the opinion that both photos were taken from the same general area. Maybe not the exact same place but at least the same ridge.  So if one picture moves, I'd probably assume the other one would follow.  
__________________________________

Bryan, I came up with something very similar in my overlay, but with no "skewing."  Do you mean rotating instead of skewing?  I had to rotate the pic a but, but then we had already discussed how the horizon line was far from horizontal on the first pic.  

I don't think that this is indicative that one or the other pictures were taken from higher up in the same location.

Why not?  Wouldn't raising the camera create the difference we see in the photos?  

The simplest and most logical explanation of the two pictures is that they were taken as the captions say they were, one from the elevated 6th fairway and the other from the 3rd tee.

It would be, if the geometry matched up or was even possible, but I don't see it.   Compare what is visible above the ridge line in the first pic to what is visible above the dark trees in the second. It is almost identical.  How could this be when one has a 150 ft. ridge, and the other doesn't?  

As for your elevation profile, isn't your white line way too far left?  The sandy area is in the middle of the first photo, but you have it on the far left edge.    Move it to the middle, and you get a different elevation profile for the corresponding view from the 3rd tee, one facing more east and one where even more  of a relatively steep face would be visible from the 3rd tee.

Also, re your elevation profile, The third tee is higher than the second green, but even discounting this, the profiles still don't match up.   We aren't seeing any more of that opposite slope in the man pic than in without.   Also,  I still have not heard any sort of satisfying explanation as to why the intervening ridge does not block out all  but a bit of the opposite slope.  

In short, we still have way too much of the opposite slope visible in the first pic, and not nearly enough in the second.  

But then I've said this before.   You guys seem to have made up your mind otherwise, and nothing I will say will likely change your minds.  That said, if either of you guys really consider what these elevation profiles tell us, I think you'll be left asking yourselves the same questions I have been asking.    Namely, would it have been possible to see so much of the opposite slope from the ridge on the sixth hole?   The answer I keep coming up with is NO, and it is not even close.  

Now maybe had I been there, it would all make sense to me.   But I don't understand how going there would change the physical geometry of the place so drastically from what is shown on the maps and topos.

Jim is there any point from which you can peer over the 4th fairway from the 6th fairway?  If so, how much of the opposite slope is visible?  

[JESII]

Jim is there any point from which you can peer over the 4th fairway from the 6th fairway?  If so, how much of the opposite slope is visible?  

Not these days unless it's winter and I can't recall being there in the winter other that a March round 15 years ago but I don't think I looked nor would I remember if I did.


I think you should consider a 5 to 10 foot margin of error with Google Earth. This exercise has identified two glaring (relatively speaking...) errors in its measurements. If you hover over the third tee complex you'll see that the back tee is 5 feet lower than the middle tee. I can assure it is not. It's one to two feet higher. The second error is when travels from the corner of the 6th fairway (but in the middle of the fairway) to the green you'll see the elevation rise about nine or 10 feet. It does not in real life. It may rise two - five feet, but not 10.

These errors could hold the answer to your quest David. If the sixth Fairway is 170 feet and the fourth fairway is only 145 or so there's is every reason we would see as much of that distant rise as we do. Considering the rest of the landforms match up pretty well to me, I'm convinced the captions were accurate.


Moving from the elevations, you say the photos were taken from the same ridge in your opinion, I'm curious how. The sixth fairway ridge shows a long drop while the third tee is short and abrupt while the facing rise from six is much clearer and more pronounced...I'm curious how you can disagree with this.

[DMoriarty]

Jim, I understand that Google Earth is not perfect, but one has to consider the nature of the errors and whether they have anything to do with at what we are looking.  There seems to be some sort of averaging/estimating going on on the micro level such as the two circumstances you mention, and GE fails to show exact elevation differences within a relatively small area.  But we aren't really talking about this sort of estimate here.  We are talking about fairly large formations and I am not sure we can read a 10-15 ft. error relative error between these land masses.  Besides, I've seen a few different topos plus Google Earth, and I do not see even the possibility of a different conclusion with any of them.  And it isn't even a close call, I don't think.

That is what I find somewhat surprising about Bryan's analysis.  It seems to support what I have been saying.  Look at the elevation profile, for example.  But for the tree he added on top of the ridge, only a sliver of the opposite slope should be visible in the first pic.  But this just isn't the case in at any point on that photo.    And if his white line points at the sandy area, then the entire picture has to be shifted left, and at this angle there is no way the  opposite slope would be visible (because the round is rising on the close ridge and falling on the far ridge.  

Moving from the elevations, you say the photos were taken from the same ridge in your opinion, I'm curious how. The sixth fairway ridge shows a long drop while the third tee is short and abrupt while the facing rise from six is much clearer and more pronounced...I'm curious how you can disagree with this.

When you say the sixth fairway "shows a long drop" do you mean the photo, or the actual sixth fairway?    I assume you are comparing the photos, but maybe not.  

I don't think the photo of the man was taken from an artificial elevation, while the first photo looks to have been taken from an artificial elevation.  (See the version with the logs.)  I think this explains why you are seeing a steep drop in the photo with the man.   And I do NOT see an abrupt rise in the first photo.  I see a very gradual rise in rolling relatively flat ground.  That is why I have always have had trouble with the caption.    I don't see a "ravine" or anything remotely like a ravine.   I see some lower ground on the far right side, but not any sort of ravine like one sees on the topos.

And given the land had not yet been cleared in the photo with the man, it is more difficult to tell, but it looks like the land is rising about the same in both pictures to me.   I don't know how you think the ground continues to slope away. 

From the 3rd tee, the ground drops over 90 feet in about a 3rd of a mile land then begins rising again.   Where is this 90 foot drop in this photo?

[DMoriarty]

By the way, Jim, it may be another Google Earth error but on GE and the various topos the drop looks much shorter and more abrupt from the 6th fairway than it does from the 3rd tee.  For example, on GE the ground from the 3rd tee looks like it drops about 35 ft. over the first 100 yards, whereas using Bryan's approx. line from the 6th fairway, the ground looks like it drops over 50 ft.  

If this is accurate then shouldn't your description be reversed?

[Bryan Izatt]

The 13th could be the high point if it's definitely not the 3rd. I'm not there, but I'll look at what the 13th could show...how would that impact our agreement that the distant sandy patch is consistent? How about the white structure (house?)?

I am of the opinion that both photos were taken from the same general area. Maybe not the exact same place but at least the same ridge.  So if one picture moves, I'd probably assume the other one would follow. 

Just so I'm clear, they're both from the 6th FW area, or both from 3rd tee area, or both from 13th FW area, or together somewhere else.  So you reject the hypothesis that they are correctly captioned and one is from the 6th FW and the other is from the 3rd tee and both are pointed in the same direction?
__________________________________

Bryan, I came up with something very similar in my overlay, but with no "skewing."  Do you mean rotating instead of skewing?  I had to rotate the pic a but, but then we had already discussed how the horizon line was far from horizontal on the first pic. 

No, I meant skewing.  Rotating didn't completely work in matching the white building and the sandy area.  I needed to skew a little bit to get the sandy area and the horizon to align with the Brown picture.  Are you using Photoshop?  Have you tried skewing?

I don't think that this is indicative that one or the other pictures were taken from higher up in the same location.

Why not?  Wouldn't raising the camera create the difference we see in the photos? 

I was thinking of where the man in the 3rd tee picture appears when you overlay the pictures.  You're thinking in terms of the height of distant hillside visible.  I don't think that there is any camera position that was higher or lower in the 3rd tee  picture that would bring the man back onto the ridge when overlaying the two pictures.

As to the amount of distant hillside showing, sure, if you move the camera up, then you'll see more of the hillside.  The distant hill is about 4 times further away from the 6th FW than the 4th fairway ridge.  Basic geometry says that if you raise the camera 10 feet, then you'll see 30 more feet of the hill.

What do you think the height of the portion of the distant ridge we're seeing in the Brown picture is?  How would you arrive at that estimate?  I really have no idea of how to do it.  How much of it is trees atop the ridge and how much is ridge itself?  On the Brown picture, using your ruler and my red line where we think the intermediate ridge is, I get 3/16" showing on the left side and 7/16" on the right side.  How do you translate that into feet of elevation?

The simplest and most logical explanation of the two pictures is that they were taken as the captions say they were, one from the elevated 6th fairway and the other from the 3rd tee.

It would be, if the geometry matched up or was even possible, but I don't see it.   Compare what is visible above the ridge line in the first pic to what is visible above the dark trees in the second. It is almost identical.  How could this be when one has a 150 ft. ridge, and the other doesn't?

I don't agree that it is almost identical. In the Brown picture, it varies from 3/16" showing on the left side to 7/16" on the right side.  That matches the declining ridge across the 4th FW to the ravine.  In the 3rd tee man picture it is a pretty constant 3/16".  That could be consistent with trees along the relatively flat RR tracks.   What if those trees along the RR track were 60 feet tall?  How would that change your perspective.

Your perspective is based on assumptions of the height of the various features based on GE.  Take a close look at the stick routing topo.  Near what would become the elbow of the 6th fairway, there is an annotation that reads "Top of Ridge".  Seems like a good place to take a picture from.  It is surveyed as being a bit higher than 175 feet.  The 2nd green is perched on a nose that is surveyed at 160 feet.  The 4th fairway area declines from 155 to 125 feet.  How would that change your perspective?

As for your elevation profile, isn't your white line way too far left?  The sandy area is in the middle of the first photo, but you have it on the far left edge.    Move it to the middle, and you get a different elevation profile for the corresponding view from the 3rd tee, one facing more east and one where even more  of a relatively steep face would be visible from the 3rd tee.

It is the left side of that field of view.  Sure, you could do a radial up the centre, or on the far right and they would each be different from the one I did.  In fact, I think the camera angle is to the right of the field of view that I had in that picture.

Also, re your elevation profile, The third tee is higher than the second green, but even discounting this, the profiles still don't match up.   We aren't seeing any more of that opposite slope in the man pic than in without.   Also,  I still have not heard any sort of satisfying explanation as to why the intervening ridge does not block out all  but a bit of the opposite slope. 

In short, we still have way too much of the opposite slope visible in the first pic, and not nearly enough in the second.

In the "too much" picture, what if the trees on the far ridge were 60 feet tall.  Is too much showing then?  If the camera angle is more to the right and the 2nd green and 3rd tee are not in the picture and we're really looking over the declining to the right 4th FW ridge, is too much showing then?  In the "not nearly enough" picture if the intervening trees are 60 feet tall, is not nearly enough showing?

In the end, after pages of this, apparently we do not have enough information to definitively locate the camera. In that case, maybe the caption writers got it right for once. 

But then I've said this before.   You guys seem to have made up your mind otherwise, and nothing I will say will likely change your minds.  That said, if either of you guys really consider what these elevation profiles tell us, I think you'll be left asking yourselves the same questions I have been asking.    Namely, would it have been possible to see so much of the opposite slope from the ridge on the sixth hole?   The answer I keep coming up with is NO, and it is not even close.

If we are stuck on yes, then you appear to be stuck on no.  The fact that we can't convince the other leads me to conclude that we don't have enough information.  I'll agree that it is possible that the caption writers (or the originators of the pictures) got both wrong, if you'll agree that it is possible that they got both of them right.  I don't believe that either of us has the definitive case.  In the end it doesn't matter.  The vast majority of people who see the photos will believe the caption, and what does it matter if they are all wrong?  Or, all right.  If they are pictures of PV during or prior to construction, so what?  If they are from somewhere else on PV, so what?  Even if they're from somewhere else altogether, so what?  

Now maybe had I been there, it would all make sense to me.   But I don't understand how going there would change the physical geometry of the place so drastically from what is shown on the maps and topos.

I doubt that going there today would help much.  Too much has changed in a century.  I imagine that even the physical geometry has changed in that century.

Jim is there any point from which you can peer over the 4th fairway from the 6th fairway?  If so, how much of the opposite slope is visible? 

[Bryan Izatt]

By the way, Jim, it may be another Google Earth error but on GE and the various topos the drop looks much shorter and more abrupt from the 6th fairway than it does from the 3rd tee.  For example, on GE the ground from the 3rd tee looks like it drops about 35 ft. over the first 100 yards, whereas using Bryan's approx. line from the 6th fairway, the ground looks like it drops over 50 ft.  

If this is accurate then shouldn't your description be reversed?

David,

Why don't you rely on the stick routing topo.  It was contemporaneous.  From the top of the ridge on 6 to the pond level was about 75 feet down.  In the same horizontal distance, the drop from the 2nd green is about 30 feet.  The declination rate was more than twice.  The decline from the 2nd green to the 2nd tee was about 60 feet.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here are two photos of the Pine Valley Stick Routing Topo map.  Some scrolling required.

[Bryan Izatt]

After some effort, here is a cleaned-up version of the right hand part of the stick routing topo. 

Some of the annotations weren't clear enough for me to figure them out.  If anybody else knows what they say, let me know and I'll update this.

The map is dated March 1913.  Can we agree that that is the month that the map drawer completed it and turned it over to Crump?

Although the map has contour lines on it, it also in some ways reflects a to-be world topographically.  Most specifically, the dam and pond that #5 crosses is shown and the contours match a pond, yet we know that there was no pond or dam there in March of 1913.

The map shows forested areas and cleared areas and has annotations that indicate the edge of clearing.  If this was done by the surveyor/map drawer, does that mean the clearing, at least in this section was done before March 1913?  Or, does it just mean that this was where they expected to clear?

There is an area noted as "Top of Ridge" on what would become the 6th fairway.  Is this where the Brown/Shelley picture was taken from?

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for cleaning up the topo, Bryan.   I am sure that took some effort.  It is surprising how different the topo is to those done before and after.  The ridge on which the 6th hole is located is a good example.  This topo seems to have the ridge about 10 ft. higher.  The earlier topo is more in line with current readings than the Crump topo.  

Although the map has contour lines on it, it also in some ways reflects a to-be world topographically.  Most specifically, the dam and pond that #5 crosses is shown and the contours match a pond, yet we know that there was no pond or dam there in March of 1913.

How do we know this?  

The map shows forested areas and cleared areas and has annotations that indicate the edge of clearing.  If this was done by the surveyor/map drawer, does that mean the clearing, at least in this section was done before March 1913?  Or, does it just mean that this was where they expected to clear?

There is an area noted as "Top of Ridge" on what would become the 6th fairway.  Is this where the Brown/Shelley picture was taken from?

I think there are other ridges with the same notation.  For example near the current 8th green.

I've been a bit busy, I'll try to address your comments in blue soon.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Been away for awhile, will respond in depth this weekend, when it's supposed to snow in NJ

The map is dated March 1913. 

Can we agree that that is the month that the map drawer completed it and turned it over to Crump?

I don't think you can draw that conclusion.
I think you can conclude that the contour map was created in March 1913.
I don't think you can conclude that Crump received it in March and I don't think you can conclude that Crump superimposed his routing on the contour map on a "date certain"...... yet

Although the map has contour lines on it, it also in some ways reflects a to-be world topographically.  Most specifically, the dam and pond that #5 crosses is shown and the contours match a pond, yet we know that there was no pond or dam there in March of 1913.

How do you know that ?

The map shows forested areas and cleared areas and has annotations that indicate the edge of clearing.  If this was done by the surveyor/map drawer, does that mean the clearing, at least in this section was done before March 1913?  Or, does it just mean that this was where they expected to clear?

The "forested" areas you refer to seem too symetrical, rather like window dressing.
In some areas, like the western boundary, no forest is shown.
I don't think you can draw any definitive conclusions regarding forestation from the contour map.

Remember, it was stated that they began clearing almost immediately after closing

There is an area noted as "Top of Ridge" on what would become the 6th fairway.  Is this where the Brown/Shelley picture was taken from?
I believe so.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Which before and after topo's are you using for comparison - 1898 and current USGS?  Can you overlay the before and after contours on the Crump topo.  The Crump topo is derived from the picture I posted above; the picture was taken at an angle, so it is distorted.

Yes, there are other ridges noted.


Pat,

Can we agree that the mapper completed the map in March 1913?  When he turned it over to Crump and when Crump drew his plans on it are open to question.  It seems likely to me that he turned it over to Crump in March too.  Why would he hold on to it?

Re the forestation, if the clearing began immediately after closing, then wouldn't it have been mostly completed on this area of the course by March or April.  My guess is that the mapper indicated where the clearing ended and where the forested areas were.  There are also a number of areas where the annotations describe "scattered" trees of different sorts.  Again, would this be a report on what was there in March, or what was intended to be there when clearing was finished?


David and Pat,

You both ask how I know that the pond wasn't there in March 1913.  It is based on Hazard's story from the April 1913 American Golfer.  I am hoping that he wasn't another one of our addled reporters of the time and got this part of his story right.  I've highlighted the section about the 5th hole.  He says it crosses a creek, not a pond.

"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.

Thus far the holes which are being
prepared present golf of this description.
The first, starting away from
the clubhouse site is a fine two shotter,
but it will take a drive of at least 175
yards to even partially open up the
green which lies around a bend. The
location of this green is ideal. The
second is another two shot proposition,
but it will take a fine second to
carry an enormous pit which will be
placed in the side of a ridge which is
approached broad-side. A good long
drive will enable one to carry up to the
green with cleek or spoon.

The third in my opinion will be
excellent. The teeing ground will be
placed on the top of the same ridge
as is located the second green. The
green can be reached by a long
straight drive which must carry the
"Alpinization" at varying distances of
from 185 to 200 yards—depending on
the accuracy from the tee. The fairway
sides, and the green sides and
flank will be guarded by elaborate
variations of the Mid-Surrey mounds
and grass hollows. Two well placed
shots will reach the next green, but
under no circumstances can either be
indifferently or weakly played. The
drive is over very rough country and
must carry a high ridge. The fifth
is the second of the four one-shot
holes on the course. A very pronounced
depression, over the creek
must be carried with a short iron to
the green in the hill side beyond.
Standing on this teeing ground the
view in every direction is one to make
the most exacting golfer enthuse.
Nothing is lacking (even a variety of
heather is growing about), and anyone
who has played over the British
courses must at once remark the
striking similarity of the surroundings.

The sixth is a three-shotter, and although
one cannot reach home in two,
there is much to be gained by a long
ball which takes the most difficult
and dangerous carry. The next hole
is less developed than any of these I
have mentioned, but enough has been
cleared to show something of its requirements.
A long well placed drive
must carry an enormous dip through
which flows a stream of clear water.
The second is a high shot with a
mashie if the drive has been well hit,
but if it has not the longer shot with
a mid iron will prove exceedingly
bothersome. The remaining holes are
yet to be cleared, but the work will
be pushed hard. The home hole will
be one to try the soul of man. It is
a long two shotter—the second over
a water hazard, and I can assure you
that it calls for a mighty stroke. It
makes an unusually fine finish."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

Sitting here preparing an invoice for a routing plan.  I can attest that most (enough to consider it reasonably safe to assume a March 1913 delivery) consultants get the plan in the mail so they can get paid, not to mention Crump commissioned it and also started clearing, so he probably wanted it to figure something out, and the sooner the better for him, too.   

I can only imagine two scenarios that would have him holding on to the plan for months and months before giving it to Crump:

1) Debilitating disease in a one many firm
2) Crump hadn't paid him and he held the plan out for leverage.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, those are the maps I am using, plus google earth.   I haven't done an overlay, but one can look at the location of the road and some of the other features (the ravine) and tell that the ridge elevation doesn't match up.   Do you disagree?

As for the creek vs. the pond issue, if the pond is shown on a topo dated March of 1913, I am inclined to think there was a pond there then, despite what Tillinghast might have called it.   Who knows, maybe Tillinghast thought the hole would cross below the dam?

I would assume that Crump had this map around the time of the date, but the date on a contour map does not necessarily reflect the date of the survey.  For example, NJ began a survey in the 1880, and they were still producing contour maps based at least in part on that survey for many decades thereafter.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()