[Sean_A]

Bryan is a chap I must meet.  If he can have the patience to "debate" for so long with the Three Stooges (Tommy MacIDontShareInfo, Pat ArgueTilGreen Mucci and David WannabeHolmes Moriarty) pulling the Abbot & Costello (this show should go on the road - its that comical) Who's On First routine he should be nominated for sainthood.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Sorry you feel the quote is out of context.    At least you recognized it as your quote, even though I didn't name you. It is what you said, and it seemed to me to stand on its own, particularly since you've said it before.

Now, your second sentence is just wrong (even correcting the grammatical error).  I did not say that YOU did not pay attention to any of Pat's argumentative posts, as you say above.  I said that the rest of us should follow your lead in not paying attention to every single one of his posts, specifically the "argumentative" ones.  

Thanks for the clarification in the next sentence of what you really meant.  

I guess I'm left wondering how you managed to miss all of Pat's posts about the picture view over the 2nd green and 3rd tee.  You've spent at least tens of posts arguing the point with me and others.  Strangely, to me, on the point that you can't see hills beyond the  2nd green and 3rd tee, you and I have agreed, yet you have argued long and loud with others, but not Pat, who continues to this day to place the 2nd green and 3rd tee in the middle of the picture.  Why did you not debate the physical impossibility of that with him?  Months back you told me you missed it.  I never understood how that was possible.  Did you miss his many posts, or just some of the details in his many posts?  

No need for the extended song and dance, Bryan.  My request was simple and fair.  Don't twist my words to support your potshots at Patrick.  As for your last paraphraph, I told you before that my comments regarding those photos were to everyone including Patrick.  Perhaps Patrick is just more comfortable agreeing to disagree with me than you seem to be?

But why is it that you keep trying to make this about Patrick and TomM?   You have been after them for months regarding this train story.  Your initial post made this very clear that this was more a grudge than investigation, but you went back and modified it days after the fact.  My hope was that now that your efforts at proving them wrong have fallen well short, you'd manage to turn back to the real issue of what happened.  Instead you seem more obsessed than ever with TomM and Patrick.

Speaking of going back and editing derogatory comments out of posts, your response to TomM is really something.  A grand total of two minutes elapsed before TomM edited his post, yet you go after him days later for supposedly deleting out some derogatory comment?   Now you won't even come clean about what he supposedly said?  Disappointing.  
____________________________

Sean Arble.  Thanks for your brilliant substantive input.  And a Merry Christmas to you, too.   Or perhaps I should say, Happy Boxing Day, Ol' Chap.  Tallyhoe!

[JESII]

Tom MacWood,

I asked you this a couple pages ago...maybe you missed it but it was in response to a question of yours.

How can you reconcile Carr and Travers? David?

1915 Simon Carr

     “They desired a course where there would be
practically no closed season throughout the year. In
discussing the problem, they had the seaside in mind,
chiefly the region about Atlantic City; but the great
distance from Philadelphia, and the extreme difficulty
of securing a suitable location, caused the
project of a seashore course to be dropped.
      The region outside of Camden was searched in all
directions, until, finally, Mr. George A. Crump discovered
a perfectly wonderful bit of golf land at
Sumner Station, on the Atlantic City Division of the
Reading Railroad, thirteen miles outside of Camden.
"I think we have happened on something pretty
fine," he reported to his friends in Philadelphia. His
friends hastened down to have a look at the discovery.
The tract was heavily wooded with pine and oak, and
had an undergrowth as dense as a jungle. For a
month it was gone over carefully on foot; every detail
of conformation was noted; the soil carefully examined
in all parts, and, finally, in October, 1912, a
tract of 184 acres was purchased.”

Carr, who was certainly contemporaneous with Crump and directly involved with Pine Valley, does not say anything about how Crump originally “discovered” the site other than he was searching in all directions.  Certainly, nothing definitive here about discovery through “hunting”.

Tom,

This timeline is also a stand alone as Carr makes it clear that when Crump discovered the site he was "searching in all direction" for a location for the golf course. How can you tie this to Travers' account? Or is there more to the Carr account which I have not seen? If so, can you post it?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - in your opinion, is there something inherently implausible about the following scenario/description:

Crump was familiar with the land from childhood, long before golf or golf course architecture was even a glint in his eye, and at that point the land was nothing more to him than simply a place to hunt.

After growing up and playing many years of golf on the best courses of the times, Crump saw that same land in a brand new way, as if for the first time -- as if for the first time in that he recognized/intuited its potential as a golf course, from the train with AWT in 1910.

After searching out other sites and pondering the question fully, Crump realized that the land not only could be but indeed was ideal for the kind of golf course he envisioned, and so in 1912 he shared the news with others and bought the land.

So: the hunting story is true of/for the young Crump, the non-golfer, who didn't "know". The train story is true of/for the older Crump, the would-be architect, who at that point "knew".  And the mature Crump came into his own in 1912, when he first "knew that he knew".

I'm not arguing for the veracity of this "time-line"; I have no idea if it is true or not. I'm just asking whether it is an implausible scenario, from what you've read.

Peter

 

[JESII]

I think it contradicts Simon Carr's account. Carr would have been closer to him than anyone else.

[Tom MacWood]

Just a couple of other minor points:

_________________________________

It has been reported on here since at least 2004 that Crump either told his friends or wrote to his friends that:

"I think I landed on something pretty fine"

What is the source of that quote? I assumed it was Carr in 1915.  But, Carr quoted Crump as saying:

""I think we have happened on something pretty fine,"

Are there two conflicting sources, or have we here just modified it over time?

"Happen on" means "to find by chance" today.  Do you suppose it meant the same thing in 1915?  Did Crump find PV by chance looking out a train window?

__________________________________________

It seems to be part of the PV story that Crump sold the Colonnade Hotel in 1910 and then went on to discover the property and build PV, presumably with the money from selling the hotel.

The Hotel was built by Crump's Uncle John Crump.  When he retired, he leased it to two of his sons Henry J. and George R.  They had some financial difficulties with the hotel that they overcame, as Tom MacWood described in his Opinion piece.  Does anyone know how George A. Crump came into ownership of the hotel, presumably from his cousins Henry J. and George R. Crump?  And, when that might have occurred?  

I came across the following quote in an article  in the NY Times on January 31, 1909 about a horse show in Atlantic City: "Henry J. Crump, owner of the Colonnade Hotel, Philadelphia, is a visitor at the St. Charles."  Did George A. buy it and sell it within a year?  Or, inherit it?  Did both cousins die?  Other explanations?

Carr said he reported to his friends: "I think we have happened on something pretty fine"

John Arthur Brown said he reported to his friends, "I think I landed on something pretty fine. It is 14 miles below Camden, at a stop called Sumner, on the Reading RR to Atlantic City--a sandy soil, with rolling ground, among the pines."

I really don't think it is that important how he found the site, so if you have your heart set on the train story I don't see the harm in you believing he found it by chance in 1912 looking out a train window....of course that conflicts with Tilly's account and the numerous other accounts that don't mention a train.

Regarding the sale of the hotel, that chain of events is pretty confusing and I'm not sure I have good handle on it. The original owner was John Crump, GAC's uncle. John Crump had two sons (HJ And GR) who ran the hotel, and also owned other hotels. GAC eventually began working for his cousins at the Colonnade. The two sons ran into financial difficulty and defaulted on some loans. Their creditors sued them in 1891, including their father, before eventually coming to some sort of settlement.

John Crump died in 1892, and he must have made stipulations to keep the property out of the hands of his sons. The estate of John Crump owned the hotel; HJ Crump never owned the hotel. In 1900 the Philadelphia Trust Safety Deposit Co, trustee of the estate, transferred the hotel to GAC. At the time of the transfer there were reports of some controversy regarding the sale. There was a gentleman who said he had an agreement with the trustee to buy the hotel when HJ Crump made some 11th hour deal to have GAC purchase it.

In December of 1909 there was a report GAC sold the hotel to George B. Wilson for $1,250,000. In April 1910 it was reported the heirs of John Crump (including HJ Crump) were blocking the sale of the hotel because of irregularities with the 1900 sale, they claimed there was something out of the line with conveyance to GAC. The property was worth $320,000 at the time GAC bought it and was worth $800,000 in 1910, so that may have something to do with it too. Evidently in August 1910 the court sided with GAC because his sale to Martin Greenhouse went through August 5, 1910. Crump left for the UK shortly after the sale.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

I asked you this a couple pages ago...maybe you missed it but it was in response to a question of yours.

How can you reconcile Carr and Travers? David?

1915 Simon Carr

     “They desired a course where there would be
practically no closed season throughout the year. In
discussing the problem, they had the seaside in mind,
chiefly the region about Atlantic City; but the great
distance from Philadelphia, and the extreme difficulty
of securing a suitable location, caused the
project of a seashore course to be dropped.
      The region outside of Camden was searched in all
directions, until, finally, Mr. George A. Crump discovered
a perfectly wonderful bit of golf land at
Sumner Station, on the Atlantic City Division of the
Reading Railroad, thirteen miles outside of Camden.
"I think we have happened on something pretty
fine," he reported to his friends in Philadelphia. His
friends hastened down to have a look at the discovery.
The tract was heavily wooded with pine and oak, and
had an undergrowth as dense as a jungle. For a
month it was gone over carefully on foot; every detail
of conformation was noted; the soil carefully examined
in all parts, and, finally, in October, 1912, a
tract of 184 acres was purchased.”

Carr, who was certainly contemporaneous with Crump and directly involved with Pine Valley, does not say anything about how Crump originally “discovered” the site other than he was searching in all directions.  Certainly, nothing definitive here about discovery through “hunting”.

Tom,

This timeline is also a stand alone as Carr makes it clear that when Crump discovered the site he was "searching in all direction" for a location for the golf course. How can you tie this to Travers' account? Or is there more to the Carr account which I have not seen? If so, can you post it?

It is clear GAC knew of the site through hunting prior to 1910; all the hunting accounts plus Finegan claims they have discovered evidence. But being familiar with site through the eyes of a hunter and considering its suitability as a potential golf course are two different things. As I told you before I don't believe he began considering it for a golf course until 1912, when he wrote to his friends. They went over the site for a full month before finally pulling the trigger; it was difficult site and it took time to determine if it would work. I thought I already posted this, and again I don't think it is that important how he found the site so if you like the train story...

[DMoriarty]

I generally agree with TomM.  There is a big difference between knowing the land on the one hand, and realizing its potential for golf and eventually choosing it as a golf site, on the other.  Keep in mind that the PV land was far from the type of land normally used for golf.  A few of the accounts mention that the flatter, the treeless farmland/grassland nearby was more the norm.  

So I guess I really don't see the contradiction or the need for reconciliation.  Carr is talking about the process of deciding upon the land for golf.  He doesn't get into whether or not Crump had any familiarity with the land before this.

[Bryan Izatt]

Sean,

Well, if you come to the Buda Cup in September, we can meet.  I'll be the one with devil's horns coming out of my Titleist cap.

[Bryan Izatt]

Peter,

Although not addressed to me, I'll comment too.  Yes, it is plausible.  I could even go with it being the most plausible.  It's a way to reconcile the two general discovery concepts of the train and hunting.  However, people want simple black or white answers.  What we have is a bunch of conflicting gray pieces of evidence.  So, I have no expectation that there will be an epiphany one day where everyone will say that yes, this or that story, is the absolute truth about how Crump actually discovered the tract.

Jim - in your opinion, is there something inherently implausible about the following scenario/description:

Crump was familiar with the land from childhood, long before golf or golf course architecture was even a glint in his eye, and at that point the land was nothing more to him than simply a place to hunt.

After growing up and playing many years of golf on the best courses of the times, Crump saw that same land in a brand new way, as if for the first time -- as if for the first time in that he recognized/intuited its potential as a golf course, from the train with AWT in 1910.

After searching out other sites and pondering the question fully, Crump realized that the land not only could be but indeed was ideal for the kind of golf course he envisioned, and so in 1912 he shared the news with others and bought the land.

So: the hunting story is true of/for the young Crump, the non-golfer, who didn't "know". The train story is true of/for the older Crump, the would-be architect, who at that point "knew".  And the mature Crump came into his own in 1912, when he first "knew that he knew".

I'm not arguing for the veracity of this "time-line"; I have no idea if it is true or not. I'm just asking whether it is an implausible scenario, from what you've read.

Peter

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Bryan - thanks.  For what it's worth, it strikes me as plausible as well.  But I can't say that I understand what difference it would make whether it was or wasn't, or whether both or neither or one or the other of the stories could be proven true -- except in terms of how this would support/detract from the reporting/memories of those closest to the times.  On the other hand, I tend to believe that these kinds of stories/traditions/narratives  tend to be based on some basic truth, even if like barnacles on a ship they get built up over time.

Peter 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I've already answered it twice.  Please look in the back pages.  Jim has answered it several times. 

Neither one of you has identified the location from where you believe Crump sighted the "rolling hills and valleys"


Go look in the back pages. 

What does this debate have to do with anything now that you agree that Crump told Tillinghast about the site while on the train?
I see that you have now become intellectually dishonest, in addition to deliberately misquoting me

"I" was the one who stated that Crump did not "FIRST" spot PV from the train.

"I" was the one who stated that Crump, already familiar with the land from prior time spent on the land, hunting/horseback riding, probably pointed out the land to AWT, as they were riding the train, indicating that this was the site he had selected, based on his prior exposure.

If you can't quote or cite me properly, how are we to trust you with anything you post ?

[Bryan Izatt]

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

Carr said he reported to his friends: "I think we have happened on something pretty fine"

John Arthur Brown said he reported to his friends, "I think I landed on something pretty fine. It is 14 miles below Camden, at a stop called Sumner, on the Reading RR to Atlantic City--a sandy soil, with rolling ground, among the pines."

I really don't think it is that important how he found the site, so if you have your heart set on the train story I don't see the harm in you believing he found it by chance in 1912 looking out a train window....of course that conflicts with Tilly's account and the numerous other accounts that don't mention a train.

Regarding the sale of the hotel, that chain of events is pretty confusing and I'm not sure I have good handle on it. The original owner was John Crump, GAC's uncle. John Crump had two sons (HJ And GR) who ran the hotel, and also owned other hotels. GAC eventually began working for his cousins at the Colonnade. The two sons ran into financial difficulty and defaulted on some loans. Their creditors sued them in 1891, including their father, before eventually coming to some sort of settlement.

John Crump died in 1892, and he must have made stipulations to keep the property out of the hands of his sons. The estate of John Crump owned the hotel; HJ Crump never owned the hotel. In 1900 the Philadelphia Trust Safety Deposit Co, trustee of the estate, transferred the hotel to GAC. At the time of the transfer there were reports of some controversy regarding the sale. There was a gentleman who said he had an agreement with the trustee to buy the hotel when HJ Crump made some 11th hour deal to have GAC purchase it.

In December of 1909 there was a report GAC sold the hotel to George B. Wilson for $1,250,000. In April 1910 it was reported the heirs of John Crump (including HJ Crump) were blocking the sale of the hotel because of irregularities with the 1900 sale, they claimed there was something out of the line with conveyance to GAC. The property was worth $320,000 at the time GAC bought it and was worth $800,000 in 1910, so that may have something to do with it too. Evidently in August 1910 the court sided with GAC because his sale to Martin Greenhouse went through August 5, 1910. Crump left for the UK shortly after the sale.

Tom,

Just for clarity, I am not married to Tillinghast's train story, as you seem to think, as the absolute exclusive truth to the exclusion of the hunting or searching or horseback-riding stories.  Never have been.  I have not called any of the other stories completely bogus (except for Uzzell and Nunneville, both of which are provably wrong).  There are things in all the stories them that don't make sense.  I'd still like to find a unifying theory that incorporates the various stories.

Thanks for the further detail on GAC and the Colonnade.  I assume you have sources for the information.  It seems to conflict (not that that's anything new) with other NY Times stories I've seen that say that Henry J., his wife Marie S. and George R. were the proprietors (that does mean owner/operator in NJ in PA doesn't it) in 1894.  Then again in 1907, Henry's wife dies and is referred to as the wife of the owner of the Colonnade.  And, again in 1909, there was the social column referring to Henry J. as the owner of the Colonnade.  Seems odd to me that they were still understood to be the owners in 1907 and 1909 if the hotel was transferred to George A. in 1900.  Do you suppose that George A. and George R. were confused?  A and R are look pretty close - it would be easy for reporters or clerks to transcribe the initial wrong.












_______________________________________________________________

On another front, I came across the Masters thesis of Carol A. Benenson titled:

MERCHANTVILLE, NEW JERSEY: THE DEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECTURE, AND PRESERVATION OF A VICTORIAN COMMUTER SUBURB

There are a number of mentions of various Crumps in the architectural history of Merchantville.  Ms. Benenson attributes the architecture of two historic houses on Chestnut Ave to Henry J. Crump.  Strangely, to make things more murky, she states that Henry J. and George W. are brothers rather than nephew and uncle respectively.  She also states that this was George A. Crump's childhood home.  Also strangely, it is not the property that Crump bought from his brother and two sisters after they all inherited it from their father George W.(I described that transaction in the Deed thread).  There are too many Georges in this tale.

SIGNIFICANCE:

The Centennial House originally served as the Hospitality House for the
British Exhibit at the 1876 Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. The building
was shipped in parts from Great Britain and assembled at the grounds of Fairmount
Park. After the Fair, Merchantville resident and British Vice Consul, George
Crump, purchased the building, and with the help of his brother, architect Henry
J. Crump, dismantled and reassembled the structure in Merchantville along the
north side of E. Chestnut Avenue. The center section of the original structure
was not brought to Merchantville, but the two end sections were joined to form
a double house which has been in residential use since George Crump's son,
George Arthur Crump, first lived there. This account of the Centennial House's
origins is strongly embedded in local histories. However, it is also reasonable
to suggest that Henry J. Crump, who designed the stylish Queen Anne house at
1 E. Chestnut Avenue, was the original architect for this Stick Style building
which may have been inspired by exposition structures at the Centennial.
Regardless of its origins, the Centennial House is significant because of its
outstanding architectural composition and detail.

 


It must have been a neat trip, in the mid 1880's, for George A. and his boyhood comrades to take the train from Merchantville to Camden and from there to the flag stop at Sumner and then back for a day of hunting.

On another tangent altogether, did you ever find anything on John Crump's farm/estate in Media PA?

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Things a little slow at the FL happy hour?   

Sorry, I can't help you if you can't understand our answers to your "location" question.  But, both of us did answer you.

Were you not the one preaching a more collegial team approach to these discussions.  There is no "I" in team.  But, I'm happy to credit you with the first use of "FIRST". 

Now, if you have time for the history test above, give it a try, it might be illuminating as to where various people have been on these subjects over the last 5 months.  If you're not  up to it, I'll complete it for you in due course. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I wasn't the first to use the term "first".

What you don't seem capable of comprehending is that if Crump didn't "first" spot PV from the train, then he knew about the property previously, which means that the train story is invalid, a myth.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I told you some time ago that one of Bryan's primary objectives was to disagree with me.

Like a woman scorned, Bryan's still smarting from the fact that I corrected him on a number of inaccurate posts he made due to his lack of first hand familiarity with PV.   TEPaul, in his email blasts, also chastised Bryan for his lack of understanding of the topography due to his lack of first hand experience.  He was also critical of you in that same regard.  Bryan's lack of first hand data bothers him and he has no response so he resorts to distorting and misrepresenting what I've stated and what my position is.  That's intellectually dishonest.

Bryan has no frame of reference in terms of on site experience.

He doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of first hand observations, so he lashes out.

I've asked him a simple question, which he claims to have answered previously, if that was the case he should have no problem repeating his alleged, specific point, answer.

[Tom MacWood]

Bryan
Love, marriage, emotional attachment, whatever you want to call it, your irrational attempt to prove the train story has resulted in you consuming several months and untold hours of your life, hundreds of posts, dozens of maps, charts, formulas, and other triangulations, while at the same time, for months, ignoring the overwhelming evidence the 1910 train story is false: Crump was not playing golf in 1910; Tilly was playing little or no golf in 1910; Crump considered two other sites before deciding on the present site in 1912; Crump wrote to his friends in 1912 telling them that he found the site; eight or nine separate sources saying GAC knew of the site through hunting. You may not be married to the theory but there is some heavy petting and fondling involved.

I will stop beating the dead horse regarding your claim I deleted a derogatory comment about Tilly, its apparent you have no backbone. I'm not sure how you backed yourself into that corner, I suspect one of two things happened, someone emailed and told you I deleted something derogatory, and you are now wondering if that person lied, or you just made it up and don't have the courage or integrity to say you made a mistake. Whatever the case I will drop it.

As far the ownership of the hotel is concerned, when I was preparing for the Crump essay I contacted the department of records for the city of Philadelphia and requested a search of the deeds. From 1868 to 1870 John Crump acquired four separate parcels (from Richard Henry Rush, William Kirk, Albert Gorgas, and Marinda Dorr) that later made up the site of the hotel. In 1900 the Philadelphia Trust Safety Deposit Co, trustees under the will of John Crump, transferred the properties to GAC. In 1910 GAC transferred the properties to Martin Greenhouse. Greenhouse transferred the properties to David Folwell in 1917. I don't know what happened after that. HJ Crump did run the hotel, but he never owned it.

[JESII]

Tom,

How can you reconcile the accounts of both Travers and Carr? Doesn't Carr completely undermine Travers suggestion that Crump knew every foot of the ground since childhood?

[JESII]

David,

Much as you may think you're opinion was a mystery, it never was. We knew you agreed with Tom. The question is, why don't two contradictory stories which such as Travers and Carr need to be reconciled with you guys yet the train story is obviously a myth when it could fit in with a number of the "nine sources"?

For instance, Carr's account is consistent with AWT with the only inconsistency being the timing of the train ride.

Carr doesn't mention hunting, or even imply it by talking about horses or dogs. He says quite clearly that Crump was looking in all directions for somewhere to put the golf course.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
I don't see a conflict...plus the preponderance of accouts claim GAC knew the site through hunting.

It doesn't sound like you've spent much time hiking through the woods. I have gone on quite few hikes through and over thickly forested hills - as a boy, a young man, and as an older adult - and while doing so I can honestly say I have never thought 'boy this would be a good site for a golf course.' Thickly forested land is not something you naturally consider for golf. As I have said several times being familar with land through hunting and considering its suiitability for a golf course are two distinctly different things, particularly when the land is heavily treed.

[JESII]

Is that how you reconcile Travers and Carr having contradictory accounts?

If so, how does spotting the same tract from a train become a myth? Serious question.

I said from the beginning of these conversations that even if Crump did know the land before, the perspective the train would have offered could easily have been brand new. You scoffed at that idea. Why is it different?

[JESII]

Pat,

How is it that Crump pointed anything out to Tillinghast while on the train?

[Tom MacWood]

Bryan
The woman who died on the ferry was GAC's wife.

[Tom MacWood]

Is that how you reconcile Travers and Carr having contradictory accounts?

If so, how does spotting the same tract from a train become a myth? Serious question.

I said from the beginning of these conversations that even if Crump did know the land before, the perspective the train would have offered could easily have been brand new. You scoffed at that idea. Why is it different?

How are the Travers and Carr accounts contradictory?

The train story supposedly took place in 1910.
1. Crump was not playing golf in 1910
2. Tilly was playing little or no golf in 1910
3. Crump considered two other sites before deciding on the present site in 1912
4. Crump wrote to his friends in 1912 telling them that he found the site; eight or nine separate sources saying GAC knew of the site through hunting

If you are attached to the train story, I see no harm...as local myths go this is a very minor one.

[JESII]

I know what you think you have as evidence as to why the train story is a myth but that's not what I asked...you know what I asked because you quoted it there. How can you reconcile Carr and Travers as they are completely contradictory?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()