Two Tillinghast treasures seen here and now for the first time

[Duncan Cheslett]

I approach this story from the point of view of an Alister Mackenzie fan, and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't stack up.

I can accept that MacKenzie and Scott-Thomas had become friends in the Royal Army Medical Corps during the Boer war; indeed MacKenzie had just returned from South Africa at the time of the dinner in St Andrews in 1901, so it is conceivable that he had looked up an old friend shortly thereafter - in St Andrews.

The assertion in the extract from the journal however, is that MacKenzie was also already friends with Old Tom Morris.

“When I told Old Tom that Alister MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since.

In 1901 Alister Mackenzie was a 30-year old Leeds doctor fresh from the Boer War who had only just started playing golf after his rugby playing days were brought to an end by injury. Commensurate with his inexperience he clearly had trouble breaking a hundred with any consistency and had a handicap of 18.

Yet we are asked to believe that his company and opinions on golf course architecture were sought out and embraced by none other than Old Tom Morris? How convenient that he not only signed the sketch ( a very strange thing to want to do) but also dated it for authenticity should some GCA nerds a century on want to discuss it!

The journal also places MacKenzie at Scott-Taylor's side in France in April 1917. All evidence however, suggests that MacKenzie was actually in London at that time at the Special Works School in Kensington Gardens.

In the MacKenzie Timeline, Scott-Taylor's grandson is credited with the following information for late 1922;

Mackenzie shares a train journey with his friend Lt. Col. Surgeon David Scott-Taylor RAMC who MacKenzie knew through his time in the Medical Corps. MacKenzie had been visiting Colt and was returning north via London, they both got off at Chester, and carried on their discussion in the buffet at Chester. MacKenzie later carried on by train to Liverpool.


If Ian Scott-Taylor went out of his way to share the details of this rather uneventful episode with MacKenzie historians, why did he keep the rather more important events in St Andrews two decades earlier to himself?

Interestingly, Ian Scott-Taylor has at least two versions of how his grandfather and MacKenzie met.

http://www.golfbusinessnews.com/news/people/scott-taylor-made-honorary-member-of-alister-mackenzie-society/

Even more interestingly, Mr Scott-Taylor is a golf course architect!

I would be very interested to know more about the provenance of those signatures.

The more I think about this story the more I am reminded of the Hitler Diaries...

[Phil Young]

Duncan,

One of the members of the MacKenzie Society has known of the Tillinghast sketches for as long as I have. In addition, if those who are responsible for the MacKenzie timeline have added citations such as this I'm pretty sure that you can at least accept that they believe the provenance and the documentations and proof offered to them before they did so.

When the corrected essay is put up on site later this week you'll be very surprised as to what is mentioned about MacKenzie in them and his relationship with Old Tom in 1901 and with Tilly as well.

The Journals, from which this information is taken from have been in the hands of the family solicitors since the untimely passing of Dr. David Scott-Taylor in 1933. Ran himself has seen the proof of this and wrote the following on the Hubris thread:

"What I can speak directly to is that I have personally seen with my own eyes proof positive that the paper/journals have been in the care of the lawyers and stored by their firm at their offices since the death of David Scott-Taylor in 1933. To me, that means we are looking at material of age."

Sorry to disappoint, but there's no Adolph here...

The reason that what the family has in their possession has not been seen publicly before this is due to a family dynamic invovling privacy and what they have long considered their family heritage...

[DMoriarty]

Duncan,

I agree with all that and am glad you brought it forward. There is also a corollary problem with the sentence you quoted:

“When I told Old Tom that Alister MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since.

Before or since?  “Before or since” has meaning only if the author had extended experience not only prior to the event in question, but also has significant experience after the event in question.   In other words, the author has to be looking back over some significant passage of time. Not a few hours.

But this is supposed to be a journal, written within hours of the event in question.  “Before or since” sounds as it it came out of a memoir.  As a journal entry, "before or since" makes no sense.
__________________________________________


As problems go with these supposed journal entries, this one is just the tip of the iceberg. I hope to be able to elaborate later today.

[Phil Young]

So David,

I see that you're quoting from the actual journal pages that have yet to be published on here. For the benefit of everyone else, would you please tell them where you got it from?

[DMoriarty]

So David,

I see that you're quoting from the actual journal pages that have yet to be published on here. For the benefit of everyone else, would you please tell them where you got it from?

I don't know what you are talking about Phil.   Perhaps you should review Duncan's post.  Or perhaps you should review your own post on the other thread.

Is it possible that you still haven't actually read the supposed journal pages?

[Phil Young]

David,

I don't have to review Duncan's post as I read it and know where he got it from. I'm quite surprised that you're not challenging the MacKenzie Society for putting information into the MacKenzie timeline that may be in doubt.

Forget the quote from 1901 and consider the one from 1922: "Mackenzie shares a train journey with his friend Lt. Col. Surgeon David Scott-Taylor RAMC who MacKenzie knew through his time in the Medical Corps. MacKenzie had been visiting Colt and was returning north via London, they both got off at Chester, and carried on their discussion in the buffet at Chester. MacKenzie later carried on by train to Liverpool."

Where do you think that bit of information comes from along with other ones? Might it be from other journals that have not even been hinted at. Would those who manage the MacKenzie Timeline put information on it that they haven't properly vetted or have the tiniest doubt about its veracity?

David, you are very well aware that I have seen, read and personally transcribed the pages. Feel very free to let everyone know how for there was no reason to take that jab at me when you said, "Is it possible that you still haven't actually read the supposed journal pages?" If this will be an invective filled discuission I will end it here. You know that I've acted professionally, honestly and honorably in our behind the scenes discussion. It should be kept at that level.

Also, I notice that with your DIRECT knowledge that the other phrase comes from the May 11, 1901 journal page that you aren't challenging the veracity of the MacKenzie Society and the incredible timeline.

The question that you should be asking is why and when did they receive them and who sent them? That leads to a final question, how can they put faith in the person and what was sent?

By this I'm not asking anyone to question them, in fact just the opposite. What I am simply doing is defining what this discussion should be and will be about. That is that there is but a single issue here. Were the journals written at the time they speak of and how can this be proven?

Since it appears that the "discussion" of the journals has begun without their even being seen by but a few, let me add this. It is not fair to discuss them until they have been put on the site for all to see. I will answer the questions posed at that time and not before. So I would suggest that you save them, and whatever personal barbs you care to hurl my way until then.  

[DMoriarty]

Phil.  

1. You falsely accused me of quoting journal pages that you haven't yet posted.  I haven't.    

2. My comment was in jest.  Of course you must have read the journal entries.  I just found it funny that you tried to come down on me for posting a quote that both you and Duncan had previously posted.

3. I am not interested in the Mackenzie Timeline right now.  But if they are relying on that journal, then I'd hope they have the sense to reconsider.  Maybe I'll approach them in a week or two.

4. I don't think there is much more for you and me to discuss, Phil. I tried as best I could to explain this stuff you privately, to no avail.  So now i will bring it out publicly.  

Thanks.  

[Phil Young]

David,

I'll accept that you truly mean that you meant that comment in jest. I would strongly suggest that you try putting a smiley after any others that you might write as this will certainly remove any doubt as to possible meanings that shouldn't be read into it. That is why I did that very thing at the end of my post.

As I've told you in private, please feel very free to air your concerns and beliefs. I will answer as best I can. This will not be a drawn-out argument and I know that is not what you want either.

I just ask that you wait until the revised essay is put up on the site as others looking in will not be able to judge anything without the context of what is in it. I think at this point, since you didn't say so in your prior post, that you acknowledge that I have sent you the transcripts of what is in the journal pages after you asked to see the journal pages I will include in the revised essay that will be posted alongside them and that I told you that I personally did the transcribing and that you have also not had the actual journal pages shared with you. You will see them at the same time as everyone else does. That this was done because you admitted that as you had already begun working on what you want to say regarding your concerns that I recognized that it was a reasonable request and honorable thing to do. And so I sent it. 

[DMoriarty]

No.  No more waiting.  I will post when I am ready to post.  Probably tonight or tomorrow.

[Sven Nilsen]

As a nonpartisan observer of this conversation, the possibility that Old Tom Morris and Alistair MacKenzie may have been more than passing acquaintances in 1901 is a thought full of intrigue.

At first blush, it is hard to think that this was the case.  In 1901, MacKenzie was not a prominent golfer, was not engaged in the designing of golf courses and from all accounts spent his time in England, not Scotland.  He had been out of the country for at least a year prior the purported date of this dinner meeting, and before that time had been engaged in the study and practice of medicine.  A passing glance through the MacKenzie timeline, as noted by Duncan, lends little in the way of support.

Perhaps there is a part of the record that has not yet come to light.  Perhaps the two men met at Leeds, or they had other mutual acquaintances that had brought them together.  Whatever the case, the idea that MacKenzie was discussing golf, let alone golf course architecture, well before he fell under the tutelage of Harry Colt would be a significant

At this point, I'd like to see further support for this theory.  We often throw around burdens of proof like we are living in the world of academia.  The truth is, the level of citation, documentation and reference that we use hereabouts wouldn't past muster in the loosest of academic publications. 

I look forward to seeing how this progresses.  If the conversation needs an ombudsman, I'll happily volunteer.

Civilly,

Sven

[Phil Young]

David,

I see that you're still avoiding admitting that you have seen the transcripts of teh journal pages. Why? As you undoubtedly will be referencing them all must know your source. After all, isn't that exactly what you're demanding of me? I think that it is important as we begin this discussion that all can see that we've been honest and open with each other behind teh scenes.

If you still won't I'll leave it at that. Regardless of what you post i will not respond to anything you put up until the revised essay is put up on site.

Duncan, I apologize as I forgot to address a number of points tat you made and wanted to do so before any more back and forth with david occurs. You wrote:

I can accept that MacKenzie and Scott-Thomas had become friends in the Royal Army Medical Corps during the Boer war; indeed MacKenzie had just returned from South Africa at the time of the dinner in St Andrews in 1901, so it is conceivable that he had looked up an old friend shortly thereafter - in St Andrews.

Actually that isn't how or when they met. It was after a medical conference that DS-T attended and in which MacKenzie gave a talk in Edinburgh. They met during a rugby match played after it in which DS-T played.

The assertion in the extract from the journal however, is that MacKenzie was also already friends with Old Tom Morris.

 “When I told Old Tom that Alister MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since.

In 1901 Alister Mackenzie was a 30-year old Leeds doctor fresh from the Boer War who had only just started playing golf after his rugby playing days were brought to an end by injury. Commensurate with his inexperience he clearly had trouble breaking a hundred with any consistency and had a handicap of 18.

Neil Crafter has already posted elsewhere that he can show MacKenzie playing at least as early as 1898. As noted a source as Wikipedia, and I freely admit that I state that with tounge as far in my cheek as possible, that "MacKenzie had been a member of several golf clubs near Leeds, England dating back as far as the late 1890s. These included Ilkley between 1890 and 1900, and then Leeds Golf Club from 1900 to 1910..." for whatever that's worth. With his passion for the game and obviously for the courses he was already learning about it is not a leap at all, just a step to see how Old Tom & he would have met and begun speaking together.

Yet we are asked to believe that his company and opinions on golf course architecture were sought out and embraced by none other than Old Tom Morris? How convenient that he not only signed the sketch ( a very strange thing to want to do) but also dated it for authenticity should some GCA nerds a century on want to discuss it!

And yet there is never a doubt that Tilly and Old tom, ane even more unlikely duo, were talking about golf and architecture from 1898 onward.

The journal also places MacKenzie at Scott-Taylor's side in France in April 1917. All evidence however, suggests that MacKenzie was actually in London at that time at the Special Works School in Kensington Gardens.

Sorry Duncan, not all evidence palces him there. At least one piece, the journal of David Scott-Taylor places him in France to meet with superior officers for a short period. This is not a flippant answer. The reality is that we absolutely do not know the day-to-dy activity that MacKenzie had during the entirety of WW I. To think that he wouldn't have gone to the front lines on at least one occasion seems highly unlikely for how could he do his job if he had no first-hand knowledge with which to back it up?

In the MacKenzie Timeline, Scott-Taylor's grandson is credited with the following information for late 1922;

Mackenzie shares a train journey with his friend Lt. Col. Surgeon David Scott-Taylor RAMC who MacKenzie knew through his time in the Medical Corps. MacKenzie had been visiting Colt and was returning north via London, they both got off at Chester, and carried on their discussion in the buffet at Chester. MacKenzie later carried on by train to Liverpool.

If Ian Scott-Taylor went out of his way to share the details of this rather uneventful episode with MacKenzie historians, why did he keep the rather more important events in St Andrews two decades earlier to himself?

This is an answer that you will not like. He and his family had personal reasons for giving out this information when they did. It will remain that simple for a while longer.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Phil,

I am not casting doubt on your integrity. I am not challenging the fact that these 'journals' have been under lock and key for 80 years. I am not even questioning the role of Ian Scott-Taylor, although he is not so far coming out of all this very well.

I actually hope that it is all true, and that Alister MacKenzie really was a friend and confidant of Old Tom Morris (and Tillinghust for that matter) as early as 1901. It would put a different perspective on his whole subsequent career.  

Currently however, I remain sceptical and suspect that Dr David Scott-Taylor was probably a fantasist who concocted these 'journals' in later life in the light of subsequent events as an exercise in self-aggrandizement.

If further evidence proves that I am wrong and that these journals were actually written contemporaneously I will give my heartfelt apologies to all concerned.

I will also be very pleased for a major discovery will have been made.

[Phil Young]

Duncan,

Therer simply is no answer to give to your line of reasoning and so I won't... 

[Jeremy Rudock]

Mike,

Here's a list of Tilly courses on which have hosted major and other USGA national championships. It doesn't include those such as Bethpage & Baltusrol where future ones already have been scheduled:

Baltimore CC (5 Farms) – US Women’s Open, US Amateur, PGA Championship
Baltusrol (Lower & Upper) – 5 US Opens, 3 US Women’s Opens, 2 US Amateurs, PGA Championship
Bethpage Black – 2 US Opens
Bethpage Red & Blue - US Public Links
Brook Hollow GC – US Men’s Mid-Amateur
Cedar Crest GC – PGA Championship, US Public Links
Fresh Meadow CC (NLE) – US Open, PGA
Golden Valley CC – US Girls Junior
Hermitage GC – PGA Championship
Indian Hills CC – US Girls Junior
Newport CC – Us Women’s Open, US Women’s Amateur
Oak Hills CC – US Boys Junior
Oaks CC – US Girls Junior
Ridgewood CC – Ryder Cup, US Amateur, US Sr. Open, US Sr. Amateur, Sr. PGA
Rochester G&CC – US Women’s Mid-Am
San Francisco Golf Club – Curtis Cup, US Sr. Amateur
Shawnee CC – PGA, US Women’s Amateur
Somerset Hills CC – Curtis Cup
Swope Memorial – US Women’s Public Links
Tulsa CC – US Women’s Amateur
Winged Foot GC (Eats & West) – 5 US Opens, 2 US Women’s Opens, US Sr. Open, 2 US Amateurs, PGA

The above list does not include tournaments which were considered major championships of their time such as the Shawnee, Eastern & MGA Open championships and the numerous courses that have hosted PGA & LPGA Tour events. Also, as in the cases of Baltusrol and BCC 5 Farms, the listed ones are not all that these clubs may have hosted as they were the site of other championships played before the Tillinghast course was designed and created.

Newport has hosted a US Open and 2 US Amateurs as well.

[Neil_Crafter]

Duncan
I have sent you an IM and I won't get into the general discussion of your posts on here, except to clear up a couple of things.

Mackenzie's early golf
I have recently found Mackenzie's earliest recorded competitive round, dating back to 11th February 1899 when he played in the monthly medal of the Leeds GC, scoring 124 (24) net 100, which was good enough for 8th place. His own writing in Spirit of St Andrews, written around 1933, says that 35 years ago he was first a member of the Leeds golf club, which would put the date around 1898. Clearly he wasn't a very good golfer when he started playing seriously. It is important to know that although Mackenzie was born and brought up in Normanton in Yorkshire, his parents were Scottish and I have no doubt Mackenzie considered himself Scottish too. There were regular holidays in Scotland growing up to the family 'home' in Lochinver in Sutherlandshire. He was introduced to trout fishing at the age of six, and undertook hiking, hunting and other Scottish pursuits. Not all that hard to imagine that golf might have been one of these. Then there is his university years, certainly possible he played golf at Cambridge, and to date I haven't looked for any evidence in that direction but I plan to.

April 1917 in France
The last edition of the Chronology has Mackenzie placed at the camouflage school in London on 17 March 1917 and then on 7 May 1917. The journal entry of David Scott-Taylor has them meeting in France, near Arras, on 16 April 1917. Mackenzie was travelling with another Lieutenant from the Royal Engineers and two sappers, and had a briefing with the local brass. Mackenzie left the next day to go back to England. This fits in quite fine with the timeline, and it is very likely that Mackenzie made such field trips around this time, as the war and the trenches were in France and Belgium not in London, and they couldn't just pull all the men out of the trenches and send them back to England for training, so a lot of it would have had to be done 'in situ'. Here is a note in the Chronology, which comes from the "Camera vs Camouflage" document prepared by Mackenzie and Lt. Klein

MacKenzie gives demonstrations on trenchmaking “to units in the Northern Command, at the Special Works School in Hyde Park, the S.M.E. Chatham, and the other R.E. Training Centres, and in France…”

I hope the above helps put things in context.
Neil

[Duncan Cheslett]

Neil,

I haven't received your PM, although I have received several others supporting my scepticism and line of questioning.

You might find it easier to email me at golf@duncancheslett.com

Rgds
Duncan

[DMoriarty]

Add me to the list of those supporting your skepticism.

[Neil_Crafter]

Duncan
Not sure what happened to the IM I posted it but doesn't seem to be there now. I did copy the text so I will email it to you.

[Niall C]

Gents

Let me nail my colours to the mast and say that I am very much a sceptic. With regards the most recent posts let me make a couple of comments.

MacKenzie Timeline

As someone who has contributed bits and pieces to the Timeline over recent years and who is a member of the hard core group of researchers ably marshalled by Neil Crafter, I’m more than slightly uneasy as to how an entry in the Timeline has suddenly taken on such significance and weight that some see that as being the final word and an end to all discussion on the matter.

The Timeline has been produced by the hard core group but also other enthusiasts and assorted helpers who have provided information gleaned from various sources including MacKenzies public and private writing, various club records, and press articles. Largely the information is accepted at face value (this isn’t a legal document after all) and taken on trust with little or no verification. If it seems reasonable and fits with what is already there then it is in. For example, if there is a newspaper snippet suggesting MacKenzie provided advice to a particular club then “we” (usually Neil but not always) will contact the club concerned for more information. If the club have no information or as happens on occasion, fails to respond, then the newspaper article is still included even though there is no “verification”.
 
For all the lack of academic scrutiny that Sven refers to, the Timeline is a valuable source of information on one of the great figures of golf course architecture and as such the various versions of the Timeline have been made freely available on line. Unfortunately by making this information so freely available it makes it possible for the information to be used for nefarious purposes.

Provenance of the Journal and other material

Phil in his essay and Ran in his introduction to the thread about Phil’s essay make much of the provenance of the journal. Ran refers to the material having been kept by various firms of solicitors. In his post he details that it has been held by the following law firms in an unbroken chain: S.R. Dew to Dew & Prothro to Prothro & Williams and finally to Eilian Williams Esq. the current solicitor. How long they have been in the hands of Mr Williams, neither Phil or Ran make clear. It’s also not clear whether the material is still in the hands of Mr Williams although it is suggested that it is being held by a solicitor.

From a quick google search, a Mr Eilian Stuart Williams, solicitor, works with Tudor Owen Roberts Glynne & Co, in Holyhead which is approx. 85 miles from Chester. None of the firms of solicitors mentioned above appear to be still active however various business listings sites still list a firm of solicitors known as S. R. Dew Prothero Williams Solicitors also of Holyhead. This firm was reportedly closed down by the Office of Supervising Solicitors in September 2001 with a Mr Stephen Puleston Williams who ran the firm subsequently convicted of embezzlement and forgery of property deeds.

In terms of the provenance of the journal etc it would be comforting to know that neither this company nor Mr Stephen Williams acted for the Scott Taylor family, nor that Mr Eilian Williams has had any connections with either the other Mr Williams or the aforementioned company. Perhaps Phil could make enquiries through Mr Scott Taylor to clarify ?

Notwithstanding the above, two questions struck me when I first read that the journal etc was in the keeping of the family solicitors. Firstly, given that the nature of the material appears to be entirely private, how did it come to be in the possession of the solicitors in the first place and why was it kept for so long ? The second question was what exactly was Mr Williams signing to when he signed the affidavit ? Was he testifying that Scott Taylor family papers had been in the possession of the solicitors, or was he testifying to what was in those family papers ? In other words could he testify that the papers included Tilly sketches, or MacKenzie plans for example ?

Now why should we make an issue over such matters particularly given my comments regarding the information in the MacKenzie Timeline. Well the answer is quite simply that the scope of the discoveries here is huge. Who knew for example that MacKenzie visited St Andrews as early as 1901, and that he was on such friendly terms with the Grand Old Man of Golf ? I’ve never before seen any date given for MacKenzie being at St Andrews nor have I heard of him meeting Old Tom. Likewise the early interest in design by Tilly and that two prominent gca’s were connected long before their respective careers took off.

For good or bad Phil posted his essay and following some shortcomings that were pointed out to him he is to post a revised essay in due course. Ran has continued to support the authenticity of the material that the essay was based on despite I understand strong reservations from a number of well-respected parties. Given that this site exists to promote frank discussion on golf course architecture I hope he will allow sensible discussion to develop that might go some way to finding answers. It’s also to be hoped that the material that has been held back is put forward for scrutiny in early course rather than only hinted at. Here’s hoping.

Niall

[Duncan Cheslett]

Niall,

Your contribution is very interesting.

I received today an email from Neil Crafter assuring me that the Scott-Thomas journal and the signed Tillinghust plan are indeed genuine and that he has "no doubts as to their authenticity and veracity."

I was prepared to accept this - until I read your post. That you have now also come out as a sceptic makes me wonder.

If we take the Tillinghust sketches and the Scott-Thomas journals as one package, there can be only three possible explanations;


1.  That everything is true; MacKenzie and Morris were great friends years before anyone had previously though that the young Alister had any interest in golf course architecture, they both signed the Tillinghust sketch, and that Scott-Thomas's journal is an accurate contemporaneous account of what he saw and experienced day by day.

2.  That Scott-Thomas fabricated his own journal and the signed sketch for whatever reason.

3. That the journal and/or the sketches are forgeries produced more recently by person or persons unknown, presumably in the hope of financial gain.

My own scepticism was aroused by the assertion that MacKenzie and Old Tom Morris were not only acquainted as early as 1901, but that they had apparently been good friends for a while.

“When I told Old Tom that Alister MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since."


My problem with this is that we have never heard an inkling of it. MacKenzie wrote extensively about golf course architecture for the rest of his life. At no point however, did he ever mention that he had discussed the topic in depth with the Grand Old Man of Golf. He wrote specifically on many occasions about St Andrews, but never once mentioned that Old Tom Morris had been a friend and possibly a mentor.

MacKenzie spent an evening discussing GCA with Harry Colt in 1907, an event that Colt later wrote about in the forward to Mackenzie's book. It doesn't look as though the close relationship with Morris was mentioned then, either.

At the very least all this is very odd indeed. Almost as odd as Alister MacKenzie insisting that he add his signature to a sketch that frankly had nothing to do with him.

How convenient that not only signatures but also dates were added to the sketch. The evidence in this story is all too bloody neat!

I would love to know what it is that makes you sceptical, Niall.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for that very interesting post Niall.

Definitely worth looking into further.

[Adam Lawrence]

Niall,

I've requested the copies. It will take a few days as it is the family's solicitor's office and part of a probate action with the death of Ian's mother several months ago.

I was able to learn that the original Grand Hotel was also known as the "Scores Hotel" as many who just played the old course would walk into its bar & restaurant to "tally up their scores." That is the genesis to how the modern Scores Hotel got its name. It is a single source and I'll see if I can confirm that further but I found that fascinating.

I'm off to pack for a flight to Albany, NY...

The problem with this explanation is that the street on which the Grand Hotel sits was known as The Scores for decades at least before the hotel adopted that name. See http://maps.nls.uk/view/78055336 - a map from 1912 that shows the hotel as the Grand and the street as The Scores. This map - http://maps.nls.uk/view/74416776 from 1853 shows the same thing. Therefore, I conclude that the Scores hotel most likely acquired its name because of the street on which it is located.

Edited to add: This guide to St Andrews says that the medieval Swallogait became The Scores in the 19th century when the area was developed for housing, and that the name came from the Nordic word 'sker' or Scots 'scaur', meaning a cliff top. See http://ishbel.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/StATour.pdf

[DMoriarty]

Adam, thanks for bringing forward that information.  I for one am glad to hear that the name did not come from early golfers heading there to " "tally up their scores" in St. Andrews.  In my mind I had started calling it the "Card and Pencil Hotel."

[Ran Morrissett]

Following through in my post under Phil’s "Hubris" thread, the updated/corrected account of the Tillinghast drawings and how they came into David Scott-Taylor’s possession is now posted in the Best of Golf section/Artist/AW Tillinghast.  The erroneous statements regarding Tillinghast being present at the dinner in St Andrews have been expunged and Phil's corrected account is now in place with additional journal pages to better explain the matter. For Phil’s original July account, click http://www.golfclubatlas.com/tillinghast-student-of-golf-course-architecture/.

Tongues have been wagging since we took the article ‘live’ two weeks ago. People fall into two camps: 1) those that are trying to get their head around what these drawings mean, and 2) others who don't embrace this material because they question its authenticity. No single topic since GolfClubAtlas.com began in 1999 has generated more direct phone calls to me than this. GolfClubAtlas.com is in the unique position for such a debate play out. My only hope as expressed to David and others is that this doesn’t become another Merion debacle fueled by boorish, ego-driven behavior that turns everyone off an otherwise fascinating subject. Tactics like making harsh accusations and adding the throwaway line like ‘I hope I am wrong and will apologize if I am’ are non-constructive, inflammatory and bush league. We all love the history of golf course architecture and can be passionate but don't let your passion imperil another's civil interaction.

GolfClubAtlas.com brought this story forward because it is potentially very significant to our understanding of golf architecture and only when material like this is in the public domain can researchers, writers, historians, bloggers and et al.  evaluate and comment. The discussion needs to be civil if it is to be meaningful. Petty responses and half-baked opinions will deprive the interaction of substance.

I asked for a photograph of a cover to one of D-S-T’s journals and below is what Phil sent:
 

 
Given its date, I suppose that this is the one that D S-T references as being in the trenches with MacKenzie during WWI. That very thought is chilling and without question should remind us that reaching this far back in time is simultaneously perilous and exciting. Surely, we can all agree to that. As Tom Paul told me yesterday, it is ‘…one of the most fascinating stories ever in golf’ and we have ring-side seats for what will occur in the weeks and months ahead.

Best,

[DMoriarty]

Thanks to Ran for preserving the Original Version of Phil's story.  When future readers (and potential purchasers) consider the credibility of this New Version, they ought know that this story is incompatible with the Original Version in many key components. To this end, I ask that Ran add a link to the Original Version within (before or after) the New Version.   As it is now, unless future readers happen upon this thread, they would have no way to knowing that the Old Version even exists, or how to navigate to the Original Version.  It doesn't even show up in the "In My Opinion" index, and it is too much to expect anyone to try to dig through the archives.

Why does it matter?  Because the contents of the Original Version cast considerable doubt on the veracity of the new version.    Below is just one more of many examples.