[Sven Nilsen]

There was an alternate idea for the the 16th, which was drawn by MacKenzie on the July 1931 initial sketch routing plan for the course.



By Nov., they had settled on the version that was actually built.

[Jon Cavalier]

Phil,
If you are no longer involved in this, I think it's completely incumbent upon you to provide Links magazine and Green Jacket Auctions with the necessary information surrounding this activity.
Regards,
Martin.

According the article, Phil is very much involved (my emphasis):

"Throughout that time, the drawings, along with other golf artifacts, were with the family’s lawyers, where they remained until about 10 years ago when they passed down to Scott-Taylor’s grandson Ian, himself a course architect. Since then, Young has had their provenance and other aspects of the drawings authenticated and has made plans for their sale: As of this writing, the sketches are consigned to Green Jacket Auctions, which is negotiating with a private collector for their purchase."

How can this (the bolded language in your quote above) possibly be true, given the above contents of this thread (and others)? What am I missing?



Specifically, given this:

This much is clear: The 21 page preliminary brief that purportedly was commissioned by the Scott-Taylor family – and that was the primary source for Phil’s October In My Opinion piece - was in fact derived from a 2010 report published by STEP on an unrelated matter. Ian told me on the phone this morning that he lifted the language.

and, more importantly, this:

When Ran shared with me the email he received this morning I was beyond stunned. When Ian admitted to me that he had indeed faked the initial report I became both angry and sick over the fraud he perpetrated.He still insists that the drawings and diaries are real. I want all to know that I told him, “Unfortunately what you did prevents anyone from even considering that possibility.”

. . . how can Phil Young now be involved in having "their provenance and other aspects of the drawings authenticated and has made plans for their sale."

I don't get it.


- Jon



PS - I don't know how you managed to keep your research skills so strong over the years, David, but like many others in this thread, I am envious.  Thanks for all of your work here.  Fascinating, insightful stuff.

[Sven Nilsen]

There is so much that pops off the page from the Links Magazine article as problematic that I don't even know where to start.


First, Mackenzie's plan for the 16th was to borrow from a similar hole at Stoke Poges.  It appears from the sketch above that they did consider a different location for the green, but I see no similarities between the hole depicted in that course sketch and the one in the purported Mackenzie hole drawing or today's version.


Second, the Mackenzie Oct. 1931 letter included in the article just reeks of later day creation.  The "gut feeling" closing seems completely off kilter with what we know about Mackenzie's enthusiasm for the project, a project that wouldn't even begin construction until the next year.


Third, but probably not finally, that little bunker on the left side of the 16th was not part of the original design by Trent Jones.  It was added after the hole was changed.  At the same time, the back right terrace on the green was further raised.  Probably not dispositive, but certainly interesting that two non-original features of the hole are included on a sketch supposedly drawn 17 years before the hole was constructed.

[Jim Nugent]

Sven, that first map -- that you identify as the initial sketch routing plan for ANGC -- shows the front and back nines in the same order they are today.  Did AM design it that way first... then reverse the nines before the opening... only to see them flipped once again?

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim:


I believe that was the case.  There's probably more on it somewhere in the back pages here if you can find it.


Sven

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim

Nines originally as today, Mac reversed them by Oct 6, 1931.

[Bart Bradley]

Check out the phrase "feeling in my gut" supposedly written by MacKenzie on Oct 8, 1931 on N-grams.


It doesn't appear until the mid-1940s and isn't popular until the mid-late 1960s.


Phil, wake up!


Bart

[David_Elvins]

There was an alternate idea for the the 16th, which was drawn by MacKenzie on the July 1931 initial sketch routing plan for the course.



By Nov., they had settled on the version that was actually built.

I love those two maps, Sven.  Thanks for reposting.   Interesting that Mackenzie (or Scott Taylor) did not use either of these 1931 plans for the basis of the 13th hole sketch he sent DST in October 1931, but instead based his sketch on the the  June 1932 drawing of the (almost) completed course.


June 1932 Plan





October 1931 Sketch



So apparently Mackenzie knew the exact final hole centrelines and exact final property boundaries in Oct 31, then forgot them in Nov 31 and then remembered them again after the course was built. Incredible stuff. 


Seems to be an amazing skill he shared with Tillinghast who was also able to copy plans and property boundaries that hadnt been drawn/built yet.

[Sven Nilsen]

David:


Looks like our posts just crossed, check the other thread.


Sven

[David_Elvins]

Nice one, Sven. You are much more polite than me.  Unfortunately i learnt last time that asking questions just gives them a chance to make shit up and string things out..  This time i am going out swinging.

[Pat Burke]

There was an alternate idea for the the 16th, which was drawn by MacKenzie on the July 1931 initial sketch routing plan for the course.



By Nov., they had settled on the version that was actually built.

When were the nines reversed?

[DMoriarty]

Whoops.  I accidentally bumped this thread which happens to be the only other thread I have started regarding this controversy.  I can't wait for my scolding.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()