The Pine Valley Deeds

[DMoriarty]

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

While I don't suffer fools gladly, I've always been a "voice of reason" when dealing with similarly reasonable people.

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.  

I suggested he had a profit to hunt on the land?   As I recall you asked about possible arrangements allowing for one to hunt on another's private land, and I explained a "profit" and noted that if one had existed it may show up in the deeds (the earlier ones at least.)  I never meant to suggest one was in place.   (By the way, you'd have to check the older deeds to know for certain whether such profit had existed and been recorded.)

I think I also wrote that he could have merely had permission (license) to hunt the land (paid for or not,) in which case it would not be recorded.  I know many people on both sides of such arrangements (hunters and land owners) and this is by far the most common arrangement.   I cannot say for certain if it was the most common arrangement in 1910, but I cannot think of any reasons why it would have been different.  Not sure your basis for being so skeptical about the practice of hunting on another's land with permission (license.) I believe this was and is common practice, especially with those connected enough to gain access to prime private land.   And why is it so hard to fathom that friends and associates of George Crump would have known where he had hunted?  Perhaps he told them.

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.  

That really isn't what I wrote, is it?  The elevations on the 1913 topo don't match the pre-course topo either.  And it is not just a matter of the ridge at the beginning the fairway.  The entire ridge is too high and not by a few feet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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?

George Crump's handwriting, stating: "Here I am sitting on the site that would become Pine Valley Golf Course" might be a start.

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.

Until you see any inscription on the reverse of that photo and the facts surrounding how the picture came into Pine Valley's/Shelly's possession, you can't make that claim.

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?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Don't forget that the White Horse Pike was a major thoroughfare from the Camden area through Clementon.  Yes, I know.  It must have been very busy with horse and carriage in 1910-12.

Didn't you tell us that in 1908 Ms Ireland had a car.
Do you suppose she drove it through the woods or on the White Horse Pike, THE Major East-West Artery from Camden/Merchantville ?



Trolly service from Camden to Clementon was also available.  Yes, it was.  That's an interesting thought - Crump with gun and dogs on the trolley with the Clementon Park crowd.

That was quite common in 1909, unless you think the TSA started their screening 100 years ago.




The text in the above photo is revealing.
Jim Sullivan, Mike Cirba and others, maybe even you Bryan, have long insisted that the current Pine Valley site was the only site in South Jersey with pronounced topography, with hills.  Read the text above.  It refutes those claims, refering to STEEP hills.

Riding the train or riding on horseback weren't the only convenient modes of transportation from Camden/Merchantville to Clementon.  You do know that Merchantville and Camden weren't the same place in 1910, nor was Clementon the same place as the 184 acres that became PV?

[DMoriarty]

The other Crump deed from the same day as PV's involved a loosely described parcel in "St. Albans" in Clementon Township.  

For what it is worth, the Camden County Historical Society speculated that St. Albans could refer to Pine Hill vicinity, as it was described in one newspaper as having been located "13 miles from Camden...on a high promonotory, from which Philadelphia could be seen...entirely free of malaria."  

There is also a road called St. Albans Place a few miles to the north and a bit east east of the course.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

You may have missed post #65.  There are two contemporaneous articles that say the ravine that the 5th hole crosses was still a stream after the topo was drawn.  Are two sources sufficient to convince you that it was a stream, and not dammed and a pond, in that time frame?

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

On the 1898 topo there are two streams starting from the west and moving toward the RR tracks.  One to the northwest where the 5th and 6th hole are, and the other one a bit to the southeast, maybe between where the 9th and 11th are today.  As one who has been on the property a fair bit, does that stream still exist?  If so, where is it?  If not, what do you suppose happened to it.  Those streams were supposedly spring fed, so it couldn't have been too easy to remove it.

[Bryan Izatt]

The other Crump deed from the same day as PV's involved a loosely described parcel in "St. Albans" in Clementon Township.  

For what it is worth, the Camden County Historical Society speculated that St. Albans could refer to Pine Hill vicinity, as it was described in one newspaper as having been located "13 miles from Camden...on a high promonotory, from which Philadelphia could be seen...entirely free of malaria."  

There is also a road called St. Albans Place a few miles to the north and a bit east east of the course.

Nice find.  It didn't pop up when I was searching.  The deed describes the property as being bounded by four streets - Glenwood, Arlington, Cedar and Maple.  Glenwood, Maple and Cedar seem to be NLE in that vicinity.  Arlington intersects the Clementon to Berlin Road just northeast of PV.  It is about 13 miles from Camden and it is on a promontory.  Seems more likely that St Albans was here rather than near Pine Hill.  Also seems likely that this is where the property was located.  Not sure why Crump would want to buy property there, unless he was looking to build a house there.  There wasn't a whole lot of room to spare to build a house on the initial 184 acre purchase.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

You may have missed post #65.  There are two contemporaneous articles that say the ravine that the 5th hole crosses was still a stream after the topo was drawn.  Are two sources sufficient to convince you that it was a stream, and not dammed and a pond, in that time frame?


Bryan,

I think you lack of familiarity with the property is causing you to draw false/flawed conclusions.

I believe the first account you cite is NOT referencing the 5th hole, but either the stream that feeds down from 13, under the bridge on the footpath from 15 tee to 15 fairway, or the stream that feeds from the right of the 14th hole into the current lake in front of the 14th green.

The "chasm" between # 5 tee and # 5 green hardly forms a broad valley,
But, the general area that forms the beginning of the 15th fairway, the green end fairway on # 16 and the beginning of # 17 do form a broad valley with the current 13th fairway being the top of the southern boundary of that valley.

[Bryan Izatt]

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."

What do you suppose was Finegan's source?  Modern stuff has to be derivative of earlier works, analyzing the historical tea leaves, much as we do here. The history, according to Finegan, still includes the purchase from a man named "Sumner Ireland".  We now know that to be false.  I expect that PV knows it is false too.

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....

Beyond Travers (who didn't exactly say hunting), Wilson and Joe Bunker (who said horseback), who are the numerous contemporaries.  Surely not Shelley and Wind.  P.S. I still don't see Wilson, Giles or Wind "over there", wherever that is.  but then, that doesn't matter because you have already made up your mind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

On the 1898 topo there are two streams starting from the west and moving toward the RR tracks.  One to the northwest where the 5th and 6th hole are, and the other one a bit to the southeast, maybe between where the 9th and 11th are today.
Bryan,

I think the second stream might be the stream between the 15th and 16th fairway that feeds into the current lake.

I don't believe there was ever a stream between # 9 and # 11 that crested the bluff and ran down to the RR tracks

As one who has been on the property a fair bit, does that stream still exist?  If so, where is it?  If not, what do you suppose happened to it. 
See my comments above

Those streams were supposedly spring fed, so it couldn't have been too easy to remove it.

That's why I believe it's the stream between # 15 and # 16

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

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



The text in the above photo is revealing.
Jim Sullivan, Mike Cirba and others, maybe even you Bryan, have long insisted that the current Pine Valley site was the only site in South Jersey with pronounced topography, with hills.  Read the text above.  It refutes those claims, refering to STEEP hills.

The caption refers to what we now know as Pine Hill.  It's less than a mile from the 7th tee of PV.  It's part of the same hills and landform as Pine Valley.  It's elevation is the same as the high points of PV - around 175 feet.  From Clementon to Pine Hill there is an elevation change of 120 feet.  I guess that was steep for the horse drawn jitneys, until they were replaced by autos by the 1920's.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

You're getting confuzzed.  The first article, by J.E. Ford in 1925 says explicitly that they were standing where the 6th tee would be.  The second one by Hazard talks explicitly to the 5th hole.  I don't have to have been there to understand what I read.

The rest of your description is more an answer to my question to Jim about the 1898 topo that I see you addressed.

David,

You may have missed post #65.  There are two contemporaneous articles that say the ravine that the 5th hole crosses was still a stream after the topo was drawn.  Are two sources sufficient to convince you that it was a stream, and not dammed and a pond, in that time frame?


Bryan,

I think you lack of familiarity with the property is causing you to draw false/flawed conclusions.

I believe the first account you cite is NOT referencing the 5th hole, but either the stream that feeds down from 13, under the bridge on the footpath from 15 tee to 15 fairway, or the stream that feeds from the right of the 14th hole into the current lake in front of the 14th green.

The "chasm" between # 5 tee and # 5 green hardly forms a broad valley,
But, the general area that forms the beginning of the 15th fairway, the green end fairway on # 16 and the beginning of # 17 do form a broad valley with the current 13th fairway being the top of the southern boundary of that valley.

[DMoriarty]

David,

You may have missed post #65.  There are two contemporaneous articles that say the ravine that the 5th hole crosses was still a stream after the topo was drawn.  Are two sources sufficient to convince you that it was a stream, and not dammed and a pond, in that time frame?

I did miss that post.  Sorry.  

While I find the Ford article to be generally credible, it doesn't squarely address the timing of the creation of the small damn and pond as depicted on the topo --mainly because the Ford article described a site visit in late summer 1912.  

But are you now taking the Ford article at face value?   How about the part about how Crump was familiar with the land from his "rambles with gun and dog" and how he was as familiar with the land as he was with the greens at his home course?

You just recently wrote: "It would be hubris on my part to say that the Crump topo is wrong because it doesn't match today's topo." Yet you are comfortable dismissing the inclusion of the "DAM" and the "POND" on the same map?  Based on AWT's word choice? I couldn't say for sure when it was built, but it will take more than an offhand reference by AWT to convince me that the map-maker was drawing things not already there.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Sounds reasonable to me.  If Jim agrees, as a second set of feet on the PV ground, then we might have the first ever meeting of the minds on a fact. 

Jim,

On the 1898 topo there are two streams starting from the west and moving toward the RR tracks.  One to the northwest where the 5th and 6th hole are, and the other one a bit to the southeast, maybe between where the 9th and 11th are today.
Bryan,

I think the second stream might be the stream between the 15th and 16th fairway that feeds into the current lake.

I don't believe there was ever a stream between # 9 and # 11 that crested the bluff and ran down to the RR tracks

As one who has been on the property a fair bit, does that stream still exist?  If so, where is it?  If not, what do you suppose happened to it. 
See my comments above

Those streams were supposedly spring fed, so it couldn't have been too easy to remove it.

That's why I believe it's the stream between # 15 and # 16

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

You may have missed post #65.  There are two contemporaneous articles that say the ravine that the 5th hole crosses was still a stream after the topo was drawn.  Are two sources sufficient to convince you that it was a stream, and not dammed and a pond, in that time frame?

I did miss that post.  Sorry.   

While I find the Ford article to be generally credible, it doesn't squarely address the timing of the creation of the small damn and pond as depicted on the topo --mainly because the Ford article described a site visit in late summer 1912.   

But are you now taking the Ford article at face value?   How about the part about how Crump was familiar with the land from his "rambles with gun and dog" and how he was as familiar with the land as he was with the greens at his home course?

He said that Crump was familiar with the "characteristics of the land" in the "fastness of pine and oak south of Clementon".  That could have meant the characteristics of the land in that area in general, say Ireland's 3200 acres - not on the specific 184 acres.

Sure, I can take what he said about gun and dogs at face value. I can take what Tillinghast wrote about the train story at face value too.  Tillinghast wrote his in 1912; Ford wrote his in 1925.  Which is more contemporaneous.  Which is more believable?  Do they need to be mutually exclusive? Shelley handled it nicely - one he thought was true based on the photo, while he also thought the other might have been true.  Why do we need to make it an either/or contest?

You just recently wrote: "It would be hubris on my part to say that the Crump topo is wrong because it doesn't match today's topo." Yet you are comfortable dismissing the inclusion of the "DAM" and the "POND" on the same map?  Based on AWT's word choice? I couldn't say for sure when it was built, but it will take more than an offhand reference by AWT to convince me that the map-maker was drawing things not already there.

Sorry, are you equating AWT with Hazard?  Hazard's wasn't an offhand reference.  It was in a hole by hole description of the characteristics of the first 7 holes, and the 18th.  Perhaps Crump drew the DAM and POND.  Maybe it was a flat bottomed ravine that didn't have 5 feet of contour to merit a line.  Maybe Crump had a mapmaker who drew features on the contour map. I understand your need to doubt everything.  Ford seems to confirm that there was no DAM and POND there in late summer of 1912.  Crump had possession on November 1.  I have doubts that among the first things Crump would have done was excavate a pond, and dam up the stream by March, and that Hazard would mistake the pond for a stream shortly thereafter.  It seems more logical to me that the pond and dam weren't there and there is another explanation of how the pond and dam came to be on the topo map.  But, that's just me.  You have every right to think otherwise.

[Bryan Izatt]

Herewith the Strecker et al sale to Pine Valley Golf Club deed.  The Walsh et al deed is identical except for the parties of the first part.

[Bryan Izatt]

Finally, found it.  What Alan Wilson wrote in 1921 about Pine Valley:

"Pine Valley, to be entirely Irish, is made up of hills-big, bold, sandy
hills which some freak of nature has pushed up from the level Jersey plain
by which it is surrounded. Small lakes lie among them, and when George
Crump, while on a shooting trip, first discovered the country, it was covered
with a dense growth of pine and oak."

It says he "discovered the country" - big bold sandy hills - while on a shooting trip.  That is not the same thing as saying that he knew then that it was ideal for a golf course.  Maybe that revelation came while he passed the area on the train.  Also, there is no indication of when this "discovery" happened.

[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."

What do you suppose was Finegan's source?  Modern stuff has to be derivative of earlier works, analyzing the historical tea leaves, much as we do here. The history, according to Finegan, still includes the purchase from a man named "Sumner Ireland".  We now know that to be false.  I expect that PV knows it is false too.

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....

Beyond Travers (who didn't exactly say hunting), Wilson and Joe Bunker (who said horseback), who are the numerous contemporaries.  Surely not Shelley and Wind.  P.S. I still don't see Wilson, Giles or Wind "over there", wherever that is.  but then, that doesn't matter because you have already made up your mind.

Finegan doesn't say what new evidence they have. PV also knows Tilly's report that Crump died of a tooth aches is false...what is your point?

Shelly is a contemporary. He was living in Philadelphia at the time Crump was building PV, and was a member of the club since 1928 and would have been exposed to Carr, Baker, Perrin, et al.

Please don't let me deter you from another one of your wild goose chases...I enjoy them thoroughly....I normally don't know what their purpose is, and this latest is no exception, certainly not an attempt to discover the truth about anything relating to golf architecture history, but don't mind me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're getting confuzzed.  The first article, by J.E. Ford in 1925 says explicitly that they were standing where the 6th tee would be.  The second one by Hazard talks explicitly to the 5th hole.  I don't have to have been there to understand what I read.

Bryan,

You didn't include that information in your reply # 65.

David Moriarty brings up an interesting point, and that's the use of  selective citations

It's improper to selectively present a factual citation from a source that supports your position while hiding other factual citations that support contrary positions.   

The rest of your description is more an answer to my question to Jim about the 1898 topo that I see you addressed.

David,

You may have missed post #65.  There are two contemporaneous articles that say the ravine that the 5th hole crosses was still a stream after the topo was drawn.  Are two sources sufficient to convince you that it was a stream, and not dammed and a pond, in that time frame?


Bryan,

I think you lack of familiarity with the property is causing you to draw false/flawed conclusions.

I believe the first account you cite is NOT referencing the 5th hole, but either the stream that feeds down from 13, under the bridge on the footpath from 15 tee to 15 fairway, or the stream that feeds from the right of the 14th hole into the current lake in front of the 14th green.

The "chasm" between # 5 tee and # 5 green hardly forms a broad valley,
But, the general area that forms the beginning of the 15th fairway, the green end fairway on # 16 and the beginning of # 17 do form a broad valley with the current 13th fairway being the top of the southern boundary of that valley.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Finally, found it.  What Alan Wilson wrote in 1921 about Pine Valley:

"Pine Valley, to be entirely Irish, is made up of hills-big, bold, sandy
hills which some freak of nature has pushed up from the level Jersey plain
by which it is surrounded. Small lakes lie among them, and when George
Crump, while on a shooting trip, first discovered the country, it was covered
with a dense growth of pine and oak."

It says he "discovered the country" - big bold sandy hills - while on a shooting trip. 

That is not the same thing as saying that he knew then that it was ideal for a golf course. 

Bryan,

That's absurd.

Next you'll be claiming that he he didn't know where the 13th green was going to be, hence he wasn't referencing the site.

If you read other early accounts, Crump states that he thinks he's found a terrific site (PV), so at some point between his discovery and intimate familiarity with that land, PV's site, and the purchase, he concluded that it would be a good site for a golf course.

Your dismissal of his statement, because it wasn't expansive/descriptive enough for you is absurd when taken in conjunction with all of the other early accounts.     


Maybe that revelation came while he passed the area on the train.  Also, there is no indication of when this "discovery" happened.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

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



The text in the above photo is revealing.
Jim Sullivan, Mike Cirba and others, maybe even you Bryan, have long insisted that the current Pine Valley site was the only site in South Jersey
 with pronounced topography, with hills.  Read the text above.  It refutes those claims, refering to STEEP hills.

The caption refers to what we now know as Pine Hill.  It's less than a mile from the 7th tee of PV.  It's part of the same hills and landform as Pine Valley.  It's elevation is the same as the high points of PV - around 175 feet.  From Clementon to Pine Hill there is an elevation change of 120 feet.  I guess that was steep for the horse drawn jitneys, until they were replaced by autos by the 1920's.

Bryan,

I thought you stated that Ms Ireland bought an auto in 1908 ?

Why are you misrepresenting the use of autos in Clementon in 1908 by referencing 1920, 12 years subsequent ?
Previously, you demeaned the significance of the White Horse Pike.  Why was that ?
I suspect you want to portray Clementon as being too remote for Crump to have easy access to, which in turn would help support your "the train is the only method of accessing the site" position.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

What you and others not familiar with the property don't understand is how the topography at Pine Valley thwarts views of the property from an eastbound train, and that's without taking into consideration the dense forestation of pines and oaks, which you recently cited, along with the jungle like undergrowth.

The landforms block the views to the south from the tracks.

I explained, to Jim Sullivan, the view angles presented by a train traveling east, and how they prevent any "glimpse" of any land deemed ideal for golf.

As I've stated, repetitively, Crump was previously familiar with the land, and while traveling with AWT on the train, probably mentioned, as they passed the site he had already identified/selected, that this was the area he intended to site his golf course.

To insist that he FIRST discovered the property on a chance, two second "glimpse" from a passing eastbound train is pure folly and physically impossible to improbable.

The only reason you cling to this myth is because you want to disagree with me, and I understand that, but the physical properties of the land don't support the myth.

[JESII]

Pat,

Your "explanation" of why the course couldn't be viewed from an eastbound train was/is so ludicrous I decided it did not deserve a response because surely anyone that actually does know the propety knows you're full of it.


But, on the flip side, I do agree with you completely that the second stram on the 1898 topo is the spring fed one that comes down between 15 and 16...good job, you're getting there!


In addition, do you see the folly of your use of this article citing steep hills against my position that this landform would ave stood out? The landform causing the horses their problems is the same one...Alan Wilson even gives you a taste of it in the quote Bryan just discovered/posted.


As to your theory of an inscription in Crump's handwriting on the back of the 1909 picture...I'm speechless! You've built your case on a complete fabrication/speculation and calling it fact while using it as "proof" that one of Crump's best friends was a "liar". Not quite speechless, but certainly impressed by the ignorance with which you run through these debates...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Your "explanation" of why the course couldn't be viewed from an eastbound train was/is so ludicrous I decided it did not deserve a response because surely anyone that actually does know the propety knows you're full of it.

Jim, it's not ludicrous, it's supported by the physical properties, their juxtaposition to one another and the facts.

But, on the flip side, I do agree with you completely that the second stram on the 1898 topo is the spring fed one that comes down between 15 and 16...good job, you're getting there!

In addition, do you see the folly of your use of this article citing steep hills against my position that this landform would ave stood out?


What you don't remember, is the claim that the sole site Pine Valley sits on, was the only such 'hilly" site in South Florida.
You may also recall Jeff Brauer's misguided statement, that as soon as he rounded the corner, past the amusement park, on East Atlantic Ave, that he could see the dramatic difference in the site.  You and others claimed that the site that PV sits on stuck out like a sore thumb as it was the only such landform in South Jersey.   The hillarious thing about that statement is that the landform NORTH of the tracks does the same thing.  It has dramatic elevation changes.  However, you can't see those changes through dense forestation and jungle like undergrowth.

A good portion of the tracks were CUT through the land, leaving them BELOW grade.
Anyone familiar with PV knows of the huge hill which hosts the 18th tee and 17th green and how the land rises from the 17th tee up to the 17th green.  That rise, which is quite pronounced, blocks any and every view to the south until the train would reach the area of the 17th tee.

ENTER viewing angles.
By the time the train reached the 17th tee, the view forward (22.5 to 45 degrees) would be of nothing but the thick forest ahead.
And, even if he snapped his head around to look, at a 90 degree angle, he's see swamp, not land ideal for golf.

Your claim about the hills is puzzling.
If a hill 20 feet away from you, is 30 feet higher than you, and is between you and the Empire State Building, which is a mile away, do you think you'll see the Empire State Building and any land beyond it ?  The same principle applies to the land adjacent to the RR tracks.

From the tracks, forgetting about intervening landforms, dense forest and jungle like undergrowth, tell me, what can you see behind the ridge that forms the area of the 3rd tee, 4th green ?

What can you see behind the ridge that forms the base of the 9th green, 10th hole, 11th tee, 18th tee, 17th green ?

So where can you see, from the RR tracks, these wonderful hills and valleys that you and others allude to ?

The landform causing the horses their problems is the same one...Alan Wilson even gives you a taste of it in the quote Bryan just discovered/posted.

When you caddied and played at PV, and you were on holes 6, 7, 12 and 13, could you tell me where the land to the south fell back off ?
Or, did the land to the south continue at those elevations ?

As to your theory of an inscription in Crump's handwriting on the back of the 1909 picture...I'm speechless! You've built your case on a complete fabrication/speculation and calling it fact while using it as "proof" that one of Crump's best friends was a "liar". Not quite speechless, but certainly impressed by the ignorance with which you run through these debates...

It wasn't a theory.
Don't you read your own posts ?
You asked a question.
Let me quote it for you since sleep deprevation is obviously affecting your memory.
You asked:

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?

I merely posited a possible inscription.
Are you stating, unequivically, that there is no inscription on the back of the photo, or that the conveyor of the photo didn't offer Shelly a detailed description ?

Please, try to get more sleep.

[/size]

[JESII]

Pat,

What you just describes is the definition of a theory...and until you produce that inscription it is nothng more than blind speculation...good luck!


As to the landforms and visibility from the tracks...I'll stick with what I've said. I disagree with what Jeff said and am not on that hook.


Why are you asking about what's visible behind a ridge? All i've said is that the view from the tracks would be more than enough to intrigue Crump to have a closer look. You're debating this as though I said he could see and site specific golf holes from the train...this is your method, I know, just don't fool yourself into thinking you're accomplishing anything in this conversation.


To be clear, my whole argument about the landform being a striking figure was its relationship to the tracks...I said something similar to...'in that 60 miles stretch of track this is the only hill nearly this size and therefore it would jump out in his eye'...