The Pine Valley Deeds

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Early accounts reference access to the area via the White Horse Pike.

It was a major, if not the major artery from Camden to Clementon.

Also, why have you avoided and refused to answer the questions regarding how you came into possession of the deed ?

I asked you if YOU obtained them directly from Camden County, or did someone else obtain them and forward it to you ?

Same question regarding the above photos you posted.  Did someone else supply them to you ?

[JESII]

Now, tell us from what vantage point on the approximately 4,000 of track footage paralleling PV, could GAC see hills and valleys ?

Thanks.

The length of track from near the 17th tee to near the14th green is 300 yards long. This area is anywhere from 5 to 15 feet below the railroad track bed. It was referred to as a swamp or bog. That indicates few, if any, trees.

If the train was heading East and Crump were in a seat facing East he would have first been able to see the face of the ridgeline that currently hols the 14th tee, the 13th green and majority of the 13th fairway at its top and at its base would be the 14th green. As the train proceeded he would have been able to see the bottoming out of the ridge slope to whatis now the 15th fairway. Currently, the lake players drive across on 15 would end about 200 yards from the train tracks and I have no reason to believe the swamp edges would have been much different. This is a spring fed boggy area today with the technological assistance of a dam with water pumping ability. This view would not reveal the micro-contours that o ofter make golf courses great, but it would reveal the larger land forms that make Pine Valley special, and the terrain unique to that 60 mile stretch of train track.

If Crump happened to be in a backward facing seat he would have been able to see the prominent saddle that is the 17th fairway, the ridge between 16 and 17, the spring fed stream valley between 15 and 16 and the lower reaches of the ridgeline that currently holds the 15th fairway.

This would have been and impressive view along this stretch of track, the only thing you'd have to agree to for this to be possible is som brief reprieve from the impenetrable "jungle-like coverage" on some of the property (including the swamp).

The other possiblity is that Crump always sat on the North side of the train...

[Tom MacWood]

Bryan
I'm sure you can find the quotes on the other thread. Why do you care now? You obviously didn't care that the story was bogus when you began your scientific wild goose chase...so although your exercise was interesting it was a total waste of time. Golf architecture history is not your bag.  

When it comes to documenting history if you have eight individuals telling similar, though not identical, stories the likelihood is the truth is close by. The Uzzell story of old man Crump buying the site as a hunting preserve and passing it down was obviously mistaken, which is why I thought it was a little bizarre you went to the lengths you did with the deeds. I do think it is possible Crump did hunt there as a boy.

The 1910 train story is bogus...Crump was not playing golf in 1910; Crump discovered the site in 1912; Crump considered two other sites prior to the present site...but don't let that stop you. I suspect Tilly knew this was a very important project and he wanted to write himself into the story.

All that being said if you are emotionally attached to the bogus train story I see no harm. In the greater scheme of things its not that important how and when he found the site.

May I suggest for your next exercise you tackle proving Crump died from a tooth ache.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Now, tell us from what vantage point on the approximately 4,000 of track footage paralleling PV, could GAC see hills and valleys ?

Thanks.

The length of track from near the 17th tee to near the14th green is 300 yards long.

I think you're confusing feet with meters.
It's nowhere near 300 yards, which would be about 1/4 of the entire 1,333 yard frontage.
It's about 165 yards


This area is anywhere from 5 to 15 feet below the railroad track bed.
The 17th tee sits slightly above the RR tracks, not below them

It was referred to as a swamp or bog. That indicates few, if any, trees.

You're wrong.
The area behind the 14th green, and the area extending west from the 14th green is dense woods.
Just take a look at google earth and you'll see that you're mistaken.
I walked behind the 14th green to the 17th green.
That land sits above the lake and is dense woods and undergrowth.

The ONLY area that might have had a view is the narrow sliver directly behind # 17 tee for about 10, maybe 15 yards.

If the train was heading East and Crump were in a seat facing East he would have first been able to see the face of the ridgeline that currently hols the 14th tee, the 13th green and majority of the 13th fairway at its top and at its base would be the 14th green.

No, he wouldn't.
Please, rather than guess at these things, take a look at google earth and try to understand the view Crump would have, sitting in his seat.
He would have an angled view that wouldn't present him with any view of the property.
The facts are, he wouldn't get any view of the property at all, unless he swiveled in his seat and was at a 90 degree angle to the window pane.
Then, and only then could he get any view of the property, and that view would be of the swamp, with dense trees and undergrowth behind it.

And, equally as important, the view he would have as he approached the 17th tee, from just west of the 17th tee would be totally blocked by the high landform immediately south of the tracks.  So, with this massive landform as a barrier, preventing him from seeing anything to the south, why would he suddenly turn to look through a 10 yard wide opening, which revealed a swamp.

Even if he snapped his head to the right for a brief, a very brief moment, he'd have a momentary sliver of a view, but, only if he snapped his head around such that he was looking at a 90 degree angle to the window pane.

And, that view would be of a swamp with trees behind it.

He need to get more sleep then work on your understanding of spacial relationships.

Shelly, Pine Valley's official historian told you this was a myth, and the physical facts support Shelly's report.

As the train proceeded he would have been able to see the bottoming out of the ridge slope to whatis now the 15th fairway.

No, he wouldn't.
For a guy who claims to be intimately familiar with Pine Valley, you're making the most absurd claims.
Now you would have us believe that he was looking backwards, to the SouthWest from his seat, in a train traveling East.

Maybe he was on the roof of the car, sunning himself in the dead of winter, and just happened to look to the south when his hat blew off.

Currently, the lake players drive across on 15 would end about 200 yards from the train tracks and I have no reason to believe the swamp edges would have been much different.


That view is blocked by not one, but two ridges.
Are you now granting Crump X-ray vision.

What you fail to understand is that the view that Crump would have would probably be at about 22.5 degrees to maybe 45 degrees as he was riding East.  As you travel parallel to # 17, a huge ridge blocks all views.   The opening near # 17 tee, if there was one, is so small that it's probably inperceptible as you're riding East.  And, if he did snap his head around at that precise moment, he'd see a swamp with trees left, right and behind it.
Hardly the ideal land for golf.

This is a spring fed boggy area today with the technological assistance of a dam with water pumping ability. This view would not reveal the micro-contours that o ofter make golf courses great, but it would reveal the larger land forms that make Pine Valley special, and the terrain unique to that 60 mile stretch of train track.

No it wouldn't reveal anything.
I purposely walked those tracks, I purposely walked the fence line.
The views you're proposing don't exist as you're traveling East.
You're living in a fantasy world and trying to force your misguided understanding of the juxtaposition of the features in order to create a view that doesn't exist.

If Crump happened to be in a backward facing seat he would have been able to see the prominent saddle that is the 17th fairway, the ridge between 16 and 17, the spring fed stream valley between 15 and 16 and the lower reaches of the ridgeline that currently holds the 15th fairway.
Jim,
You're getting more delusional and ridiculous with every post.
Do yourself a favor, just take a look at google earth.
The views you fantasize about don't exist.
And, the landform you're fantasizing about doesn't exist.
The area between # 17 tee and the pond was all trees as were the ridgelines extending West.
If he was sitting in a backwards facing seat he wouldn't see a thing except trees.
Please look at google earth and understand that the field of vision looking through the window is probably 22.5 to 45 degrees and at those angles, he would have NO view of the property.

This would have been and impressive view along this stretch of track, the only thing you'd have to agree to for this to be possible is som brief reprieve from the impenetrable "jungle-like coverage" on some of the property (including the swamp).

There is NO "impressive" view, except in your mind.
Again, please look at google earth, understand the view angles sitting in his seat, either forward or backward, that fact that he was on a speading train and that it was alleged that he ONLY had a momentary "glimpse"

I think you should spend your time telling fairytales to your young children.
They'll appreciate them and are more likely to believe them.

The other possiblity is that Crump always sat on the North side of the train...
Then he wouldn't have any view when looking out his window !

I'd imagine that Crump had already determined where he was going to locate his golf course and that it was the site that's now PV, and that while riding on a train, he pointed his predetermined site out to fellow passengers.   That's reasonable and believable.  The myth that Crump first discovered his site, vis a vis a chance momentary "glimpse" out his window makes for a nice myth.

Why are you so intent on disputing Shelly, Pine Valley's official historian who clearly stated that the train story was a myth ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

I'll be happy to do this as soon as you do two things;
1) agree that the 1927 article saying Crump owned this land (300 acres) before turning it into a golf course

The article appears to be incorrect in terms of outright ownership.
However, it does not preclude that Crump could have leased the land

Nor does it preclude that Crump or father didn't have a secret share in Lumberton Sand Company, or that Jonas Bowman was really Crump or father under an assumed name. The possibilities are endless!

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

[/quote]

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Early accounts reference access to the area via the White Horse Pike.

It was a major, if not the major artery from Camden to Clementon.

I'm not arguing that point.  Are you arguing that Crump often or occasionally came to the Clementon area by horse and carriage or horseback via the White Horse Pike?

Also, why have you avoided and refused to answer the questions regarding how you came into possession of the deed ?

I asked you if YOU obtained them directly from Camden County, or did someone else obtain them and forward it to you ?

Why are you focused on the process.  The results - the deeds - are what's important. 

Same question regarding the above photos you posted.  Did someone else supply them to you ?

I was remiss in not crediting the photos.  They are from the the book Clementon by Danielle L. Burrows.  It is partially available on the internet.  Lots of interesting pictures.  One more to tweak your interest.  Seems that Virginia Ireland had the first car in the Pine Valley area around 1908 - a Stutz roadster.

[Bryan Izatt]

I have edited the first post.  In trying to make sense of later deeds, I see that I missed one exception to the sale of the 184.31 tract by the Bowman executors to the Lumberton Sand Company.  I amended the first post to reflect this additional exception.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'll be happy to do this as soon as you do two things;
1) agree that the 1927 article saying Crump owned this land (300 acres) before turning it into a golf course

The article appears to be incorrect in terms of outright ownership.
However, it does not preclude that Crump could have leased the land

Nor does it preclude that Crump or father didn't have a secret share in Lumberton Sand Company, or that Jonas Bowman was really Crump or father under an assumed name. The possibilities are endless!

Only if you have limited mental abilities or are predisposed to conclusions absent all of the facts.

Hunting on someone else's property with firearms is not something one does without the property owner's consent.

With multiple sources reporting that Crump hunted on the site OFTEN,  it would be prudent to conclude that he had an arrangement to do so with the owner's permission. Whether it was an informal agreement or a formal agreement, such as a lease,  remains to be seen, but to dismiss the likelihood, as you've done, reveals that you are not objective and have an agenda.  You know it and I know it.

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

[/quote]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Early accounts reference access to the area via the White Horse Pike.

It was a major, if not the major artery from Camden to Clementon.

I'm not arguing that point.  Are you arguing that Crump often or occasionally came to the Clementon area by horse and carriage or horseback via the White Horse Pike?

I'm stating that YOU can't dismiss the White Horse Pike as a convenient method for accessing Pine Valley, as you've done

Also, why have you avoided and refused to answer the questions regarding how you came into possession of the deed ?

I asked you if YOU obtained them directly from Camden County, or did someone else obtain them and forward it to you ?

Why are you focused on the process.  The results - the deeds - are what's important. 

They are NOT the ONLY thing that's important.
Being intellectually honest is important.

Why won't you answer the question ?
Why won't you disclose that information ?
Why are you hiding the source and keeping this information secret ?

Same question regarding the above photos you posted.  Did someone else supply them to you ?

I was remiss in not crediting the photos.  They are from the the book Clementon by Danielle L. Burrows.  It is partially available on the internet. 
Lots of interesting pictures.  One more to tweak your interest.  Seems that Virginia Ireland had the first car in the Pine Valley area around 1908 -
a Stutz roadster.

Were these supplied to you or referenced to you by another source ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Herewith the Lumberton sale of 184.31 acres to George A. Crump.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

I'll be happy to do this as soon as you do two things;
1) agree that the 1927 article saying Crump owned this land (300 acres) before turning it into a golf course

The article appears to be incorrect in terms of outright ownership.
However, it does not preclude that Crump could have leased the land

Nor does it preclude that Crump or father didn't have a secret share in Lumberton Sand Company, or that Jonas Bowman was really Crump or father under an assumed name. The possibilities are endless!

Only if you have limited mental abilities or are predisposed to conclusions absent all of the facts.

Hunting on someone else's property with firearms is not something one does without the property owner's consent.  Seems logical to me.

With multiple sources reporting that Crump hunted on the site OFTEN,  it would be prudent to conclude that he had an arrangement to do so with the owner's permission.  Or, it might be prudent to conclude that he wasn't on the 184.31 acres owned by Lumberton or Jonas Bowman before that.  Whether it was an informal agreement or a formal agreement, such as a lease,  remains to be seen, but to dismiss the likelihood, as you've done, reveals that you are not objective and have an agenda.  You know it and I know it.  Well, when you find that lease, let us all know.  I see your agenda now - whatever conclusion I draw is wrong, and you must protect the sanctity of the "hunting" reports, including Uzzell in the face of contradicting fact.

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

[/quote]

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Early accounts reference access to the area via the White Horse Pike.

It was a major, if not the major artery from Camden to Clementon.

I'm not arguing that point.  Are you arguing that Crump often or occasionally came to the Clementon area by horse and carriage or horseback via the White Horse Pike?

I'm stating that YOU can't dismiss the White Horse Pike as a convenient method for accessing Pine Valley, as you've done

Why are you being intellectually dishonest?  Where did I say that it wasn't a convenient method?

Also, why have you avoided and refused to answer the questions regarding how you came into possession of the deed ?

I asked you if YOU obtained them directly from Camden County, or did someone else obtain them and forward it to you ?

Why are you focused on the process.  The results - the deeds - are what's important. 

They are NOT the ONLY thing that's important.
Being intellectually honest is important.

Why won't you answer the question ?
Why won't you disclose that information ?
Why are you hiding the source and keeping this information secret ?

Because it's irrelevant.  Why do you have such a NEED to know?  Do you doubt the authenticity of the deeds?

Same question regarding the above photos you posted.  Did someone else supply them to you ?

I was remiss in not crediting the photos.  They are from the the book Clementon by Danielle L. Burrows.  It is partially available on the internet. 
Lots of interesting pictures.  One more to tweak your interest.  Seems that Virginia Ireland had the first car in the Pine Valley area around 1908 -
a Stutz roadster.

Were these supplied to you or referenced to you by another source ?

I "discovered" these on the internet on my own.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Why are you continuing your LIE on Ed Oden's thread?  Why did you edit out your original claim that Ed posted the "stick routing"?  Talk about intellectual dishonesty.  This was an outright lie.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Why are you continuing your LIE on Ed Oden's thread?  Why did you edit out your original claim that Ed posted the "stick routing"?  Talk about intellectual dishonesty.  This was an outright lie.

It was no lie, it was a simple mixup.
As to you allegation that I've continued to lie, I just haven't had the time to respond and correct the error...

I mixed up the stick routing with the Red/Blue Colt/Crump and your Colt routing since I had accessed the thread on my Iphone, not my computer.

Previously, I had posted the the Red/Blue Colt routing, in reply # 370 in August 2011.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'll be happy to do this as soon as you do two things;
1) agree that the 1927 article saying Crump owned this land (300 acres) before turning it into a golf course

The article appears to be incorrect in terms of outright ownership.
However, it does not preclude that Crump could have leased the land

Nor does it preclude that Crump or father didn't have a secret share in Lumberton Sand Company, or that Jonas Bowman was really Crump or father under an assumed name. The possibilities are endless!

Only if you have limited mental abilities or are predisposed to conclusions absent all of the facts.

Hunting on someone else's property with firearms is not something one does without the property owner's consent.  Seems logical to me.

I'm glad you finally agree.

With multiple sources reporting that Crump hunted on the site OFTEN,  it would be prudent to conclude that he had an arrangement to do so with the owner's permission. 

Or, it might be prudent to conclude that he wasn't on the 184.31 acres owned by Lumberton or Jonas Bowman before that. 

I don't think yours is a prudent conclusion in the least, especially since Shelly, Pine Valley's official historian and member since 1928, who played and was familiar with the course years before, stated that Crump had hunted extensively on the property that was to become Pine Valley.

Why are you intentionally refuting and/or ignoring Shelly's official account ?

Whether it was an informal agreement or a formal agreement, such as a lease,  remains to be seen, but to dismiss the likelihood, as you've done, reveals that you are not objective and have an agenda.  You know it and I know it. 

Well, when you find that lease, let us all know. 

So now you're declaring that Crump hunted on the property, with firearms, without an agreement with the owners ?  ?  ?

I see your agenda now - whatever conclusion I draw is wrong,

That's not an agenda, that's a prudent conclusion in many instances.
You're the one with the agenda and I previously stated what it was on several occassions.

and you must protect the sanctity of the "hunting" reports, including Uzzell in the face of contradicting fact.[/size][/color]

Innumerable reports confirm that Crump was familiar with the land that would become PV due to his hunting on the property.

Would you cite ALL of the contradicting facts you state ?

[/quote]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Early accounts reference access to the area via the White Horse Pike.

It was a major, if not the major artery from Camden to Clementon.

I'm not arguing that point.  Are you arguing that Crump often or occasionally came to the Clementon area by horse and carriage or horseback via the White Horse Pike?

I'm stating that YOU can't dismiss the White Horse Pike as a convenient method for accessing Pine Valley, as you've done

Why are you being intellectually dishonest?  Where did I say that it wasn't a convenient method?
You're the one being intellectually dishonest.
You implied that Crump only visited Clementon vis a vis the White Horse Pike, via horse and carriage or on horseback, completely dismissing and deliberately ignoring motor transport and the trolley.

Also, why have you avoided and refused to answer the questions regarding how you came into possession of the deed ?

I asked you if YOU obtained them directly from Camden County, or did someone else obtain them and forward it to you ?

Why are you focused on the process.  The results - the deeds - are what's important. 

They are NOT the ONLY thing that's important.
Being intellectually honest is important.

Why won't you answer the question ?
Why won't you disclose that information ?
Why are you hiding the source and keeping this information secret ?

Because it's irrelevant.  Why do you have such a NEED to know?  Do you doubt the authenticity of the deeds?
It is NOT irrelevant.
You just don't understand the relevance.
As to my need to know, for the time being, that's my business, but, I'll certainly reveal my reasons after you answer the question.
As it stands presently, you're being intellectually dishonest by refusing to reveal your source.
I don't doubt the authenticity of the deeds.

Now, please answer the question, who supplied this information to you, since we know that you didn't venture to Camden to obtain the documentation.

Same question regarding the above photos you posted.  Did someone else supply them to you ?

I was remiss in not crediting the photos.  They are from the the book Clementon by Danielle L. Burrows.  It is partially available on the internet. 
Lots of interesting pictures.  One more to tweak your interest.  Seems that Virginia Ireland had the first car in the Pine Valley area around 1908 -
a Stutz roadster.

Do you think she drove it on the White Horse Pike ?

Were these supplied to you or referenced to you by another source ?

I "discovered" these on the internet on my own.

[DMoriarty]

Everyone seems to be getting a bit uptight for no reason I can see.   Perhaps we all ought to have a scotch and relax.  

Bryan,  I appreciate you pulling the deeds or having them pulled, and I find them interesting for a host of reasons.  For sure they tell us that Crump didn't own the land outright prior to October 1912.  Given the various reports, I doubt anyone finds this too surprising, but it is nonetheless nice to have it nailed down for certain, and thanks for the legwork to you and your mystery man in the field if their is one.

Beyond this, though, I am not sure the deeds tell us much beyond the issue of outright ownership, which is a far different issue than whether he was familiar with the land or even whether it was his regular hunting grounds. I certainly do NOT agree that it "might be prudent to conclude that he wasn't on" the land before the purchase, as the deeds only describe title.   Were you just angry and lashing out at Patrick when you wrote this, or do you actually believe it?  If the former, I won't bother addressing it.  

By the way, I spent a bit of time trying to overlay the stick map according you your depiction of the land border via the deed.   Not perfect but not bad I think.  As you can see it is a combination of your revised stick routing and another revision that I think I had been previously posted.  Given that you drew out the border (I just used yours) you might have better luck than I did with this, but this doesn't look too bad.   Also, this ought to enable an overlay of the different topos.



As I think I have mentioned before, I am somewhat dubious of the accuracy of this topo. The early holes seem to be in the correct place, but the topo lines don't seem to match from topo to topo and this map doesnt match the present topography (such as the height of the sixth hole ridge.)  Also, I don't get this map's reference to North --it doesn't seem to be all that close to north, does it?  
_____________________________________________________

Jim,

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be throwing out the photo of Crump hunting as being unverified and unverifiable.  If so, I am trouble understanding how this gels with taking seriously the descriptions of the other photos from the same era in the same books.  Any explanation?  Thanks.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Well, actually I can't find all the quotes on the other threads.  I did find the Travers quote in your opinion piece, but not the Giles or Wind quotes.

Travers wrote: "In his later years, when he had prospered and found his notch in the world of business as a hotel owner of wealth and affluence, his eyes and heart turned again toward the wooden spot in which he found so much joy in his youth. George Crump told me of it himself. The vision of Pine Valley transformed into a masterpiece of golf architecture came to him on one of those exhilarating expeditions he was again making over its white-grained expanses and through its quail-inhabited thickets"

No direct mention of hunting - just "expeditions".

Uzzell's story that it was a hunting preserve he inherited from his father is ruled out by the deeds.

Joe Bunker says it was on a horseback ride.

Shelley offered the picture as proof of the hunting story, but allowed that it might have been from the train.

Ford says he knew of it from his rambles with gun and dogs.

To me it is not as cut and dried as it is for you.  But, as you say, if you are emotionally attached to the gun and dogs story then no great harm.

Vis-a-vis the deeds, I sought them out and am posting them because I thought they would be useful factual assets to the early history of PV.  I certainly didn't start out looking for them to validate or invalidate Uzzell.  Discrediting the inheritance story was just an outcome of the deeds.

Whether Crump hunted there as a boy, who knows.  Seems like an odd place given the distance from their home and transportation in his youth.  And, that it was private property.

As to the toothache, nope.  I have experience at getting U.S. death certificates.  I know that it is easy to obtain historical ones.  Modern ones, now that's another kettle of fish.  So, I believe that you have it and that it says suicide.

Bryan
I'm sure you can find the quotes on the other thread. Why do you care now? You obviously didn't care that the story was bogus when you began your scientific wild goose chase...so although your exercise was interesting it was a total waste of time. Golf architecture history is not your bag. 

When it comes to documenting history if you have eight individuals telling similar, though not identical, stories the likelihood is the truth is close by. The Uzzell story of old man Crump buying the site as a hunting preserve and passing it down was obviously mistaken, which is why I thought it was a little bizarre you went to the lengths you did with the deeds. I do think it is possible Crump did hunt there as a boy.

The 1910 train story is bogus...Crump was not playing golf in 1910; Crump discovered the site in 1912; Crump considered two other sites prior to the present site...but don't let that stop you. I suspect Tilly knew this was a very important project and he wanted to write himself into the story.

All that being said if you are emotionally attached to the bogus train story I see no harm. In the greater scheme of things its not that important how and when he found the site.

May I suggest for your next exercise you tackle proving Crump died from a tooth ache.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Thank you for retracting the claim on the Colt plan.

[Bryan Izatt]

Everyone seems to be getting a bit uptight for no reason I can see.   Perhaps we all ought to have a scotch and relax.

Wow, you being the voice of reason here!  And Patrick admitting a mistake on the same night.  The world must be tilting off axis.   

Bryan,  I appreciate you pulling the deeds or having them pulled, and I find them interesting for a host of reasons.  For sure they tell us that Crump didn't own the land outright prior to October 1912.  Given the various reports, I doubt anyone finds this too surprising, but it is nonetheless nice to have it nailed down for certain, and thanks for the legwork to you and your mystery man in the field if their is one.

Beyond this, though, I am not sure the deeds tell us much beyond the issue of outright ownership, which is a far different issue than whether he was familiar with the land or even whether it was his regular hunting grounds. I certainly do NOT agree that it "might be prudent to conclude that he wasn't on" the land before the purchase, as the deeds only describe title.   Were you just angry and lashing out at Patrick when you wrote this, or do you actually believe it?  If the former, I won't bother addressing it.  

I was replying in kind to Patrick pulling an "arrangement" or a "lease" out of the hat to explain how Crump might have hunted on private property.  Or, for that matter, you previous suggestion of a "profit".  They just seem like a reach to me to support the hunting point.  No, I wasn't serious that I would conclude he wasn't on the property.  I've seen no evidence that's conclusive.  I just find it hard to fathom that the 3 or 4 people who reported that he hunted that specific 184 acres out of all the acres in the area, would actually know exactly where it was that he hunted.  Particularly the historians who came later.  I think that Tom in his opinion piece said it came down to Travers and Wilson. 

By the way, I spent a bit of time trying to overlay the stick map according you your depiction of the land border via the deed.   Not perfect but not bad I think.  As you can see it is a combination of your revised stick routing and another revision that I think I had been previously posted.  Given that you drew out the border (I just used yours) you might have better luck than I did with this, but this doesn't look too bad.   Also, this ought to enable an overlay of the different topos.

I tried a while ago to overlay the red-blue and it fit pretty well.  The topo you've overlaid, I wouldn't even try.  It's too skewed, in my opinion.  Even the Colt drawing, which is supposed to be to scale is out on some of the property dimensions.



As I think I have mentioned before, I am somewhat dubious of the accuracy of this topo. The early holes seem to be in the correct place, but the topo lines don't seem to match from topo to topo and this map doesnt match the present topography (such as the height of the sixth hole ridge.)  Also, I don't get this map's reference to North --it doesn't seem to be all that close to north, does it?

I have to believe that the surveyors of the time knew what they were doing, especially when doing 5 foot intervals.  It would be hubris on my part to say that the Crump topo is wrong because it doesn't match today's topo.  A lot can happen to the lay of the land in a century, especially on a golf course where they must have done some or a lot of grading over the years.  It seems to  me that I've seen pictures of the upper end of the 6th fairway and it looks pretty flat today.  Back in the top day it was a ridge with an elongated mound.  There must have been some flattening.

Re the "North" question, GE uses true north.  Surveyors would have used magnetic north.  Magnetic north is different depending where you are.  You can find correction tables on the internet.  Magnetic north also wanders around over time.  Today, it is not where it was 100 years ago.  You can find corrections for that on the internet too.  And, I have no idea how much trouble the surveyors of the time took in being precisely correct on their maps.  
_____________________________________________________

Jim,

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be throwing out the photo of Crump hunting as being unverified and unverifiable.  If so, I am trouble understanding how this gels with taking seriously the descriptions of the other photos from the same era in the same books.  Any explanation?  Thanks.  

[Tom MacWood]

Bryan
Keep looking. There is more to the Travers quote, and he does mention Crump hunting at the site. I believe you will also find Alan Wilson's quote over there if you have forgot about that one. Wilson also mentions Crump discovered the site hunting. But as I said don't let the preponderance of hunting stories and the evidence that the train story is bogus get in the way of your little exercise. I still don't understand why you would go to such lengths to make a point about a story that is clearly fictitious, but whatever floats your boat. Full steam ahead.

Regarding Crump succumbing to a tooth ache....in the past you have cared not if evidence nullifies a historic claim...I say go for it.

[Tom MacWood]

In regards to the photograph of Crump hunting in the Shelly book, there is a similar photo of Crump hunting in the woods in the most recent history. Crump has different close on in this photo so it is clearly a different hunting trip. The likely source of those photos is Joseph Baker. Baker was a regular hunting companion of Crump's; he claimed to have been on over 50 hunting trips with Crump. He was also Crump's companion on the 1910 golfing trip overseas. Baker was one of the first to build a home at PV, he began living there in 1916 and was still living there as late as 1951. I'm not sure when he died. Shelly also lived at PV. He began living there in 1957.

[JESII]

David and Tom,

My comments regarding the Crump picture are an attempt to illustrate how ludicrous it is to claim the Tillinghast story as a myth based on Shelly saying the picture alone proves it.

What would have to be written on the back of the picture to make it indisputable that the picture was taken within the bounds of the 184 acres Crump purchased and built his course on?

Shelly may well have been correct, but he had no way to know one way or another...someone gave him that picture and told him it was on the grounds but 3 years before he owned it.

Virginia Ireland owned 3200 acres and sold a couple plots of land to Crump for $1 each...why would she do that?
The article Bryan posted a week or so ago mentioned the estate was named Pine Valley, the article was written well after the establishment of the course...was the estate named Pine Valley before the course was developed?
Does it seem that the Crump family probably knew the Ireland family and possibly even hunted with them?

[Bryan Izatt]

On March 31, 1917 Pine Valley Golf Club bought from Elizabeth C. Walsh, John and Leuella M. Albus, Bridget Ansley, William James and Elizabeth L. Lees, Charles J. and Mary M. Spencer, and Vincent and Maud W. Parker all right, title and interest to all those streets or avenues and any other natural features as shown on map of plan of Lakeview Park at Clementon New Jersey which was the property of the New Jersey Real Estate Company, or as shown on any other plan of lands of Broadway Trust Company formerly of Charles S. Albertson.  It is noted that the plan of Lakeview Park had not yet been filed with the office of the register of deeds.  They paid $1 for the rights.

The location of the streets is described as being southeast (to the right, as I’ve oriented the map) of a line.  I have mapped the line in aquamarine on the following aerial.

My guess is that the Lakeview Park development was only in the planning stage at that point and that Pine Valley was trying to ensure a means of access from the northwest to their property.  I’d also guess that the named sellers were people who were early buyers of properties on the proposed streets and avenues of Lakeview Park.

Also on March 31, 1917 Pine Valley bought the same right, title and interest to all those streets and avenues owned by Elizabeth G. and Edward A. Strecker southwest of the same line in the indenture described above.  This one also sold for $1.  There is no indication of why the Streckers were dealt with on a separate deed.

[Tom MacWood]

Here is a link to the GAP website and their profile of PV. I'm pretty sure Finegan is the author of the profile.

http://www.gapgolf.org/clubs.asp?cid=91

"For years Pine Valley lore had it that Crump spotted the land from a train window one wintry Saturday on his way to the seashore and said to himself, "What a place for a golf course!" More recently, however, evidence has surfaced that he had come to know the ground by virtue of hunting for small game there. In any event, as 1912 was drawing to a close, he wrote to his friends: "I think I have landed on something pretty fine."

Jim
I think it is pretty interesting that Shelly specifically says the photo is from 1909...I'm assuming it is transcribed. When you take the photo in combination with numerous contemporaries also saying he discovered the site hunting I think it is pretty ludicrous to believe the 1910 train story, especially when there are several well documented problems with one man's train story. But if you want to believe the train story....