[DMoriarty]

David.

There doesn't appear to be a knock-out blow in the case against the diaries/sketches being authentic.  If there s a case, it is a conglomeration of suspicions and things that don't quite check out. 

Respectfully, David, I think there is a bit more than this. From my perspective it feels a bit like the Black Night scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail. The battle has essentially been over since the very beginning, but some are still not ready to accept this.

Is it possible for you somewhere in a thread to provide a summary of all the suspicions and inconsistencies that are left hanging at the moment? 

That is probably a good idea.  I'll work on it, but not until I get a chance to address one or two more major problems with the story that have not yet been addressed. 

In the interim, perhaps we can look at this from a slightly different angle by focusing in on what can be authenticated? Perhaps if we focus on what we do know for certain, it might help us better understand what we don't know.

Can anyone tell me any relevant facts in the current story that can be independently verified?

For example, one fact that checks out is that Ian's grandfather died in Chester in 1933.

What else checks out? I can only think of a few more, and one of those sinks their entire story. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

An extensive search of The British Newspaper Archive returned only one relevant result; this from the Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette of 18th December 1933.




The newspaper cutting I was expecting to find but didn't was the obituary which Phil has posted repeatedly from the start, the source of which he has, as far as I can tell, never revealed.

Surely referencing articles such as this is a basic practice in historical reporting?



In which newspaper was this obituary published?

[DMoriarty]

Duncan,  Here is one other untitled blurb in the Dec 18, 1933 Nottingham Evening Post:

[Duncan Cheslett]

The fact that at least two far-flung provincial newspapers picked up on this story suggests that it was distributed via a news agency. The obituary however, is far more detailed although it doesn't mention DST catching a train to Holyhead.

The source of the news agency report then, cannot be the obituary.

I am interested to find this obituary...

[Tom_Doak]

The newspaper cutting I was expecting to find but didn't was the obituary which Phil has posted repeatedly from the start, the source of which he has, as far as I can tell, never revealed.

Surely referencing articles such as this is a basic practice in historical reporting?

[image clipped]

In which newspaper was this obituary published?

If this was indeed a newspaper clipping from the family's archive, it's entirely likely they have no idea where it came from now, since the newspaper's identifying information was clipped off.  By the same token, the "facts" in any obituary are usually supplied by surviving family, and not fact-checked to the same degree as other information printed in the newspaper.  I made a mistake in my own mom's obituary years ago [got the married name of one of her sisters wrong], but that's probably fairly commonplace in a time of grief.

[Niall C]

Niall, quite honestly I would say to any club or entity in the position to "purchase" alleged drawings that purport to give provenance and authenticity to work promised to be done and to be faithful to an original archies style and intent;  CAVEAT EMPTOR! 

If you have the resources to bid up for such "validation" via a commercial trade for a so-called collectible, then you enter the arena of such trade or auctions as a risk.  If validation is so important to the traditions or value in financial or historical integrity terms, then you must entertain the sort of sifting and winnowing of authenticity of such artifacts or documents... and it is the acquiring entities duty to do so.  Ask all the difficult questions and seek all the facts. 

As alluded to in my previous, IMHO, I don't think this set of coincidental circumstances of a heretofore unknown meeting of these golf architecture historical figures has mattered at all to the actual quality of the GCA product or art of design that we have from our modern day archies.  If some modern day archie says he/she is channelling some classic era archie, again I say Caveat Emtur.

RJ

I was reading a story in the Times the other day regarding a guy who was considered the top forger of paintings by the old masters. Apparently his speciality was coming up with "new" paintings in the style of a particular master and then planting them in such a way that they would be "discovered" by some art house/dealer and eventually end up in a museum. Apparently he made quite a good living at it.

Anyway he got killed a number of years ago and all his belongings passed to his sister including preparatory sketches of paintings that eventually ended up in galleries and museums. The sister is now selling off the sketches at auction and their is more than one institution crossing their fingers that their old master doesn't appear in one of the sketches.

Now according to your way of thinking it would be serves them right for not spotting the paintings were fakes. Unfortunately however they aren't the only injured party. Sponsors and donors become wary of donating funds for what might turn out to be fakes; the general public get duped into believing that they are paying cash to see a genuine masterpiece; and our understanding of the artists body of work becomes distorted. I appreciate from your previous posts that the historical aspect probably doesn't concern you one bit and that is fair enough. If art history or gca history doesn't particularly interest you can I suggest that there is plenty of scope to start a thread on some subject relevant to modern design while leaving those that are interested in this topic to get on with it.

David Elvin

You suggest that the knock out blow has yet to be dealt. I'd beg to differ and suggest that not only has IST been knocked out but he long ago left the ring on a stretcher. Unfortunately Phil and Ian keep resurrecting him and throwing him through the ropes for another round. While he's still standing then I think we've got no option but to keep pointing out the blatant anomalies and historical errors in the story.

Niall     

[RJ_Daley]

Niall, I think you possibly interpreted my observation slightly incorrect from my intentions to state my opinion.  You asked me a direct question and I thought I answered my opinion is the Caveat Emptor.  I completely understand and appreciate the account of the forgers your first two paragraphs above in reply to me.  But, in the jist of that example, again wouldn't caveat emptor reply, regardless of how cleaver and talented the forger was?  I wonder if you could say if those that were duped in your example did not have access to other evidence that the 'new finds' of old masters were suspicious and whether there were experts or forensic scientific testing methods of paint and such that may have exposed the fraud before it became institutionalized at museums and within the realm of public consumption from auctions to museum entry fees to view what was thought a genuine masterpiece?

I though I had made it clear in a couple of my posts that I value the "sifting and winnowing process"  and that I do care about accurate history being passed along.  But, I also think that there are always problems with uncovering so-called 'historical facts' or 'artifacts'.  One, because as events are happening in real time, the facts get massaged.  Perhaps at no time in history (perhaps the Nazi propaganda efforts) have facts and circumstance been spun and distorted as much as our times.  For a Historian 200 years from now to interpret why things progressed to their future times a they did, will be very problematic given the cacaphony of distorted facts we have placed in real time today. 

As for the effect of this particular matter that purports to document a certain heretofore meeting (perhaps meeting of the minds related to GCA design and construction ideas)  In My Humble Opinion, I do not think that amounts to much.  I share your and several others desire to have the truth come out on this so-called new revelation of historical associations between golf architecture figures that are somewhat seminal to our understandings of the art and professio of GCA.   But, I request anyone please give any example of how this possibly screwed and potentially fraudulent representation of this meeting has changed the process of golf course architecture and design philosophy or construction technique to evolve to what we have now.  Perhaps there are only a few competent archies on this board, keen on historical preservaton of the old masters ideals and techniques that can answer that.  But, I am certainly open to and interested to hear from someone doing it on the ground.  I do at this time suspect there is no effect. 

That leaves the question of harm due to fraud.  The harm in my mind is again a caveal emptor sort of thing.  If one is loose enough to pay up good money for an artifact like this, which on it's face suggests such an unlikely heretofore association of certain key figures in the GCA legacies, well you darn well ought to do the work to authenticate and re-authenticate.  So, I applaud and welcome all the effort being made here, with a warm encouragement that if the other side of the notion of this as possible fraud or misinterpretation of the historical record, that they stick to their guns and answer all the honest and relavant questions being posed - well bully for them.

And, every post by all of us participating in this thread, or other threads that take place on GCA that become controversial or contentious reveals something of our human nature and values, and at least I for one try to reflect on my own and consider what other responses suggest. 

 

[DMoriarty]

I agree with Tom Doak's comments about the obituary notice.   It doesn't bother me that the name and date of the paper have not been supplied, because it probably came from a scrapbook. I also agree that information in this type of obituary is usually from the family and sometimes not entirely reliable.  This would especially seem to be a possibility here --David Scott-Taylor's second wife may not have even known the details of his life, since they had only been married for about a year at the time of his death.
___________________________________________________

While I personally prefer my Monty Python "Black Knight" reference, I think Niall was spot on in his post to David Elvins, above:
"You suggest that the knock out blow has yet to be dealt. I'd beg to differ and suggest that not only has IST been knocked out but he long ago left the ring on a stretcher. Unfortunately Phil and Ian keep resurrecting him and throwing him through the ropes for another round. While he's still standing then I think we've got no option but to keep pointing out the blatant anomalies and historical errors in the story."

In that spirit, I'll keep pointing out the blatant anomalies and historical errors.

Next up, when I get some time to write it out, is Ian's claim that in January 1901, his grandfather (supposedly then a young Navy Officer and ship's surgeon) was rushed to care for the dying Queen Victoria at Osborne.   Or is the story so fantastic that it is not worth bothering . . .

Does anyone out there really believe this story?  Or that, as a result, David Scott-Taylor was "accept[ed] into the R&A as an unofficial member?"

[Duncan Cheslett]

I've been having a scout around for Ronald Scott-Taylor, listed in the 1911 census as being the seven year-old son of David and Ada Clare Scott-Taylor. Remember, Phil said that categorically this DST was NOT Ian's grandfather.

Guess where Ronald was living in 1934?

Chester!

This from 'Kelly's Directory' of that year.




Ronald  Scott-Taylor died in June 1967 in Chester.

Given that Ada Clare Scott-Taylor died in Nantwich near Chester in 1931 and David Scott-Taylor married in Conway in 1932 it is clear that barring incredible coincidences the DST in the 1911 census is indeed Ian's grandfather.


It is also probable of course, that Ronald Scott-Taylor was the source of the information in his father's obituary. He would clearly have known more about his father's history than David's new wife would have done.

Now for the search for any descendants of Ronald Scott-Taylor...

[DMoriarty]

Duncan,  As I think i mentioned above, the Scott-Taylor family on the census form seems to have relocated to Chester.  David Scott-Taylor's daughter by his first marriage (born after the 1911 census) died in the Chester area (West Cheshire) in 1971.  And his first wife died in Nantwich, which is about 20 miles from Chester.   And as you mentioned the son was there too.

It could have been Ronald who provided the information for the obituary, but given the heavy emphasis on the last year of his life, I'd guess Ian's grandmother (or one of here relatives) is a better fit.

[DMoriarty]

Plus Ronald's daughter was born in Chester in 1929.

[Duncan Cheslett]

So Ian's grandfather had a granddaughter born locally a few years before he died.


I wonder if that's in the journals...


Also, we have been told several times that the Scott-Taylor family has David Scott-Taylor's will. Given the revelation that he already had a full extended family living down the road in Chester when he remarried and subsequently died in the early 1930s it would be very interesting to know the contents of that will.

He surely wouldn't have cut out his daughter, son, and granddaughter entirely in favour of his new wife, would he?

[David_Elvins]

The battle has essentially been over since the very beginning, but some are still not ready to accept this.

David Elvins
You suggest that the knock out blow has yet to be dealt. I'd beg to differ and suggest that not only has IST been knocked out but he long ago left the ring on a stretcher

Niall,  David,

Many of the arguments are picking around the edges. Let's say DST liked to exaggerate, does it mean that the drawings are fake?  Rarely a day goes by when the details of someone's newly published memoirs are not debated.

I think many people have made a good case but Ian Scott-Taylor has an authentication report and Neil Crafter and Phillip Young in his corner. Both men have seen the authentication report and are willing to back its judgement.  Both men are experienced historians and men of good standing.  

Having said that, I do have a few quibbles about what we know from the authentication report excerpts.  

These being:  

- So much waffle, so little published analysis.

- So many definitive conclusions based on limited analysis and spurious statements (the paper is old, so what, it is easy to buy old paper...)

- Stating that the road hole drawing "is not an accurate measured drawing."  The drawing is an incredibly accurate drawing (at the unusual scale of approx 1:2200), as the below overlay shows.  How the authenticators missed this aspect of the drawing is beyond me.  



- Stating that "Dr. Scott-Taylor and Dr. MacKenzie’s signatures were written in a fountain pen with [the same] ink"'

None of the words in the diaries or the plans written with fountain pens look anything like Dr. Scott-Taylor's signature.  It seems like a bizarre statement to make, in my completely uneducated opinion, unless you were specifically trying to support the premise of the back story.

In the meantime I will keep an open mind.  Even if the drawing and DST's signature are fake, it would still be kind of neat to have Old Tom Morris, Tillinghast and MacKenzie all signing the same bit of paper, no matter the other contents.  

[DMoriarty]

Many of the arguments are picking around the edges. Let's say DST liked to exaggerate, does it mean that the drawings are fake?  Rarely a day goes by when the details of someone's newly published memoirs are not debated.

Respectfully, David, I don't agree that many of the arguments are picking around the edges.  For example, I don't see it as picking around the edges to point out the the Scores Hotel did not come into existence until the 1930s, nor do I see to as picking around the edges to point out that Tillinghast wasn't even in Scotland as they claimed he was, or to explain that many of the words and phrases in the alleged diary entries were not in common usage at the time they were allegedly written.  Nor is it picking around the edges to point out that virtually none of the details offered thus far about David Scott Taylor check out. These go to the heart of Ian's story, whichever version you consider.

And keep in mind that the story is not based on a "memoir."  It is supposedly based on a diary kept kept virtually daily by David Scott-Taylor for the entirety of his adult life.  If the diary is real, then the facts about David Scott-Taylor's life taken from that diary ought to check out. Yet the facts about his life offered so far don't check out.   And Ian and Phil have refused to provide even the most basic facts for further cross-checking.

I think many people have made a good case but Ian Scott-Taylor has an authentication report and Neil Crafter and Phillip Young in his corner. Both men have seen the authentication report and are willing to back its judgement.  Both men are experienced historians and men of good standing.

I view the alleged authentication report no differently than I do any of Ian's other claims where he insists we take his word for it. I'll believe it when I see it and check it out for myself.   As for Phil and Neil, both of them went on record very early in this process as "experts" who authenticated this material. (Neil even claimed to have verified MacKenzie's signatures, among other things.)  I think it fair to say that at this point, they both have a lot at stake in the outcome turning in Ian's favor. I think Phil is in too deep, but I do wish Neil would take a step back and consider the entirety of what has happened here, but they both seem intent on defending Ian's story at all costs.

[DMoriarty]

As for David Elvins' "quibbles" I agree with all of them.  But I'd add that there is also the matter of the "SCORES HOTEL May 1901" also written on the painting. It doesn't look like the signature of David Scott-Taylor either.   Here it is, along with the supposed signatures of AWT and DST:



A few questions about this

1. Can anyone explain why the drawing says "SCORES HOTEL May 1901?" Remember the drawing was supposedly done by AWT in the US sometime earlier.  

2. Can anyone explain who wrote "SCORES HOTEL May 1901?"

3. For that matter, can anyone explain what happened to the "Scores Hotel Letterhead" on which AWT's May 12, 1901 thank you was supposed to have been written?   It seems to have disappeared from the story.

[Niall C]

RJ

To my mind the diary and indeed the Tilly sketches are obvious fakes. The reason for saying so have all been spelled out on the various threads. My issue with the diary isn't so much that it's a fake but that I understand it's being used to authenticate other material, specifically sketches/plans of other courses. I'm lead to believe that these plans/sketches have been offered to the clubs concerned. While caveat emptor comes into play in terms of the clubs deciding to buy this material or not, the real danger is that the club buys the material and then it gets into circulation and taken as authentic since it is owned by the club.

For some like me who have tried to find out about the work and methods of the old dead guys, Dr MacKenzie in my case, the danger is that our understanding of these guys becomes distorted. That to me is the real danger.

Niall

[RJ_Daley]

Niall, I also am weary of distortion.  I am just less worried about that if the meeting were 100% true, had in reality any impact on the design of any courses done thereafter by Dr. MacKensie, or AWT, or any of their followers or associates in subsequent projects.  Nor do I believe that if this material was authenticated, would any course of future design ideas or philosophy or technique of design or construction change in the work of our modern day cadre of archies.  If it is a falsity based on fraudulent documents, the same holds likely to be true.  No future course design or construction will be influenced by knowing of a false series of documents purporting an unlikely meeting of historical figures. 

If anyone looses money on this deal, after all this debate and consideration.... well....

If someone looses a credential or reputation of self professed expertise or lineage of prestige to some cool ancestors.... well didn't they enter the arena with eyes wide open with their offers of proof?   If someone through their participation in this episode did or didn't conduct themselves appropriately, well....  We all take these risks when we enter the debate or arena, it seems to me. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

RJ

For some like me who have tried to find out about the work and methods of the old dead guys, Dr MacKenzie in my case, the danger is that our understanding of these guys becomes distorted. That to me is the real danger.

Exactly Niall.

My interest in this saga begins and ends with the alleged involvement of Alister MacKenzie. I do not know whether the sketches were drawn by Tillinghust or one of the extended Scott-Taylor family, and frankly do not particularly care. I am certain however, that Dr MacKenzie did not sign and date that sketch in St Andrews in 1901. In the interests of preserving his legacy I care passionately about that.

The journals also interest me, as apparently they contain several references to MacKenzie over a period of a quarter of a century. The meal and signing ceremony in St Andrews, the chance meeting in the trenches of the Great War, a train journey shared between London and Chester, and allusions by Ian Scott-Taylor to successive visits by MacKenzie to his grandfather in Chester and Holyhead.

If any or all of these stories are true then our understanding of Alister MacKenzie is altered. If any or all of these stories are untrue but go unchallenged then our understanding of Alister MacKenzie is distorted.

One thing we do know for sure is that the journals - if indeed they exist at all - do not give an accurate record of David Scott-Taylor's life. They make no mention of his marriage, his children, his life as a ship's doctor on the UK-Australia run, his trial for homicide in Sydney, his relocation with his family to Cheshire, the birth of his granddaughter, or the death of his wife. We know that the journals make no mention of these now established facts because Ian Scott-Taylor, through his mouthpiece Phil Young, has consistently denied that any of these facts relate to his grandfather.

Therefore they must not be in the journals.

Therefore the journals are not a true record of the life of David Scott-Taylor.

The received wisdom amongst sceptics appears to be that the sketches, signatures, and journals are the recent work of one or more of the Scott-Taylor brothers in Maryland with profit as a motive. This may well be true, but I find it difficult to believe that anyone could be so stupid as to think that such a harebrained scheme might work.


To my mind there is another suspect in this case.

David Scott-Taylor was widowed in 1931. He was remarried to a much younger woman in 1932. He subsequently died in 1933.

We know nothing of the dynamics of the relationship between DST and his new wife. Was she his mistress before he became a widower? Did they not meet until after the death of his first wife? Did he even tell her about his first wife. their two children, and grandchild in Chester?

It is surely at least a possibility that David Scott-Taylor felt the need to 'reinvent' himself and divest himself of 'baggage' in pursuit of a new wife and a more satisfying and secure new life. Maybe he started off rewriting an old journal or two and then got carried away. Maybe it filled the long lonely evenings many miles away from his new bride. Maybe it made him feel better about himself to imagine having led this fantasy life rather than the mundane one he felt that he had endured.

Maybe he had known MacKenzie and Tillinghust as a young man. By now they would have become well known as golf architects and DST would have read about their work. Maybe he felt a failure in comparison and just wanted to feel part of the story.

Yes, it's conjecture. Yes, it's fanciful.  As a hypothesis however, it does fit the framework of the facts as we know them.  


Without a little conjecture after all, how is a hypothesis ever to be developed?

[Niall C]

I've just finished reading Phil's latest essay and all I can say is wow. Paper and ink of the period therefore must be genuine, really !! Learned experts give opinion that documents are genuine and Phil triumphantly states this as proof. Sorry Phil it's just an opinion.

Other "experts" read the diaries and acclaim them to be genuine because they mention the sinking of the Titanic and the outbreak of WWI !! Amazing. Presumably you can write away to get this expert accreditation ?

Reference is made to the various discussions on GCA with the experts giving responses to questions raised, the main one being the existance of the wall bounding the course and the railway sidings. Hands up I think made reference to the road, in particular to the mention on the Road Hole sketch of the wall behind the 17th tee which according to my reading of Scott MacPhersons book, never existed. (BTW, what exactly is that first photo meant to show ?) I note that isn't addressed by the experts. Strangely they also don't deal with why the road isn't annotated on the sketch.

Also most notably what the experts didn't address, at least in Phil's abridged extracts of the report, was the mention of the Scores Hotel. Neither do they seem to have given an opinion on who wrote "The Scores Hotel" on the sketch. That would have been interesting to see. They do however mention that the sketch was crudely drawn and not to scale. Several posters on GCA have pointed out that the sketches actually are proportionate to whats on the ground with David Elvins suggesting that the sketch is actually accurate based on a scale of 1/2200. Not bad for an untrained artist. I wonder what the experts said about that  .

I could also mention that Martin Bonnar posted very similiar near identical sketch of the Redan that was published several years later than "Tilly's" sketch however by this point you get the idea. I suspect I'll never get to see the full report which is a shame because given what's been revealed to date, it would be quite an interesting read 

Niall

[DMoriarty]

Duncan,  Your hypothesis that David Scott-Taylor may have concocted these diaries (and presumably the related material) in the early 1930's is an interesting one, and it is one that others have shared with me offline.  But I think the facts point to a more modern hand both in the case of the various drawings and also in the case of the diaries.  Among other reasons . . .
 - Some of the language used in the alleged diaries was not in common usage even in 1932.
 - Other mistakes in the story (beyond the language) wouldn't likely have been made in the early 1930s.   The "Scores Hotel" is a big part of the story.  The first reference I can find to the real "Scores Hotel" is from 1932.  I don't think anyone would make up events from 30 years ago using a just opened hotel as the setting.
 - Given the misrepresentations about the nature of the material and drastic changes to the story, it seems that the story is still evolving.  For example they first claimed Tillinghast was there at the dinner, in St. Andrews, etc., then they conveniently changed the story once it was proven he wasn't.   If David Scott-Taylor had done the diaries in 1932, I think the story would stay the same. Unless of course he made up the first pass, and they are editing his version as they go along.
 - I can't see a motivation for Ian's grandfather to have created a convoluted scheme relating to golf course architecture, which just wasn't that big of a deal in 1932, at least not like it is now. As discussed above, these two AWT drawings are only the tip of the iceberg.  And some of the yet to be publicized drawings and paintings were of courses that had just come into existence.  For example there are supposedly a series of MacKenzie Riviera sketches (also authenticated by the supposed diaries) but Riviera had just opened in 1927, and I've also heard mention of ANGC sketches (also presumably authenticated by the diaries), but ANGC didn't open until 1932.  It seems highly unlikely that Ian's grandfather would have been making up such things, especially given that I have never even found confirmation that he was even a golfer.

By comparison, Ian is (or was) a golf architect, an artist, has access to the internet, the MacKenzie timeline, Phil's books, and the various histories of these clubs, newspaper archives, etc., so it seems more plausible for him to have  tried to create this stuff.  Ironically two things that seem to have tripped him up are an incorrect understanding of AWT's whereabouts in May 1901 (thanks Phil) and a lack of knowledge of his grandfather's personal history.

In sum, it could be that some of the diaries are from David Scott-Taylor, but the ones we have seen (and the material we have seen and heard about) seems to have been produced much more recently.

[Marty Bonnar]

Niall,
Just a tiny point of correction. The 1912 drawing of the Redan is, most certainly, not, a 'sketch'. In actual fact, it is the product of an accurately measured survey done by a qualified architect, clearly created using levelling and measuring equipment, allowing the said gentleman to create a very accurate PLAN and SECTION view of all of the features of the golf hole in perfect scale and spatial relationship to each other. I believe it was originally commissioned for, and included in, Aleck Bauer's ' Hazards' book.
Mr Tillinghast must have been a genius to have 'sketched' such an accurate plan from mere visual observation thirteen years earlier. How lucky we are to have such talent amongst us.
Best,
F.

[DMoriarty]

Here again are the images mentioned by Martin.  According to Martin, he first image is the 1912 architectural rendering of the Redan, which as Martin says was obviously a result of a survey.   The second image is the questioned AWT painting, dated 1899.  The third is an overlay Tommy did for another thread.  The two images are nearly exact.







As you can see it is almost a perfect match. It seems impossible that AWT could have free-handed a perfectly proportioned vertical sketch of the golf hole, and gotten everything in exactly the right place.  

Add to the above the fact that the alleged AWT sketch leaves out the giant sleeper-lined bunker to the right of the green as it was in 1899, and replaced it with the two small bunkers which didn't appear until later.  Could AWT see the future?  Or maybe the argument will be that the changes were made as a result of AWT's sketch?  (I'm surprised Phil hasn't made this claim.)

Here is the bunker as it existed in 1899.  (Photo published in Jan. 1900.)

[David_Elvins]

Here again are the images mentioned by Martin.  According to Martin, he first image is the 1912 architectural rendering of the Redan, which as Martin says was obviously a result of a survey.   The second image is the questioned AWT painting, dated 1899.  The third is an overlay Tommy did for another thread.  The two images are nearly exact.

Would it be possible for Tillinghast to have done the road hole sketch and the Redan sketch some time after 1912 - based on copying available survey drawings?  I assume that knowing Old Tom Morris might give him access to survey drawings of the Old Course at least?

Is it possible that only the dates on the drawing are forgeries? 

[DMoriarty]

Seems extraordinarily unlikely, doesn't it?  How would these paintings/drawings (and the dozens of others) have ended up underneath "Mum's bed?"

Remember, thus far there is no independently sourced evidence linking David Scott-Taylor to MacKenzie, Tillinghast, or Old Tom. So far, any information connecting DST to the others has come from Ian Scott-Taylor.  

[David_Elvins]

..

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()