[DMoriarty]

Jim, 

Here is an image using Google Earth's eye level feature looking from the 3rd tee directly toward the 2nd tee. You can see the RR tracks and Atlantic Avenue stretching across the entire image before the upslope.  Again, this is less than 400 yards away from the tee.   Obviously it must look much different with trees and such, but still you can get a sense of how much larger the and taller the slope up to the horizon appears in this view than in either old image, or in the GE image from the 6th fairway.  That is because the intervening ridge isn't present to block the majority of the background.



I don't see anything like this kind of rise in the 2nd old photo with the man in the foreground.  Do you?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Re the quote below, where you are the green and blue writer:

I'm not pushing the 6th green as the camera position.

I tend to think that it was taken from somewhere between the elbow of # 6 and the begining of the 6th fairway.

Well, it's nice to see you are starting to inch toward the elbow. 

I said, from the very begining that I thought the photo was taken from somewhere between the elbow and the begining of the 6th fairway.
You either don't pay attention or have a short memory.

It is in fact YOUR memory that is faulty.  From post 1205, this was your previous thought.  Perhaps if you weren't so busy insulting, you might think a little before you post.

In a linear world, despite what Mike thinks, the line is clear.  He mentions four (4) identifiable features, the high ridge on # 6, the 4th fairway, the 2nd green and 3rd tee.  If you line them up, it puts you close to the 6th tee

I must say that you have an odd approach to collaboration and team play.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Re your views on where the hills might have been visible from the train, I'll go with Jim's on-site experience.  I'm done on that topic. 

I didn't think this thread could make slower progress and then Pat's post #1537 popped up...

There is a 300 yard stretch of track from near the 17h tee to near the 14th green that would have revealed a view across the bog up into the hills...the same ones that are invisible from next to the 17th green. The passenger would have a panoramic view up the valley the 17th hole now sits in, the long low dune between the current 17th and 16th holes, the sweeping valley between 16 and 15 and the impressive ridgeline that rises up 60 or 70 feet from the 15th hole to the high elevation of the current 12th and 13th holes and the 14th tee. There is no question about this.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Could you tell us what resolution Google Earth has?  Why don't you research it before you make such absurd claims?  You're all wet on this one.  GE cannot distinguish the elevation of entities as small as the RR track relative to the surrounding ground.  You are wrong.  

No, you're wrong.

The elevation of the tracks and the 18th fairway is clearly ascertainable on google earth.

You obviously didn't research this.  GE provides an elevation number if you hover over the track. Do you know if it is an actual reading for that precise point, or is it an average for a 10 foot square, or a 100 foot square, or is it an interpolation from nearby points?  Admit it, you don't have a clue.  You're wrong about GE's resolution.

This picture is clear.  A train on the tracks would be well above the stream bed that preceded the pond. I'm done with this topic too.

[Bryan Izatt]

Or not.
______________________________________


Bryan,    

1.  I am still curious about why we can see so much of the background beyond the initial ridge in both photos.  In the second photo (with the man standing) there are substantial trees all along the ridge, yet we can still see plenty of the background.  And it is not as if we are seeing miles and miles to a very distant horizon on those old black and white images. We can make out at least some details along the horizon line, so it the horizon line cannot be that far away. Let's see if I can show you what I mean regarding the background visibility past the ridge . . .  

I created a rough ridge line as shown on the upper photo below.  I then used Google Earth's nifty tools to hover the ridge line above the ground at what I consider to be a very modest height for trees, only three meters, which is only about 10 feet.  The lower image was created using GE's eye level function from a point near the dogleg (then cropped horizontally.)    Look how little of the area behind the ridge is visible in these renderings.  It in no way compares to what we  see in the old photos, does it?

This is getting so Cirbaesque.  Are you up-to-date on your GE version?  I did the same ridge line and Google Earth Ground Level view pages back.  Go back and take a look. I see no need to rehash it.  As to why there isn't more visible above the ridge line, partly it's because you blocked part of it with your red telephone poles and line.  And partly because there are no trees rendered in the GE GLV.  Add a tree line to the horizon ridge.  They are less than a mile away and even at that distance a 30 foot tree will add significant height.  If you want another perspective on photos vs GE GLV, try overlaying the 1917 18th picture on the Google GLV.  By the way, I did it, and apart from figuring out what the tree line looks like on top of a horizon ridge, I also found that that photo has an field of view of about 36*.  Give it a try.  



Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall you ever trying to explain why we can see so much of the background.  Any ideas?  See above.

2.  As for the second pic (with the man) I am not so sure I would assume that he was standing right at the edge of cleared land.  Given the state of the land he is overlooking, it seems more likely he is standing on a road to me. Sure.  It seems likely to me that they cleared a spot or a road early in the process to give a view of the site.  The eventual 6th fairway was identified as "Top of Ridge" on the topo.  What better place to create a viewing spot for the site early in the process.  Only a thought; feel free to disagree.  I have no interest in debating the thought.

Oh, getting back to the "man" picture, You thought it might have been fall, winter, or spring.  It couldn't have been earlier than November.  Crump didn't own the land.  Since they seemed to have cleared the land in record time and the picture was published in May, it seems unlikely that it was after March.  The Brown picture, showing it cleared, must have been taken in spring if they were to have time to grade greens, fairways and tees and then seed them.  

Oh, and one more thing.  Patrick says the stick topo is dated March, 1913 not April as you stated.  He says it written on the stick routing topo.  Can you see it on your version of the topo?  I think I can, but it's not real clear.  Do you suppose it was the date the surveyor completed the map and handed it over to Crump?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I don't see your concave or convex landforms in the Brown picture.

I understand concave and convex.  You are like a convex green - you reject all approaches.  You should try to be more like a concave green - accepting of approaches.

Another subject I'm done with.

[Niall C]

........never argue with a man who builds his own drivers !

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

If you created an image showing how much of of the background would be blocked by even ten foot trees on the ridge line, I must have missed it.   That is what the "red telephone poles and line" indicate --the line is 3 meters above the ridge line in the top image.  The trees in the 2nd photo (the one with the man) are substantially taller than that.  

As for your theory that we can see so much background because of the height of the trees along the horizon, I find this to be highly improbable at best.  While the trees would add to the background, this doesn't explain what we are seeing.
- There are trees at least somewhat visible on the horizon, and we can see that we are dealing with several tree heights of visibility on the vertical plane, and adding or taking away the trees on the horizon won't change this.
-  Assuming the second photo is from the same ridge (I think a safe assumption) then the height of the trees on the ridge in that photo would more than offset the height of the trees at the distant horizon. Yet still there are trees on the horizon which are substantially visible.

Here is an elevation profile along the line shown.  Your 30 foot trees would just be visible on the ridge about a mile away (provided there were not trees on the intervening ridge) but that is all one would see.   We see much more than this in both the photos.  



For comparison, here is part of the photo with the man.  We aren't just looking at one tree height of elevation in the background, and that is over the trees on what I think is the first ridge.  


_______________________

As for your theory that maybe the cleared a road or a portion of the 6th so they could view the property from there, I guess it is possible, but it seems a bit far fetched.   I was thinking he may have been standing on an existing running along a ridge line.  
______________

As for your speculation on the timing of the man image, you wrote:

Oh, getting back to the "man" picture, You thought it might have been fall, winter, or spring.  It couldn't have been earlier than November.  Crump didn't own the land.  Since they seemed to have cleared the land in record time and the picture was published in May, it seems unlikely that it was after March.  The Brown picture, showing it cleared, must have been taken in spring if they were to have time to grade greens, fairways and tees and then seed them.  

You are coming at this issue from an entirely different perspective than I am.  You seem to be rejecting the caption on one photo, partially rejecting and partially accepting the caption on the other photo, then trying to work from the state of the land in the photo to determine the date the photo was taken.   In other words, you seem to have assumed what i consider to be the key issue, and are working backward off of that assumption.

I agree that if the photo with the man was taken of the 4th fairway, 2nd green, and 3rd tee from the 6th hole, then it must have been taken very early on in the process, before much clearing had occurred.   But given that the photo was published in May, and given that AWT had been out there in after much of this area had been cleared and reported on that in April, I am left wondering whether this is the area identified in the caption at all.  
________________

I think it is my mistake on the date of the topo.  I cannot actually read the date, but I was told (by Patrick) that the actual date March 1913, and I think I must have confused this later.   I don't think the tree lines on this topo match what we are seeing in the photo with the man, which would mean that IF this is a photo of this area, then the picture would have had to have been taken even before the survey, which had to have been completed before the topo.  

[Bryan Izatt]

I agree that interpreting the two photos is perplexing.  I really can't add much more.  

If the captions on each are right then the pictures are of two completely different views.  If one or both captions are wrong either in whole or in part, then they could be views of the same area.  You don't seem to be persuaded that the area in the Brown photo is the 4th fairway, 2nd green, and 3rd tee, nor that the American Golfer picture is from the 3rd tee, so I assume you think that both captions are wrong in whole or in part.  I think it likely, based on the preceding pages of discussion, that the Brown caption is substantially correct and that the "man" photo caption from American Golfer is substantially wrong and that the two are of the same area. I understand your doubts, but I can offer no further proof, and you reject all my conjecture.  I'll be happy to comment on any further conjecture you wish to put forth.

Re the differences in the two pictures, my only thought is that the "man" picture was taken with a longer focal length lens than the Brown picture and that this distorts our perspective.  The rectangular white artifact in the left side of each picture is bigger in the "man" picture than the Brown picture, suggesting a telephoto lens, if the pictures were taken from the same position.  BTW, I think it would be a strange looking house.  Perhaps it is a cylindrical water tower or a silo, not that it matters what it is.

Have you tried to overlay the two pictures.  I tried and it doesn't work.  If I get your three reference points tom match up by skewing one of the pictures (which is really a force fit) then the man is standing in space above the ravine.  This also suggests to me that the "man" photo was taken with a telephoto lens.  Give the overlay a try - maybe you can make it work.  If you can, then do the trees in the ravine in the foreground match up?

As another piece of conjecture, perhaps the dark trees in the foreground are on the far bank of the ravine and the the lighter trees in the background are on the 4th hole ridge and we can't see  the further horizon at all.  Pure conjecture.  Throw out as you want.

Re how much tree line shows between GE and photos, the following relate to the 18th tee photo.  At least that one there are some defined features that we know where they are.  First the 1917 tee photo, then the GE Ground Level View, both adjusted in size and alignment to match.  And, then the overlay of the two.  You can see the grey tree line from the old photo substantially above the GE GLV ridge line.  Perhaps that gives a perspective on what a photo tree line looks like relative to GE GLV.

 

Bryan,

If you created an image showing how much of of the background would be blocked by even ten foot trees on the ridge line, I must have missed it.   That is what the "red telephone poles and line" indicate --the line is 3 meters above the ridge line in the top image.  The trees in the 2nd photo (the one with the man) are substantially taller than that.  

As for your theory that we can see so much background because of the height of the trees along the horizon, I find this to be highly improbable at best.  While the trees would add to the background, this doesn't explain what we are seeing.
- There are trees at least somewhat visible on the horizon, and we can see that we are dealing with several tree heights of visibility on the vertical plane, and adding or taking away the trees on the horizon won't change this.
-  Assuming the second photo is from the same ridge (I think a safe assumption) then the height of the trees on the ridge in that photo would more than offset the height of the trees at the distant horizon. Yet still there are trees on the horizon which are substantially visible.

Here is an elevation profile along the line shown.  Your 30 foot trees would just be visible on the ridge about a mile away (provided there were not trees on the intervening ridge) but that is all one would see.   We see much more than this in both the photos.  



For comparison, here is part of the photo with the man.  We aren't just looking at one tree height of elevation in the background, and that is over the trees on what I think is the first ridge.  


_______________________

As for your theory that maybe the cleared a road or a portion of the 6th so they could view the property from there, I guess it is possible, but it seems a bit far fetched.   I was thinking he may have been standing on an existing running along a ridge line.  You can think that if you want.  There is no way of knowing either way.  BTW, the 1898 topo does show one path/road running through the property, but it is near the 2nd tee, 1st green.  Maybe it served the Sumner train station.
______________

As for your speculation on the timing of the man image, you wrote:

Oh, getting back to the "man" picture, You thought it might have been fall, winter, or spring.  It couldn't have been earlier than November.  Crump didn't own the land.  Since they seemed to have cleared the land in record time and the picture was published in May, it seems unlikely that it was after March.  The Brown picture, showing it cleared, must have been taken in spring if they were to have time to grade greens, fairways and tees and then seed them.  

You are coming at this issue from an entirely different perspective than I am.  You seem to be rejecting the caption on one photo, partially rejecting and partially accepting the caption on the other photo, then trying to work from the state of the land in the photo to determine the date the photo was taken.   In other words, you seem to have assumed what i consider to be the key issue, and are working backward off of that assumption. Not sure I follow what you're saying here, but it's probably not that important that I do.

I agree that if the photo with the man was taken of the 4th fairway, 2nd green, and 3rd tee from the 6th hole, then it must have been taken very early on in the process, before much clearing had occurred.   But given that the photo was published in May, and given that AWT had been out there in after much of this area had been cleared and reported on that in April, I am left wondering whether this is the area identified in the caption at all.   Sure, I could wonder that too.  Who do you think put the photo in the May edition.  It seems to be randomly placed in the magazine.  It doesn't seem to relate to any article. Could be a file photo that the editor decided to throw in.  Do you believe the caption is in any way correct?
________________

I think it is my mistake on the date of the topo.  I cannot actually read the date, but I was told (by Patrick) that the actual date March 1913, and I think I must have confused this later.   I don't think the tree lines on this topo match what we are seeing in the photo with the man, which would mean that IF this is a photo of this area, then the picture would have had to have been taken even before the survey, which had to have been completed before the topo.

With a very large IF, the May photo is of the 4th fairway, then it must have been taken around November.  The reports say that they were clearing very quickly.  The Brown photo must have been taken late winter, because the clearing is done, but there is no grading done.  Yet, the topo map is dated by the surveyor in March.  And, presumably Crump didn't start doodling on it until March or April.  This would seem to me to suggest that they cleared the area for the first four holes, then surveyed, and then laid out the holes on the cleared ground.  I know, it's far fetched.  But, the various "facts" we have at hand don't seem to neatly fall in place.  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

BTW, looking at the Simon Carr article from Golf Illustrated in 1915, I noticed that he said that they were still in the planning stages for a water tower at that time.  So, I think we can dispense with the Brown photo being from atop a water tower.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Thanks for your detailed comments.   Starting at the end . . .

1. The Water Tank.    Can you point out in the January 1915 Carr article where it says they were in the planning stages for the water tower?   As I recall they were planning to build a huge concrete reservoir somewhere, but that they already had a water tank on the property.

2.  Your overlay of the 18th.   The 1917 photo seems to me to have been taken from behind and above the 18th tee, possibly standing on one of the large dunes or hills in the immediate area, whereas your version seems to be more from ground level, and much closer to the tee. And while a valiant effort, I don't think yours matches up all that well with the photo. I've taken your GE rendering and traced the green and the line of water just visible in black , set it over the then cleared out all but the green and black line.  As you can see, they don't quite match up.

 
As I fiddle with it, I put less and less reliance on the GE ground level or eye level renderings. There is the angle of view and depth of field issue, but they also may have other shortcomings --note you can adjust the "Elevation Exaggeration" whatever the hell that means.  Also, GE is unable to pick up elevation changes over a small distance and it cannot calculate how far to set the horizon, and these distort what we are seeing in this view.  If I am not mistaken, you can see Philadelphia in your horizon view! 
  Instead, I am trying to look at the elevation profiles to determine about how much "elevation" we should be seeing in the photo, and over what distances.  For example, Here is the elevation profile of the following line, which ought to be somewhere toward the dark shape on the top of one of those distant hills in the 1917 pic.


As you can see, there is nothing really blocking the view for quite a distance, and the first substantial ridge coming is after the short course over a mile away, and the second ridge about a mile and a quarter.  We appear have 25 ft elevation visible on this first ridge excluding trees, and about 35 feet elevation visible at the second ridge.   So it doesn't surprise me that we have as much of the background as is visible in this photo.

More later . . .

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I don't see your concave or convex landforms in the Brown picture.

Bryan,

Tell me what you see in the right portion of the photo.
Does the land fall away in a concave manner, or does a landform rise up in a convex manner ?

I understand concave and convex.  You are like a convex green - you reject all approaches.  You should try to be more like a concave green - accepting of approaches.

Isn't that the definition of a slut ?

I accept approaches that make sense, irrespective of the author.

Another subject I'm done with.

I guess having to answer my question about Mike and Jeff's claims, the "yes" or "no" questions, makes you turn tail and run.

[JESII]

I accept approaches that make sense, irrespective of the author.

Can you name one time?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

There's a hill behind that the 18th tee, where the photo was taken from.
It can be seen in the photos of the 10th green.

From that vantage point you could see the bridge spanning the Delaware and some claim, the Philadelphia skyline.
I recall seeing structures on the horizon.

Several things interest me.

The text of the postcard from 1910 requesting the map of Camden County.

Does PV have that map in their possession.

The inscription on the back of the Brown/Shelly photo

Colt's 1911 agenda/itinerary.

Crump's pre-1912 access to the property.

Who the construction company was ?

Bryan,

You said:

With a very large IF, the May photo is of the 4th fairway, then it must have been taken around November.  The reports say that they were clearing very quickly.  The Brown photo must have been taken late winter, because the clearing is done, but there is no grading done.  Yet, the topo map is dated by the surveyor in March.  And, presumably Crump didn't start doodling on it until March or April.  

This would seem to me to suggest that they cleared the area for the first four holes, then surveyed, and then laid out the holes on the cleared ground.  I know, it's far fetched.  But, the various "facts" we have at hand don't seem to neatly fall in place.

But, that would mean that they already had a plan in place.
They didn't clear the entire property.  They cleared with a purpose, and the purpose had to be a plan that preceeded clearing.

The 13th hole should give us a clue.
AWT claimed it was dense woods with thick underbrush that hid the land from the mortal eye.
And that was 2+ years after they purchased the property.
It wasn't until the lake was built, that GAC discovered the great view from that elevated location, and then and  only then did they clear that area and design/build the 13th hole.

So, again, I don't think they cleared indiscriminately, I think they cleared with a purpose, a purpose that followed a previously drawn up plan.

[JESII]

Pat,

The lake was not built yet when they discovered the 13th hole in its current form. You've presumed that into a fact based on your desire but it's not supported by the record. The record says the creek will be dammed to create a lake and very soon after the record says they discovered the 13th hole site after clearing trees to show the view. The view was not of the lake, because the old greensite and fairway would not offer a view of the lake, they offered a view off the 70 foot ridge across a long panorama of south jersey.


The picture in May is wholly different from the one in the brown book and is consistent with the topography looking back from the third tee area towards the 2nd tee and tracks. The current third tee complex is built up well above the terrain behind it.

[DMoriarty]

Pat,

The lake was not built yet when they discovered the 13th hole in its current form. You've presumed that into a fact based on your desire but it's not supported by the record. The record says the creek will be dammed to create a lake and very soon after the record says they discovered the 13th hole site after clearing trees to show the view. The view was not of the lake, because the old greensite and fairway would not offer a view of the lake, they offered a view off the 70 foot ridge across a long panorama of south jersey.

Interesting timing on the discussion of the 13th.  I have been trying to figure out where the road shown on the topo ran through the property, and it seems to have gone from somewhere south of the 17th green and 18th tee up across the 16th fairway and the 15th fairway and up near the 13th green and 12th tee.   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.

The picture in May is wholly different from the one in the brown book and is consistent with the topography looking back from the third tee area towards the 2nd tee and tracks. The current third tee complex is built up well above the terrain behind it.

I really don't see this Jim.  Could you explain what you are seeing?  Does it really look to you like the ground slopes down gradually for over a 70 ft. drop before the RR tracks?   Where are the tracks?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

 . . .

1. The Water Tank.    Can you point out in the January 1915 Carr article where it says they were in the planning stages for the water tower?   As I recall they were planning to build a huge concrete reservoir somewhere, but that they already had a water tank on the property.

. . . . . . . . . . .

OK, my error.  It says a concrete reservoir on the highest point of the property is planned.  As to whether they already had a water tank in whatever form it took, I'm not quite sure whether they are saying they already have one, or there is the potential for one for household purposes.  When this was written there were no households to serve were there?

"It is planned to build on the highest point of the
property, a concrete reservoir, with a capacity of
200,000 gallons, into which the water will be lifted by
its own power. For purposes of irrigation, water
from these lakes is vastly more beneficial to the turf
than water from artesian wells, and the process of
securing it will be a matter of financial economy. An
artesian well, with a flow of ninety gallons to the
minute, and a water-tank of 20,000 gallons capacity,
afford a plentiful supply of pure sweet water for household
purposes."

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Re the 18th overlay, no it's not a perfect match.  I hoped it provided some perspective, not that it was proof positive of exactly how tall the trees on the horizon are.  Yes, GE has limitations, as does the ground level view, but I think they have helped advance the discussion.  I suspect that the elevation profiles are not exact either.  They are built from the same data base of elevations as the GLV and the GE aerial are, so share the same limitations.

It's been an interesting exercise in trying to analyze photos and the tools available to help us do that.  I am reasonably comfortable that the Brown/Shelly pictures are from the 6th fairway and look out over the 4th fairway.  I understand that you are not comfortable that that is the case.  I'm OK with that. I can't think of any further analysis that will prove exactly what the picture shows.  If you can think of something else and propose it, feel free.  I'll be happy to look at it and give an opinion.

As for it being a valiant effort - that implies that it was a failure.  It was a success in the sense that it helped us understand the limitations of GE.  I do suspect that you will never be exactly sure of the photo.  Whatever happened to the Merion David who was going with the most likely scenario?   

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Honestly, with no intention of being argumentative, but I really have no clue what convex thing you are seeing on the right side of the picture.  The right side is dominated by one big pine tree.  Do you mean the tops of the trees? The bases of the trees?  The horizon line. All I see is a down slope into the ravine defined by the base of the trees.  It is neither convex nor concave.  It's just a slope.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I guess having to answer my question about Mike and Jeff's claims, the "yes" or "no" questions, makes you turn tail and run.

Why would I answer your questions about Mike and Jeff's claims.  They are their claims, not mine.  If you're interested in what my views are vis-a-vis the RR track along the 18th hole, look at the past posts.  Mike is gone from the site.  Jeff is not on this topic any more.  Why do you care about what their claims are anymore? 

I will not argue, discuss or debate with you on this point any longer.  There is no way to discuss anything reasonably with your pig-headed stubbornness.

I am still here, notwithstanding your insults.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

If I am not mistaken, you can see Philadelphia in your horizon view!

Is this a surprise?  Some of the buildings are 400 to 500 feet tall.  The intervening ridges (no trees, maybe even with trees) are not high enough to block them out.  Try it on your elevation profiles.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Bryan,

You said:

With a very large IF, the May photo is of the 4th fairway, then it must have been taken around November.  The reports say that they were clearing very quickly.  The Brown photo must have been taken late winter, because the clearing is done, but there is no grading done.  Yet, the topo map is dated by the surveyor in March.  And, presumably Crump didn't start doodling on it until March or April.  

This would seem to me to suggest that they cleared the area for the first four holes, then surveyed, and then laid out the holes on the cleared ground.  I know, it's far fetched.  But, the various "facts" we have at hand don't seem to neatly fall in place.

But, that would mean that they already had a plan in place.
They didn't clear the entire property.  They cleared with a purpose, and the purpose had to be a plan that preceeded clearing.  

I was only talking about the first 4 holes.  Do you know, for a fact, that they didn't clear the whole area for 1-4?  What is your source?  How do you know they cleared with a purpose?  Why did the purpose, if there was one, have to be a plan?

The 13th hole should give us a clue.
AWT claimed it was dense woods with thick underbrush that hid the land from the mortal eye.
And that was 2+ years after they purchased the property.
It wasn't until the lake was built, that GAC discovered the great view from that elevated location, and then and  only then did they clear that area and design/build the 13th hole.

I was only talking about holes 1-4.  Anything east of the pond seemed to be a mystery to them even in April 1913.  Is this the same AWT with the train story?

So, again, I don't think they cleared indiscriminately, I think they cleared with a purpose, a purpose that followed a previously drawn up plan.

So, you think there was a plan that preceded the stick routing topo? Do you think it covered holes 1-4?  All 18?  Have you seen any contemporaneous mention of such a plan, or is this just the way you think it must have been done?  The underbrush was too thick to see anything and he didn't get the topo until March 1913, so how would he have developed a plan?

Maybe he took a look from where the Brown photo was taken and thought that area looked good for some holes.  Maybe as they were clearing it - that must have taken some time - he was walking it and staked out some holes.  Maybe that's why when he finally had the topo that he noted that the greens on the topo weren't exactly where he'd staked them.  Just a theory.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

From the April 1913 American Golfer, written by Hazard:

"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."


This article says that 7 holes were opened up by March 1913.  It seems that they were 1 through 6 and 18.  It is also mentioned that 7 is being opened up. 

The first four holes match up to the stick routing topo and the current placement.  Number 5 appears to be the short direct across the ravine version of the par 3.  It is less clear where 6 and 7 went.  The description of 18 matches our understanding of the hole from the topo and its current rendition.

The stream, in the ravine, that hole 5 crosses, was not yet a pond.  Yet, the topo map indicates that there is a dam and a pond.

The build is far enough along that some of the greens are ready for seeding.

All this by March (giving American golfer a month to publish the story).  All seemingly before Crump had his topo from the surveyor or had a chance to draw his initial plan on it.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  

I assume what Patrick is seeing in the photo that he sees as convex is the foreground right. If taken from the 6th ridge, it is the part of the ridge where the camera is supposedly sitting. I could be wrong though.  And I am not offering any opinion of whether it is convex.  Although ridges are by definition convex at some point, aren't they?  Concave ridges sound more like valleys or ravines.  Never mind just babbling.

What I am seeing in these photos isn't really a question of likely or unlikely. What I am seeing - with all that background - seems impossible. I keep asking for explanations because it seems to defy basic geometry. If one stands on a 160 foot ridge looking over a 153 foot ridge a quarter of a mile away, that intervening ridge is going to block visibility. There are a number of ways to determine what might be visible, and I have tried some of them, and I keep coming up with the same result - we are seeing way to much of the distance ridge, or whatever it is.  


As for seeing Philadelphia in the horizon view, no I am not surprised, just pointing out that on these old photos we don't have that kind of visibility.  Besides, I thought your point was about tree lines on the horizon?  The buildings maybe 500 feet tall, but the trees aren't.

I don't think AG needed a month of lead time to publish.  They were surprisingly timely.

Anyway, I haven't addressed all your points above, but I mentioned a while back that I had created a higher resolution image.  I have been trying to figure out a way to post it so it might be useful to you and others and I am not sure it is the best approach, and thought I'd try posting it in sections. I've posted 8 pics in sets of two (top and bottom) from left to right.   The double lines are the intersection line between the tops and bottoms.

I think there is quite a lot to see in these images, ranging from informative to strange.  I'll withhold further comment for now. 



__________________________________



__________________________________



__________________________________

[Jeff_Brauer]

I will only say that I see sandy patches through the uncleared woods in the second photo that David has blown up, not unlike sandy patches I saw in other areas while approaching PV years ago.  

While I don't really know if Crump first saw the land from a train, there is no doubt that the area where the tracks are elevated above about the LZ of the 18th fw (and the other lower land along the old road between the tracks and 18th) it seems pretty clear that Crump COULD HAVE seen the potentially great golf land.

So, 46 pages of Patrick trying to convince us with any deflecting argument that Crump could NOT have seen through those trees has been refuted, and a huge waste of bandwidth and participants time.

Unless of course, you think its the green ink on Patrick's posts that give them the element of truth that these contemporary photos and your own eyes should defer to!  Never trust a man who tells you to believe him over your own eyes or judgement.

PS, while I shouldn't reveal (and won't) the contents of private emails that clog all or our in boxes, Patrick has again called me a liar multiple times, called Mike a liar, etc.  And, Mike and I have both suggested he perform what is commonly thought to be an anatomically impossible act!

This really is unbelievably childish for men or our "supposed" character.  I have really lost all respect for this website to let another thread be dominated by trolls like Patrick.

I ask once again, does anyone believe Patrick's words that you couldn't see patches of sand that would be identified as great golf land from an elevated view from the tracks, believing his wild claims over what you see with your own eyes?

I thought so.

And, BTW, let us recall some of Pat's mistakes - like saying PV was on a branch line.  I will apologize if I missed it, but I don't recall him ever admitting he made a mistake on that one, or his other whoppers.

He is just the kind of guy who would rather waste everyone's time rather than admit he makes mistakes.  And the kind who calls other people who have made mistakes liars, disingenous, etc.

I'm done.  And, I am even deleting all those emails even before skimming them.  As Satchel Paige said, they just "angry up the blood" and frankly, my blood don't need no more angrying up!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()