News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0

As Phil Young mentioned is his recent Hubris thread, I approached Phil (and Ran) early last week regarding the accuracy in Phil’s recent article about Tillinghast’s supposed May 1901 trip to St. Andrews. While I appreciate Phil’s cooperation and consideration during our discussions, I nonetheless came away from our discussions with even stronger reservations about the veracity the various stories, and about the authenticity of all of the Scott-Taylor materials.  Because I was unable to privately convince Phil and Ran to distance themselves and golfclubatlas.com from the Scott-Taylor Collection, so I am now raising my concerns publicly. 

An Act in Three Stories.
As I see it, Phil (and Ian Scott-Taylor) are telling us three interrelated but incompatible stories:
   - The first story - last week’s story - was Phil’s amazingly detailed account of Tillinghast’s experiences in St. Andrews in May 1901. We were told that this story was based on the personal journal entries of David Scott-Taylor.
   - The second story - this week’s story - is all about how last week’s story was largely erroneous and most definitely NOT based on the personal journal of David Scott-Taylor.  This story is set out in Phil’s Hubris thread.
   - The third story - next week’s story - will try to recast the first story, only with a remarkably different set of details.  Phil will try to tell us that this story is based on the personal journal entries of David Scott-Taylor, but we have heard that one before.  Ran plans to replace the first story with this story, as if it was simply a matter of cleaning up some typos, or correcting a minor mistake.

Individually, none these stories make sense, especially when we compare them.  And when we consider the stories together and compare them and their stated bases, they make even less sense.  But before I get this, let me first provide a few key details about the demise of the first story and the formation of the next two.

A Discovery and an Abrupt Change.
According to the first story, the personal journals of David Scott-Taylor a meticulously detailed account of Tillinghast’s time in St. Andrews in May 1901.  In order to convince Phil that Tillinghast was not in Scotland in May of 1901, I provided Phil with detailed information regarding Tillinghast’s actual whereabouts and travel plans for the period, including the following:
        -May 5, 1901. AWT was at home playing cricket for the Philadelphia Cricket Club team.
        -May 23, 1901. AWT was again at home playing cricket for the Cricket Club.
        -June 15, 1901. AWT was golfing at Belfield.
        -June 29, 1901. AWT and his wife were scheduled to depart NY on the Lucania for Liverpool on the next day.  (They must have delayed by about a week.)
        -July 20, 1901. AWT and his wife arrived in Liverpool (from NY) aboard the Campania.

Without asking me, Phil forwarded the details my research to Ian Scott-Taylor. Several hours later, Mr. Scott-Taylor sent Phil typed transcriptions (not photographs) of four journal entries. Shortly after receiving the transcriptions, Phil provided me with selections from these transcriptions, and some days later Phil provided me with what seem to be transcriptions of the entire entries. I cannot confirm this though, because Mr. Scott-Taylor will not let Phil show me the photographs of the journal pages.

To Phil, these transcriptions not only addressed all my concerns, they also provide absolute proof of what happened, and they add another layer of authenticity to the sketches. Thus Phil’s third story - one based on these supposed journal pages - was born.  But we are getting ahead of ourselves.  Before Phil and Ian Scott-Taylor can tell the third story, they have to get rid of last week’s story. To this end, their story abruptly changed. 

The Disappearing Journal Entries.
Up until I figured out Tillinghast wasn’t even in St. Andrews in May 1901, Phil had insisted that first story was detailed in the journal entries. But Phil now claims that he wasn’t being straight with us when he told us this. He had never even seen these journal entries. Or at least that is what he telling us now.

How could this happen?  Phil claims he didn’t bother to look at the journal entries because the “logistics” of a private Scott-Taylor "family situation” made it difficult for him access this material. In my opinion, this doesn’t come close to justifying his failure to properly vet his article, and it most definitely does not excuse or explain his repeated false claims that he had based his article on the journal entries. Phil should have known better.

But for Phil it seems to come down to trust. Simply put, Phil trusts Ian Scott-Taylor implicitly and he has absolutely no doubt that this stuff is legitimate. He told me so. As he put it in  his Hubris thread, “I accepted what had been told me by the family as being the truth.”   It is incredibly shoddy methodology, but i believe him.

Phil trusted the Scott-Taylor family to provide him with the truth. The Scott-Taylor family instead provided Phil with an extremely detailed work of fiction. And the Scott-Taylor family made it very difficult for Phil or anyone else to check up on their story.

While Phil may still trust his source implicitly, I have serious reservations about the authenticity of these supposed journal entries and related material.

Mrs. Tillinghast, Changed Plans, Cricket, and the “Campania.”
When I first read the these supposed journal entries I was struck by how closely they tracked what I had just told Phil about Tillinghast. (This is especially true of the supposed July 20, 1901 journal entry.)  Most obviously, the supposed journal pages neatly explain away much of the old story, which was also supposed to have been based on the journal entries. 
  - In these supposed journal entries, Tillinghast wasn't there in May of 1901.
  - The journal entries also just happen to explain away the May 12 Tillinghast note on Scores Hotel letterhead, which, ironically, had been offered to prove that Tillinghast was there. 
  - The journal entries even manage to explain away the “May 1901” date on the Road Hole sketch, offering up that Tillinghast had only signed it “1901” suggesting the May must have been added later.

I found it remarkable that that they came up with journal entries which conveniently addressed each of the major problems that I had just raised.  I was also struck by the uncanny resemblance between the detailed information I had provided them, on the one hand, and the detailed information in these supposed journal pages, on the other.   
 - I had informed Phil that Tillinghast was traveling with his wife.  The transcriptions discuss at length how Tillinghast was traveling with his wife.
  - I had informed Phil that Tillinghast and his wife had originally planned to depart NYC for Liverpool at the end of June. The transcriptions mention that Tillinghast was originally scheduled to arrive in Liverpool at the beginning of July.
  - I had informed Phil that Tillinghast arrived in Liverpool on July 20, 1920, on the “Campania.”  The supposed journal entries discuss that David Scott-Taylor went to meet Tillinghast and his wife, who arrived in Liverpool on July 20, 1920, on the “Campania.”
  - I had informed Phil that Tillinghast had been playing a lot of cricket. The new journal entries repeatedly reference Tillinghast's interest in cricket.

The journal entries not only fixed the old story, they also covered most everything I had covered. In fact, most of the relevant and verifiable details in these supposed journal entries could have come directly from me.  Sure there are references to easily researchable current events, and there are plenty of platitudes about Tillinghast that Phil was sure to love, but most of the verifiable information about Tillinghast’s trip could have come straight from my message to Phil.  The one which he had forwarded to Ian Scott-Taylor

Phil tried to convince me that details such as these add a layer of authenticity because they match up well with what I had found. The obvious problem with this argument is that I had provided Phil (and, indirectly, Ian Scott-Taylor) with all this information before they came up with these new transcriptions of these supposed journal pages.

But what of the photographs of the supposed journal pages?  As I mentioned, according to Phil Mr. Scott-Taylor did not send the actual photographs when he sent the transcriptions, even though Phil had specifically requested them.  Something about “logistics” I am sure, but I don’t understand how he could come up with transcriptions but not have images of the journals. According to Phil, Mr.  Scott-Taylor did begin sending images of the supposed journals a day or two later, but he sent them in a piecemeal fashion over a couple of days.  Not all at once.  Why would he do that?

[But why does it matter when he sent the images? Had Scott-Taylor been able to immediately send actual images of these pages, I might have found the supposed journal pages more convincing.  But as it was, all I had was were transcriptions telling me a bunch of stuff that I had just told Phil, and Phil had just told Ian Scott-Taylor.]

Old Tom, Alistair Mackenzie, and “Golf Course Design.” 
It also struck me how these supposed journal pages addressed the topic of “golf course design.”  Perhaps it isn’t a big surprise that these guys would be talking about golf links, or even the creation of links/courses, but the terminology they used in these supposed journals was a surprise . . . 

“golf course design.”   . . . “with a golf designer friend of his” . . . “Old Tom designed layouts” . . . “[Old Tom’s] explanation of how he designed . . . “Old Tom and Mac were deep into golf course design” . . . “[Tillinghast’s] views on design.”

These are all phrases that one might read on golfclubatlas.com today, and are very much part of the modern lexicon of golf course architecture. But were these phrases being used in this manner in 1901? My understanding is that phrases like “golf course design” did not enter the lexicon until much later.  Same goes for the reference to MacKenzie’s “golf designer friend,” and the other references as well. 

Were Old Tom and Mackenzie what we think of today as golf course designers?  Of course they were.  But I’d be extremely surprised if David Scott-Taylor referred to them (or to Mackeanzie’s mystery friend) as such in 1901. 

Or perhaps I am misremembering the literature.  Does any one have any references to the phrases ‘golf course design,’ or ‘golf course designers’ from circa 1901 or before?  Thanks.

(continued below)
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 03:13:24 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
(continued)

The Surreal Story of Drinking Buddies, Good Reads, and Very Posh Hotels which are Not My Cup of Tea.
I was also surprised by some of the other language in these supposed 1901 and 1917 journal entries.  They read to me like a modern author is pretending he was writing in 1901, but was not doing a very convincing job of it. Here are some particular words and phrases which are incongruous with the supposed date of the article.

Drinking Buddies.  Let’s start with alleged words of Old Tom Morris, in the May 11, 1901 entry, where the author has Old Tom Morris explaining Andra Kirkaldy's planned meeting at the Royal Hotel:  “I also offered Andra to join us but he had a previous engagement at the Royal Hotel. Tom explained ‘drinking buddies.’”

Below is an image generated by the Google Ngram Viewer, searching for the phrase “drinking buddies” and the related “drinking buddy.” Google Ngram is an incredible searchable database consisting of Google’s entire corpus of over 8 million books, and over a half trillion published words in American English and British English, combined. In short, it is a database for tracking and comparing the usage of published words and phrases over time, and it provides a useful tool for helping bring about an understanding when selected words and phrases were commonly used (if they were used at all.)



As you can see, the phrase “drinking buddies” and the related “drinking buddy” don’t seem to have been in use at all around 1901.  

For comparison’s sake only, and to demonstrate how Google Ngram Viewer works, here is another phrase from the supposed journal entries, but one that actually was in use in 1901, “a previous engagement.



Note that this phrase was relatively more common in 1901 than it is now. If these journal entries really were written in 1901, we should expect to see plenty of words phrases like this, but no words and phrases which were not in use at the time.  

Finding distinctly modern words and phrases being used in 1901 would be a bit like finding Old Tom on the first tee at The Old Course with a Big Bertha titanium driver.  

Did Old Tom Morris coin the phrase “drinking buddies,” many decades before it showed up in common usage?  It seems extremely unlikely.

Very Posh. It seems Mr. David Scott-Taylor must have been fond of phrase “very posh” to connote luxurious, elegant, high class accommodations. The supposed entry for July 20, 1901 uses the phrase “very posh” to describe the first class accommodations on a passenger liner, and then again to describe an elegant and luxurious hotel lobby.  

But while the word “posh” has been around a very long time and has had different meanings (to connote a type of money, for instance, or possibly as slang for “a dandy”), the term as used in the supposed journal entries didn’t come into use until more until over a dozen years after it was supposedly used in the journal:  “Posh, meaning ‘smart, stylish, splendid, luxurious’ is first recorded in 1914, with the chiefly British strand of meaning, ‘typical of the upper classes; snooty’, following soon after.” http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/02/what-is-the-origin-of-posh/   “Origin: 1915–20.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/posh?s=t

And the transcription doesn't just say “posh.”  It twice says “very posh.” The phrase “very posh” is much a part of the language today, but this phrase was not is use in 1901.  

Here is the Google Ngram Image. (The small red line at 1900 seems to be the result of a indexing error.  The only book showing up from that period was mis-indexed and was actually published a century later.)
 



Surreal Backdrop.  From Phil's transcription of the supposed journal entry dated April 16, 1917:  “The sound of distant guns and the eerie silence in between made for a serial backdrop to a conversation of home, hopes and laughter with a dear friend.”

A “serial” backdrop?  Surely this must either be a misspelling or a mis-transcription of “surreal backdrop,” otherwise it makes no sense in any era.  According to numerous sources, including Oxford Dictionaries and Merriam Webster Dictionary, the word “surreal” originated in the 1930s (1937) and was a “back-formation from surrealism.” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surreal?q=surreal, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surreal?q=surreal



While not entirely relevant, I should perhaps explain that the word “Surrealism” was first coined in the summer of 1917 to describe a Parisian ballet called “Parade.” (This was a month or so after David Taylor-Scott supposedly referred to a “surreal backdrop.”) Regardless, “surreal” and “Surrealism” are two different words with different but related meanings.  And the word “surreal” did not come into use until two decades later after the 1917 mention of Surrealism.

Heads Home. The supposed April 16, 1917 journal entry mentioned, “Mac heads home tomorrow.” I figured a phrase like “heads home” would probably have been around forever. Apparently not.



Note that Google Ngram searches cannot filter for meaning, so when a phrase consists of two common words like “head” and “home”  they will occasionally up next to each other in texts without connoting this meaning, and so there is bound to be some noise along the bottom of the graph. I’ve looked through a large sample of the search results for the period in question, and found no matches for the usage in the transcriptions.

A Great Read. In the supposed May 28, 1911 journal entry, the author mentioned that he enjoyed reading an article by referring to “a great read.”  The author wrote, “Really looking forward to this article . . . had a great read with a cup of tea and sausage roll.“

The phrase, as used, doesn’t seem to have been in existence at the time.  (Again there is some noise on the graph because common words sometime show up next to each other in other contexts.  After reviewing many of the search results, it looks as if the phrase “great read” (and the related phrase “good read”) were not used in 1901 as they are used in the transcriptions.)



Well There You Go. The transcription dated July 20, 1901 included the following sentence: “He produced this box thing, a camera he said looked more like a box for holding tea in to me, well there you go.”

The use of “well there you go,” in this fashion seems to be distinctly modern.



Not My Cup of Tea.  The supposed May 28, 1901 journal entry contains the idiom “not my cup of tea” to denote something the author did not like: [/i]“I hate interviews, not my cup of tea.”[/i]

It has “tea” in it, so I guess it sounds British enough. Online sources trace its origins to the 1930’s. Also, I searched for the phrase in the British online newspapers archive, and the first related reference I could was from the 1930s.  See also http://www.knowyourphrase.com/phrase-meanings/My-Cup-of-Tea.html

Additionally, here is the Google Ngram Viewer image showing the appearance of the phrase in the Google corpora. (Again the small line near 1900 seems to be the result of a single mis-indexed book, as a book published in 2013 is listed as published in 1900.)



A Bugger of a Trip.  Supposedly from May 11, 1901.     “. . . it was a bugger of a trip.”

The phrase “bugger of a . . .”  sounds British to American ears, but was it in use in 1901?  Apparently not.



News wise.  Supposedly from May 28, 1901. “Got the late edition newspaper still this mine disaster, not much else news wise.”

Neither “news wise” nor “newswise” was being used in 1901.



There are more, some of which I will be adding later, but you get the picture. Whoever wrote these journals doesn’t seem to have written them in 1901 or 1917.

The Story of Old Tom’s Mischievous Look, Not Seen “Before or Since.”
One sentence in the supposed journals struck me as so out of place in a journal, that I though it might deserve mention.  From the May 11, 1901 transcription: “When I told Old Tom that Alistair MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since.”

Before or since? Isn’t this supposed to be from a journal entry?  The “since” in “before or since” only has meaning if the author is looking back at an event after some significant passage of time. “Before or since” sounds as it it came out of a memoir, not a journal  The phrase makes no sense in a journal which was supposedly written within hours of the event taking place.

A Belated ‘Thanks’ on Scores Letterhead Sent from Philadelphia, Concerning a Trip Long Passed.
One of the details holding the old story together was the bit about how, the day after the infamous dinner at the Scores Hotel, Tillinghast jotted out a note thanking David Scott-Taylor for his 
“hospitality in St. Andrews.”  Not only did it confirm Tillinghast’s presence, it also made perfect sense.  The timing is right for such a note, and the occasion - the dinner - quite obvious. And the stationary was appropriate because Tillinghast was (supposedly) in St. Andrews.  But Tillinghast wasn’t in St. Andrews.

These new supposed journal pages try to address this, just as they conveniently address all of the problems created by Tillinghast having not been there in May 1901. Now the story is that the note must have been sent from Philadelphia, and did not arrive until May 28, 1901.

But why then it is on Scores letterhead?  And why would Tillinghast have written out a brief note on May 12, 1901 thanking David Scott-Taylor for “his hospitality in St. Andrews?”  Tillinghast was nowhere near St. Andrews on May 12, 1901.  

I guess we are supposed to believe that Tillinghast must have had the stationary from a previous trip, and that he must have been thanking David Scott-Taylor for some past hospitality in St. Andrews during some past golf season.  But this makes little sense, especially given that Tillinghast and David Scott-Taylor had supposedly been corresponding regularly, and so there were many opportunities to have thanked him.

[By the way, now that I have pointed this out, I half expect that Ian Scott-Taylor will soon send Phil another journal entry explaining away the strange timing of the note.   For good measure, maybe the next round of journal entries will also mention how David TScott-Taylor was close with and poet Guillaume Apollinaire and others who were about to launch the French Surrealism movement, and about how they taught him a neat word that Scott-Taylor decided it might be fun shorten.  Surreal.]

And, speaking of Scores Hotel letterhead, how come the image in the story does not show Scores hotel letterhead?  And how come the Scott-Taylor family didn’t bother to look at the journals when they photographed this note for Phil’s story?

Affidavits, the British Museum, and Inauthentic Authentication.
I thought I’d briefly address this because Phil, Ran, and others keep suggesting we should accept all this stuff as real because it has all been vetted, verified, and authenticated by about every authority short of the Queen herself. I’ve heard of sworn affidavits, MacKenzie experts, paper dating, the British Museum, handwriting experts, pencil gurus, and I cannot remember what else.  Phil went so far as to insist that a solicitor had “personal knowledge” of the exact whereabouts of all the Scott-Taylor material going back for at least 100 years. That must be one old solicitor.

I know this is all supposed to sound very impressive, but I have my doubts. Claims about affidavits and expert opinions aren’t something that one should blindly accept.  For one reason, it is easy to overstate the significance of affidavits and expert opinions.  For example, we have heard  about how the sketches must be real because an expert said at least some of them are on old paper.  Sounds impressive, but it is hardly dispositive.  If accurate, all this tells us is that the paper was old, but one can find or purchase old paper today.  (For example I found a  website selling a variety of old paper, as well as blank diary made around 1902.)

Also, it isn’t necessarily difficult find an expert or even a solicitor to say what you want him or her to say.  It is much harder to find one that whose opinion and/or affidavit can stand up to critical scrutiny.  Do the affidavits, reports, etc. stand up to critical scrutiny?  I couldn't say. I haven't seen them or the actual sketches, journals, etc. Even if I had seen them, I'd probably still have some questions about what exactly has been done to ensure that this material is what it purports to be.  There is more to the process than just throwing out the word "affidavit" or quoting Ran.

Plus, remember how we were all told that the Road Hole sketch checked out and it was what they claimed it to be?  Well, back then they were claiming it to be a sketch created by Tillinghast in May of 1901 while Tillinghast was in St. Andrews, and dated by Tillinghast, “May 1901.”  And at least some of this information is inaccurate.  So much for the authentication process regarding these details.

I’d be very interested in seeing the affidavits specifically indicating that these four new journal pages were created in 1901.  I am having trouble imagining how one would even word such an affidavit, but i am curious to see it nonetheless.

The End of It?  I Wish.
I have many more reservations about the veracity of these stories and the authenticity of the Scott-Taylor Collection, but I’ll stop here for now, because some my other concerns will require me to directly address extended passages from the transcriptions that Phil has not brought public yet. I will hold off on addressing these now so as to avoid confusion, but I did address a few of the questionable words or phrases from these passages here because their usage can easily be understood without getting too deep into the overall context. I don’t want to wait until after Ran and Phil delete the old story and state my concerns because the existence of old story and casts serous doubt on the veracity of the new story, and I am hoping that people will actually consider this before Ran and Phil make the old story disappear.


____________________

ADDENDUM:   Corrected formatting, spacing, spelling, grammar, and names.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2014, 06:21:21 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
David,

I have been perusing Ngrams for terms, too, as well as the OED for word / phrase etymologies.

Just off a quick read, I don't think you have 'fly on the wall'. Working from Ngrams through to actual books, regarding the diary's usage of the phrase I was able to find one entry in Google Books corresponding to that meaning, dating to an 1881 work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jHgYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA69&dq=%22fly+on+the+wall%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mKDaU4urCI73oAT0xYHACA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22fly%20on%20the%20wall%22&f=false

All other usages appear to relate to actual flies on walls.  :)

Word etymologies are tricky given the vitality of the English language -- particularly in / after times of war such as the Boer War. I am not sure it is possible to conclusively disprove the initial date of a usage; technologies such as Ngram do a better job of demonstrating growth in usage rather than initial usage. It is dependent upon a limited data set (scanned books).

This said, three suggestions regarding Ngrams:
1) Run the words *without* smoothing -- this should better pinpoint usages
2) click on Google Books search by timeframes beneath the nGrams
3) peruse the results for meanings not simply usage.

Further suggestions would be to search old newspaper dBs as well.

Sorry for the 'dandruff' post (flaky and off the top of my head) -- I'll read more carefully tonight.

Cheers,
Mark
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mark,  I seriously considered including "fly on the wall."  In fact it was one of the first phrases I checked.

I chose to leave it out because of the 1888 mention and because at least the idea may go back further, (although it wasn't really expressed using the same words.)  See http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/174188/what-is-the-geographical-origin-of-the-idiom-be-a-fly-on-the-wall

In short, I wanted to be conservative and stick with words and phrases where there could be little debate as to their usage at the time. Honestly I don't think there could be much reasonable debate about whether "fly on the wall" was in use, but I was trying to be conservative so I left it out.

There are many more words and phrases that almost made the cut, as well as a few that did make the cut but I just got tired of putting it all together.

As for your suggestions, thanks. But I think I have all that covered.

1) I did not smooth when first researching, but IMO the slightly "smoothed" graph presents better, and from checking it seems even single entry words and phrases show up on graph.

2)  I checked all the entries against google books and where I had doubts, I also checked against other sources such as British Online Newspaper Archives, and other archives where appropriate.  (For example I searched golf related archives for for the golf related phrases.)

3)  I did this was well, as I think I explain above.  

Thanks again for you suggestions.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2014, 06:14:52 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
David,

Yes I do think you "have all that covered." Very thorough piece of research on your part. I have gone through Ngrams and the OED, using slightly differing methodologies in some cases, and have replicated or verified your results using those sources.

It's a strong argument, as it goes. I will say as a general caveat I am somewhat reluctant to use Internet repositories and even the OED to "prove" entry dates of words and phrases into the English language. Both are fantastic sources but incomplete. By the time a word / phrase makes it into a book or formal written document, it may have been in circulation as slang for years prior. For example, regarding "backdrop" (used with "surreal" / "serial"), the OED (online version) has the first usage dating to 1913. Like many compound words when they appear in the English language, it is originally hyphenated: "back-drop". Also, the OED puts the first figurative (as opposed to literal) use of the term at 1947. The original term (back-drop) originated in the US theater.

So do we conclude the word is out of time in the early 1900s? It seems so, but using Google Books I found several entries dating to the late 1800s, for example Harper's Roundtable making several mentions of "back-drop" in vol 16, page 28. These all appear to be theater references not figurative as in the diary entry, so probably a point against the entry's veracity, but who really can say for certain that no one of the day made figurative use?

This example and my caveat aside, the "preponderance of evidence" you've amassed must be given strong consideration. My views count for little if anything but for whatever it's worth I'm trying to keep an open mind about all of it.

What I really hope for, as clearly you do, too, is an open vetting of the materials. Get it all out there for a good scouring.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Phil Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2014, 01:12:16 AM »
Mark,

Before you start congratulating David on his "very thorough research" as you put it, that he would put information that he KNEW is incorrect as part of his proof that “idioms” via Google NGrams is valid scientific proof of when phrases of this type were first used, is at the very least disingenuous. Let me explain and I’ll use David’s own words.

When David first brought up his problems with "idioms" we were speaking on the phone. He specifically mentioned the word "surreal" and how it had not been used before the 1930s, the same exact statement that he made on this thread. He also told me that he would be sending a long list of “idioms” and other words that he had a problem with. I thanked him and said I looked forward to receiving them and researching them on my own.

Note what he wrote in Reply #1:
A “serial” backdrop?  Surely this must either be a misspelling or a mis-transcription of “surreal backdrop,” otherwise it makes no sense in any era.  According to numerous sources, including Oxford Dictionaries and Merriam Webster Dictionary, the word “surreal” originated in the 1930s (1937) and was a “back-formation from surrealism.” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surreal?q=surreal, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surreal?q=surreal

It took me less than 5 minutes to discover that not only was David incorrect about the word “surreal” but that the honorable Oxford and Merriam Webster Dictionaries were as well. This is the address of a page from the website www.arthistory.about.com:
The Origin of the Word "Surreal"
The word "surreal" was coined by the poet/art critic Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918), and appeared for the first time in the program notes for ballet Parade (May 1917), a Ballets Russes production that enlisted the talents of Pablo Picasso, Jean Cocteau, Erik Satie and Leonid Massine. Apollinaire also describe his play The Breasts of Tiresias (June 1917) as "surreal."
However, Apollinaire died six years before André Breton published his "Manifesto of Surrealism" (1924), and therefore his use of the word surreal may not be exactly the same as Breton's.
Today, we associate the word "surreal" with strange juxtapositions or absurd combinations, like those experienced in dreams. This concept belongs to Breton's interpretation of the word..
 
Surrealism officially began with "The Manifesto of Surrealism," published in 1924. However, it grew out of Dada.
http://arthistory.about.com/od/modernarthistory/a/Surrealism-Art-History-101-Basics.htm

I sent him that information in response to our conversation. David’s response? He sent this on:
July 25, 2014, 01:07:46 AM »
As for the usage of surreal, read a bit further in your citation. The common usage conveying what was conveyed in the journal entry stems from the 1924 book. This article was clear about this.
Respond when you will, Phil, but I am losing patience, and as I said I have no interest in debating each word.

So you can see from David’s own words, he specifically acknowledged that the word was in “common usage” by 1924! Which also means that he must accept the other statement from the article which refers to the first KNOWN written use of the word was in May 1917. Oddly, that would be just a month after David Scott-Taylor used it in his journal. (By the way I agree with David that the word “serial” in the transcript was a misspelling by DS-T and must be the word surreal, I even sent him a blow-up of the actual journal page so that he could get a better look.)

So I ask David to explain how he can admit in private that the word was used as early as May 1917 and yet say something entirely different? And before anything is said about my use of a private email exchange, understand that David has already done the same by quoting directly from other ones before I even found this thread.

Think about it for a second, why would an art critic put in program notes for a play a word that he had just made up and expect that those reading it would simply figure it out for themselves? The answer is that he expected them to recognize the word and its meaning and this could only be if the word was in use before this time.

The problem with websites such as NGrams is that although they are presented as definitive, because they simply do a phrase/word search via the internet of digitalized publications, all they are really showing is usages that they have CURRENTLY FOUND. 

Even worse is David’s condemnation of other phrases and why. Quoting him again, “The use of “well there you go,” in this fashion seems to be distinctly modern.” The last I saw the fact that something that seemed “distinctly modern” was only proof of what that person believes and nothing else.

I’m actually going to do what David said that he was when he told me in the email that, “I have no interest in debating each word.” When there is a true science of the history of Idioms, and that can only begin when EVERY single piece of public writing throughout time has been digitalized is available and is universally accepted I’ll discuss them all he wants…

I will only be posting on the other thread from now on. Having competing threads just doesn't work. I started the "Hubris" thread for this very reason. Please direct all questions there.


Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2014, 01:57:12 AM »
Phil,

Rather than argue semantics I suggest that you address the real issue.

David is accusing Ian Scott-Taylor of being a fraudster and you of being either complicit or extremely gullible. Your entire reputation is on the line here.

As I see it your only realistic course of action now if the journals are genuine is to produce them in their entirety for scientific examination. I can only think of one reason why you or Ian Scott-Thomas would not be able to do that.






« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 03:29:10 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2014, 02:05:55 AM »
Mark, 

All very interesting, but just like with "fly on the wall," I decided not to use "backdrop," for some of the reasons you brought up.  The theatre usage seems to have been well established (at least in America) but I havent found any contemporaneous figurative.  But I didn't want to read through every single example looking for a spare figurative use, so I didn't bother to include it except to give the misspelled "surreal" a proper context. 

But given that the Oxford Dictionaries places the origin of the figurative use word at 1947, then I certainly would have used it, and as you say it is "probably a point against the entry's veracity."  But I was being conservative.  There are so many easy and clear examples that I didn't bother.   

As for the rest, I suppose we could engage in an abstract discussion about what "proof" (your word, not mine) means in etymology, but I don't think we are dabbling on the margins here, so I don't really see the point.  It is not just that these words and/or meanings hadn't yet developed at the time they were supposedly being used.  It is also that this author was using a distinctly modern language, whether or not there could   be a slight chance of very limited usage of one or a few of these phrases back then (and I don't think there was such a chance.)  Drinking Buddies . . . Surreal . . . Backdrop*. . . Surreal Backdrop . . . Heads Home . . . A Great Read . . . Posh . . . Very Posh . . . Well There you Go . . . Not My Cup of Tea . . . A Bugger of A . . . Newswise . . . A Fly on the Wall* and more.  In my opinion, it is inconceivable that anyone in that time period would have used this language at the time those supposed journal pages were written.

But you've done some of the same research, so what do you think?  Lets say, hypothetically, that you or I found a single figurative use of the word "backdrop" from 1917.  (Or take the single 1888 use of "fly on the wall," if you want.) What do you think this would "prove" in the context of whether or not these documents are what they purport to be?  Do you think it would even begin to negate the fact this the author is utilizing multiple words, phrases, and meanings that are distinctly modern?

By the way, Mark, I do appreciate that you are taking a look at some of this stuff for yourself.

David.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2014, 02:19:15 AM »
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/posh

zzzzzzzzzzzzz...........
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2014, 03:03:23 AM »
Phil,

1. Regarding the origins of the word "surreal," perhaps you should have looked into it for a bit more than five minutes.  

Had you vetted the about.com article, you would have found out that your source was mistaken. Guillaume Apollinaire did not coin the term "surreal" in 1917.  He coined the term "surrealism." Or rather, he coined the term "sur-réalisme" as in ". . . une sorte de sur-réalisme . . . "   Here is a page image from the 1917 Parade Programme Notes:



The term "sur-réalisme" is near the bottom of the first column. Not surreal.  (Later that summer he described his own play as a "drame surréaliste" or "surrealist" drama.)  

2. You wrote "So you can see from David’s own words, he specifically acknowledged that the word was in 'common usage' by 1924!" You are again mistaken, and apparently still confusing "Surrealism" with "surreal."   "The Manifesto of Surrealism" was published in 1924.  The word "surreal" came from the word "Surrealism" but not until much later.  

3.  You ask, "Why would an art critic put in program notes for a play a word that he had just made up and expect that those reading it would simply figure it out for themselves?"   He was trying to describe something that was was above and beyond the bounds of the reality as it existed in theatre up until that point.  So he attached the prefix "sur-" (meaning above, over, out of) to the word réalisme.  This is apparent from the usage itself . . .

". . . This new alliance - I say new, because until now scenery and costumes were linked only by factitious bonds - has given rise, in Parade, to a kind of sur-realism, which I consider to be the point of departure for a whole series of Manifestations of the New Spirit that is making itself felt today and that will certainly appeal to our best minds. We may expect it to bring about profound changes in our arts and manners through universal joyfulness, for it is only natural, after all, that they keep pace with scientific and industrial progress. . . .

4.  When I say that phrases such as "Well there you go" seem distinctly modern, it is because that is what my research indicates.  I've graphed the usage and it is distinctly modern.  And I've searched for non-modern usage and have found none.  

Feel free to take five minutes research it yourself if you don't believe me.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 04:13:21 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2014, 03:08:55 AM »
Rich,  thanks for the link. I didn't think to use Wikipedia as a source, but it is nice to see that it consistent with what I wrote about posh, above.

"But while the word “posh” has been around a very long time and has had different meanings (to connote a type of money, for instance, or possibly as slang for “a dandy”), the term as used in the supposed journal entries didn’t come into use until more until over a dozen years after it was supposedly used in the journal:  “Posh, meaning ‘smart, stylish, splendid, luxurious’ is first recorded in 1914, with the chiefly British strand of meaning, ‘typical of the upper classes; snooty’, following soon after.” http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/02/what-is-the-origin-of-posh/   “Origin: 1915–20.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/posh?s=t"
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 03:17:53 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2014, 03:14:17 AM »
Phil,

Rather than argue semantics I suggest that you address the real issue.

David is accusing Ian Scott-Thomas of being a fraudster and you of being either complicit or extremely gullible. Your entire reputation is on the line here.

As I see it your only realistic course of action now if the journals are genuine is to produce them in their entirety for scientific examination. I can only think of one reason why you or Ian Scott-Thomas would not be able to do that.



Duncan, perhaps you should let David say if that is what he is accusing Ian Scott-Taylor of - not Scott-Thomas, you must be thinking of that actress ;-) I haven't read that David has made that accusation and would be surprised if he would as a lawyer.

Or is that what you are saying? They are quite serious allegations and can get you into some potential strife if you can't prove it.

You should also understand that Ian does not have the journals in his possession, and cannot just 'produce' them for you because you ask for them. They are held for safekeeping on behalf of the family by a firm of solicitors in Wales. They are NOT Ian's personal property.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2014, 03:38:52 AM »
Sorry for the typo. Now amended!

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but by implication David most certainly is. He is not only suggesting that the journals are forgeries but that they are being written as events take their course so as to answer any awkward questions that arise.

Sorry Neil, but I don't buy into this family trust bullshit.  The journals seem to be readily available for IST's perusal when it suits him, but unavailable when it doesn't.

I accept that you believe the whole story and have no doubts about the journals' provenance, and I respect your decision to do so.

From an outsider's point of view looking in however, the whole thing stinks.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 03:40:37 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Geoff_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2014, 04:10:24 AM »
Well there you go. Surreal. Very posh. A great read.

Phil Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2014, 05:05:37 AM »
David,

So you avoid the fact that the word "Surrealism" was used in May 1917 when you also stated that it wasn't until the early 1930's according to all those same sources you cite? The word by your own hand was in use when you state it wasn't...

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2014, 08:38:06 AM »
Further to David's fascinating analysis of out-of-time words and phrases, I am a little suspicious of one of the signatures on the Road Hole sketch.



With its confident but casual flourish, this doesn't look to me like a turn of the century moniker. I'm no graphologist, but it looks far more like the signature of a product of a British grammar school in the early 1970s.



Rather like this one...









And has anyone picked up on the fact that The Scores Hotel didn't open until the 1930s?

http://www.bw-scoreshotel.co.uk/hotelinformation/


« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 08:45:20 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2014, 09:22:48 AM »
Duncan,

This was raised in the ohter thread by Niall and Phil had a possible explantion for this discrepancy:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59090.0.html

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2014, 09:34:56 AM »
I've just posted a reply in the other thread addressing this question of the Scores Hotel.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2014, 10:55:46 AM »
Duncan and Dónal,

I think Niall mentioned the fact that the Score's Hotel didn't open until the 1930's on another thread.

I have at least one other problem with Phil's explanation.  According to Phil, the May 12, 1901 was supposedly written on Score's letterhead.   Would the 1901 Grand Hotel have created letterhead using a nickname?
_______________________________________

Phil,

After I provided you with proof that Tillinghast couldn't have been there, you messaged Ian Scott-Taylor and requested that he immediately send you (among other things) a photograph of the note showing the Score's letterhead.

Did Mr. Scott-Taylor send you that photograph?  Or did "logistics" once again keep him from providing you with the information you requested?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2014, 02:16:52 PM »
A few posts above,  Duncan eloquently stated, "Sorry Neil, but I don't buy into this family trust bullshit.  The journals seem to be readily available for IST's perusal when it suits him, but unavailable when it doesn't."

While I might have chosen slightly different words, I concur with the sentiment. There have been stream of excuses as to why no one has been allowed to see some of these documents, and they have always seemed to me seemed rather farfetched. Now that the images of the supposed journal pages have finally been posted, I find that one particular explanation to be very troubling.

Before Phil began to change his story, he explained to me why he included 1917 images in his story, but not the more relevant pages from May 1901:

"One other thing which I left out and just rememberred. The family will not allow the journal entries in which Dr. David Scott-Taylor recounts the dinner at the scores Hotel to be shown at this time. It is because there is some highly personal family information also found on that same page which they do not wish for anyone to see. That was the reason I put the journal page from 1918 in which Dr. Scott-Taylor writes of meeting up with his good friend Alister MacKenzie on the front lines of WW I in the essay as it gives a glimpse of their close friendhsip."(My emphasis)

Now that the supposed May 11, 1901 journal pages have been posted, there is no doubt that Phil's justification was false.  There is no "highly personal family information" on that page.   Nothing even close.   There are three possible explanations: 
1) The Scott-Taylor Family was misleading Phil about why they would not provide those pages; or
2) Phil was misleading me about why the Scott-Taylor family would not provide those pages; or
3) Both Scott-Taylor and Phil were misleading me about why the family would not provide those pages.

I prefer to think it was the first, but whichever explanation, Phil's explanation was false.  This casts seriously doubt on the veracity on the rest of these claims about why the information had not been brought forward.   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2014, 02:37:17 PM »
Here is something else to consider.  I had originally intended this to be included in the above, but held off because Phil had not yet posted journal entries.  Now that he has, I think it worth mentioning.   Perhaps some of you can help me check into it.

The Long-Hitting Lanky Yank named Fitzroy, 170 Pounds, Dripping Wet.
The journal entry supposedly from May 11, 1901, described a seemingly significant match that morning between David Taylor-Scott’s brother and a lanky “Yank” named “Fitzroy” who hit the ball an unbelievable distance for this time period, over 245 yards on all his drives.  Wow.  

According to the entry, the match was set for a 9:08 Tee Time at The Old Course.  I had no idea that the Old course issued exact, by the minute, tee times in 1901.  I haven’t researched the issue, but does anyone know if this was really the case? If so, how do you know?

Regardless, I’d like to learn more about this long hitting Fitzroy fellow?  We know he played competitive matches and that he could kill the ball, and Phil thinks he may have competed in the British Amateur, which had just finished the day before. 

But I’ve searched the early American golf magazines on the USGA site and on other sites, and I haven’t come up with any reference to a golfing American named Fitzroy.  It was common around this time for newspapers to report results of even club tournaments, so I searched various US online newspaper archives for mention of his name in any commonly reported regular fixtures, but I have come up with nothing. I’ve even searched the British newspaper archives for record of any matches around this time and found nothing.  I’ve even searched passenger lists for anyone named Fitzroy traveling between the US and Europe around this time, no record of anyone fitting his description.

Maybe I missed him? Or maybe David Scott-Taylor got the name wrong?  Or maybe the “Yank” wasn’t American?  Or maybe I just haven’t looked hard enough?  I didn't devote too much time to it, and I can't say for sure that he did not exist, but I do have my doubts.   Are any of you aware of any record of the existence of this guy long hitting American golfer named "Fitroy?"  If he could drive it like that in 1901 and was good enough to be playing competitive matches at The Old Course,  then surely there must be some record of his existence somewhere.

And, by the way, in 1901 it doesn’t look like anyone was referring to thin people as being “only ___ pounds, dripping wet.”  Or sopping wet.  Or soaking wet.

Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2014, 03:09:26 PM »
As a general rule, when people bust out the shipping manifest, I stop reading. But, having been trained in English literature and having extensive experience with Victorian novels and journals, I wanted to throw my two cents into this literary mystery.

Whether the purported entries are from 1901 is not a mystery. They do not ring true at all. The idioms, cadence, voice and syntax are not those of a coherent 27-year-old man in 1901. I am very curious to find out what this is all about.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 03:23:15 PM by Michael Moore »
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2014, 04:46:13 PM »
David Scott-Taylor clearly led an interesting life.


Queen Victoria wasn't the only patient this ship's doctor attended to.



From The Northern Territory Times and Gazette  5th March 1926




And from The Western Argus 23rd March 1926




 :o :o :o


The year 1926 will resonate with MacKenzie aficionados, of course. This was the year of his trip to Australia. And look who was already there!

It is surely only a matter of time before a journal entry is brought to our attention describing how Dr Scott-Taylor welcomed Dr MacKenzie off the ship in Melbourne...


...having lined up a series of appointments for him at all the major golf clubs in Australia.



Over to you, Ian!




« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 01:27:58 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2014, 10:56:39 PM »

"The Story of Old Tom’s Mischievous Look, Not Seen “Before or Since.”

One sentence in the supposed journals struck me as so out of place in a journal, that I though it might deserve mention. 
From the May 11, 1901 transcription:

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

This phrase troubles me because it's not possible that it was written contemporaneously.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2014, 01:47:02 AM »
This phrase troubles me because it's not possible that it was written contemporaneously.


Not only could it not have been written contemporaneously, but it would have to have been written several months or years later to make any sense at all.

Which means that all entries in that particular bound book after this entry were also written months or years after the events they describe.

If subsequent bound volumes continue chronologically without break or overlap then they too must have been written 'after the event.'

There cannot be any other explanation.

Ergo, these are not journals - they are either;

a.    Memoirs by David Scott-Taylor written in a faux journal style.

or

b.    A complete fake written by somebody else.


You're a little late to the party Pat, but the point you make is crucial. David Moriarty has already covered it extensively but you put it better in far fewer words!


Incidentally,  I have received emails from many members of this discussion group supporting my stance. Several have submitted samples from the 'journals' to lexicographers for analysis to see whether the language and syntax used could possibly be authentic Edwardian English.

I await these results with much interest.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 02:15:27 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back