[Ran Morrissett]

I received an email from STEP (Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners) in the UK this morning that referenced plagiarism in Phil’s October In My Opinion piece.

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.

I hung up in rage. My disappointment and angry far outweighed the excitement in my original post this summer when I assumed all this to be genuine. Phil is similarly outraged.

Both related In My Opinion articles will be removed from the web site at 4:00pm EST. The threads will remain.

This entire incident is regrettable on many levels and causes me to re-evaluate this web site’s policy for posting material.

Regards,

[Phil Young]

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.”

It has been asked on here “Why has Phil been carrying the water for Ian on this?” It is a complicated story whose simple answer is that I believed that they were authentic. I’ve actually held the Tillinghast drawings and, as has been earlier alluded to, the MacKenzie sketches of Riviera and Augusta, in my hands. I was there in person when the paper on which the MacKennzie drawings were drawn were analyzed by an expert paper conservator who works for several world-class museums. The reports on these and also those done by others who had copies of all of the drawings sent to them for comment were also sent directly to me and arranged for their giving their opinions by me. In every case the results all pointed to everything being genuine.

Some who contended from the beginning that the drawings were forged believed that they were done so in order to profit from their sale. I, also, would have thought the same thing. Except that early last year an offer was made to the family to purchase several of the drawings for an incredible price. How do I know this was a real offer? Because I was contacted by the party and it was a person I knew personally and had previous contact with. Ian turned it down. That also convinced me that they must be genuine as what forger would turn down the big score they were hoping for?

That is why I was convinced they were genuine, fought so hard in arguing it and was willing to “carry the weight” for Ian.

All that preface to simply say how deeply sorry I am that this has occurred. As is Ran, I am beyond angry and sick at how I was used. I am even more upset and embarrassed for having involved those that supported me in what I wrote and for being the cause of this embarrassing episode on golfclubatlas.

My deepest apologies to all,

Phil Young

[Adam Lawrence]

Well, I won't say we told you so...

... but we did.

[RJ_Daley]

No doubt there will be plenty of "I told you so's" and more piling on about the discoveries of facts by the relentless researchers that have been hammering at this for months.  Yet, in my personal view, I am of two minds on the intensity of the pursuit of the true historical record.  Of course I personally am grateful for the diligence and passion of these folks to set he accurate record straight and protect the community in general and the GCA.com community specifically from this fraud.  But, I am also of the mind that it became obvious after about a week or two of the exposures and that it almost seemed a piling on or vicious campaign by parties on several sides and coming from tangential issues to natter and antagonize their enemies.  I'm not going into the specifics of that.  It should be patently clear who those parties are who used this for side attacks that brought no valid information, only innuendo and cast aspersions like a bully does in the school yard.  

Thank you Ran for trying to get this right.  I value a conversation we had on the phone about all this a few month ago already.  I had confidence in you that you would let this play out and then make the right decision.  I completely support your idea to kill the my opinion material and let the threads hopefully die the death of irrelevance.  Not irrelevant in the sense that the truth was sought, but more so that beating a dead horse from here out is just an exercise in futility and overkill.  

[Jon Wiggett]

Ran and Phil,

it is always unfortunate when something like this occurs and innocent parties are duped. I would however urge you both to take this episode as part of life's ups and downs but not to let it colour your outlook if a similar situation should arise in the future. To me this does not reflect badly in anyway on either of you nor on the website.

People who look for the positive and are willing to explore new things are the ones who might achieve their potential in life and add to the quality of the community as a whole. Those who are negative looking only for reasons to put others down achieve nothing but making their lives small and miserable whether they realise it or not.

So as we Brits say 'chin up'

Jon

[Marty Bonnar]

You'll get no gloating from me, despite the Redan drawing still being a crock.
Phil, welcome back.
As I said to another good friend of this site a few months ago: " Don't f#%& with the architecture geeks".
The right outcome, thankfully. Let's get back to sensible discourse on our favourite topic.
Cheers,
Martin.

[Tommy Naccarato]

Phil is anything but innocent. It bothers me greatly that any of you should believe any apology from him is anything but self-saving.

He was forewarned of the material's inauthenticity and he even posted here that he had no worries about how this would affect his reputation.

I was one of the many people warning Phil and he didn't take that advice. He makes an apology here without a pittance of shame.  The only thing he needs to say was, "I'm no longer in the Golf Architecture History Business because I lied, plagiarized, others materials while trying to fabricate an less then elaborate ruse on all of you with my partner, Ian Scott-Taylor."

[John Kavanaugh]

Phil is anything but innocent. It bothers me greatly that any of you should believe any apology from him is anything but self-saving.

He was forewarned of the material's inauthenticity and he even posted here that he had no worries about how this would affect his reputation.

I was one of the many people warning Phil and he didn't take that advice. He makes an apology here without a pittance of shame.  The only thing he needs to say was, "I'm no longer in the Golf Architecture History Business because I lied, plagiarized, others materials while trying to fabricate an less then elaborate ruse on all of you with my partner, Ian Scott-Taylor."

Had to save this before the edit.

[Sean_A]

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.”

It has been asked on here “Why has Phil been carrying the water for Ian on this?” It is a complicated story whose simple answer is that I believed that they were authentic. I’ve actually held the Tillinghast drawings and, as has been earlier alluded to, the MacKenzie sketches of Riviera and Augusta, in my hands. I was there in person when the paper on which the MacKennzie drawings were drawn were analyzed by an expert paper conservator who works for several world-class museums. The reports on these and also those done by others who had copies of all of the drawings sent to them for comment were also sent directly to me and arranged for their giving their opinions by me. In every case the results all pointed to everything being genuine.

Some who contended from the beginning that the drawings were forged believed that they were done so in order to profit from their sale. I, also, would have thought the same thing. Except that early last year an offer was made to the family to purchase several of the drawings for an incredible price. How do I know this was a real offer? Because I was contacted by the party and it was a person I knew personally and had previous contact with. Ian turned it down. That also convinced me that they must be genuine as what forger would turn down the big score they were hoping for?

That is why I was convinced they were genuine, fought so hard in arguing it and was willing to “carry the weight” for Ian.

All that preface to simply say how deeply sorry I am that this has occurred. As is Ran, I am beyond angry and sick at how I was used. I am even more upset and embarrassed for having involved those that supported me in what I wrote and for being the cause of this embarrassing episode on golfclubatlas.

My deepest apologies to all,

Phil Young

Phil

I am confused.  The story is bogus, but the diaries and sketches are real?  Please explain how this makes sense?  

Naccers

You have proof that Phil was in cahoots with I S-T concerning the plagiarism?

Ciao

[Tommy Naccarato]

John,
You'll get no edits from me!

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sean, You need to go back and read Phil's entire apology.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ran - moving forward, my two cents from the perspective simply as a reader (and sometime professional writer) and not as any kind of knowledgable poster about gca in general (and certainly not about this topic):

Too many words on this, and too many words way too early.

Too many essays, posted on line before they were anywhere close to ready (IMHO, as a reader and sometime writer) .

Too much of a rush, on every front, and by all the principles involved. I won't mention any potential rush to judgement, but because you raised it Ran I'd ask you and Phil what I've often wondered myself:

What was the urgency on this? Why rush the first essay, and even more so why rush the second? Why the premature 'stunning news' and premature 'falling on the sword' and the premature 'in your face'?

(An aside, and to be honest: I'm surprised that anyone needed confirmation that the "brief" in Phil's essay was actually simply boiler-plate content that was cut and pasted from somewhere else. I stopped reading it after two paragraphs, as this was clear to me immediately --  my only question being to Phil-the-writer as to why he would choose to bore and bamboozle us with it, and why he would rush to publish it).

The crazy thing is: I happen to believe that there are some genuinely authentic elements here (my guess: the diary is indeed an old dead man's diary from the period, and the drawings/sketches may well have been produced contemporaneously).  But whatever is indeed authentic is so mixed up with confusions and exaggerations and sloppiness and flat out mistakes and even outright deceptions that it means at this point nothing at all.  

In short - moving forward Ran I think your primary goal, if you want to publish at all, is to get it right, and to get it right the first time. Take the time to get it right. Share it with a few close and trusted friends and/or experts, hopefully including folks that know a bit about writing and that are not too invested in the content.

We are not saving lives or curing cancer or supporting positive social change or even making a freaking dime -- so it seems to me that (and my words/reminder to you are): anything and everything you can ever imagine posted on-line here at gca.com can wait.
 

[Sean_A]

Sean, You need to go back and read Phil's entire apology.

Naccers

Yes, it is apparent that Phil believes he was duped and you think he was complicit in the lie.  I only asked for the evidence of complicity...that doesn't seem to be apparent in the apology.  

I am +1 with Pietro; too much too quick. 

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Ran and Phil,

it is always unfortunate when something like this occurs and innocent parties are duped. I would however urge you both to take this episode as part of life's ups and downs but not to let it colour your outlook if a similar situation should arise in the future. To me this does not reflect badly in anyway on either of you nor on the website.

People who look for the positive and are willing to explore new things are the ones who might achieve their potential in life and add to the quality of the community as a whole. Those who are negative looking only for reasons to put others down achieve nothing but making their lives small and miserable whether they realise it or not.

So as we Brits say 'chin up'

Jon

Having had no involvement in this I was looking for some general words to simply show my support for both of you and to encourage you to not let this episode taint your faith in the future.

I now don't need to as Jon has put it perfectly.

[Rich Goodale]

Ran - moving forward, my two cents from the perspective simply as a reader (and sometime professional writer) and not as any kind of knowledgable poster about gca in general (and certainly not about this topic):

Too many words on this, and too many words way too early.

Too many essays, posted on line before they were anywhere close to ready (IMHO, as a reader and sometime writer) .

Too much of a rush, on every front, and by all the principles involved. I won't mention any potential rush to judgement, but because you raised it Ran I'd ask you and Phil what I've often wondered myself:

What was the urgency on this? Why rush the first essay, and even more so why rush the second? Why the premature 'stunning news' and premature 'falling on the sword' and the premature 'in your face'?

(An aside, and to be honest: I'm surprised that anyone needed confirmation that the "brief" in Phil's essay was actually simply boiler-plate content that was cut and pasted from somewhere else. I stopped reading it after two paragraphs, as this was clear to me immediately --  my only question being to Phil-the-writer as to why he would choose to bore and bamboozle us with it, and why he would rush to publish it).

The crazy thing is: I happen to believe that there are some genuinely authentic elements here (my guess: the diary is indeed an old dead man's diary from the period, and the drawings/sketches may well have been produced contemporaneously).  But whatever is indeed authentic is so mixed up with confusions and exaggerations and sloppiness and flat out mistakes and even outright deceptions that it means at this point nothing at all.  

In short - moving forward Ran I think your primary goal, if you want to publish at all, is to get it right, and to get it right the first time. Take the time to get it right. Share it with a few close and trusted friends and/or experts, hopefully including folks that know a bit about writing and that are not too invested in the content.

We are not saving lives or curing cancer or supporting positive social change or even making a freaking dime -- so it seems to me that (and my words/reminder to you are): anything and everything you can ever imagine posted on-line here at gca.com can wait.
 

Bingo!

[Jeff Taylor]

"Ian admitted to me that he had indeed faked the initial report"

These things did happen but to someone else?
The Taylor signature on the drawings are real but the story behind them is not?

[Mark Pearce]

Ran,

I'm sorry that you and your site got dragged into this.  As others have said, please don't let this discourage you from continuing to provide this excellent facility, or from continuing to ask experts and others of interest to provide their views.  I, for one, would be very sorry to see the In My Opinion page disappear because of this incident.

[David_Elvins]

Phillip Young,

Given the controversy the topic had already created, why did you make no effort to establish the authenticity of the initial report.  For anyone holding a copy of the report a few minutes on Google and a couple of phone calls would have established the authenticity of the report.

[Terry Lavin]

John,
You'll get no edits from me!

Classic, old-school gca.  Love it.

[Mark Pearce]

It has been asked on here “Why has Phil been carrying the water for Ian on this?” It is a complicated story whose simple answer is that I believed that they were authentic. I’ve actually held the Tillinghast drawings and, as has been earlier alluded to, the MacKenzie sketches of Riviera and Augusta, in my hands. I was there in person when the paper on which the MacKennzie drawings were drawn were analyzed by an expert paper conservator who works for several world-class museums. The reports on these and also those done by others who had copies of all of the drawings sent to them for comment were also sent directly to me and arranged for their giving their opinions by me. In every case the results all pointed to everything being genuine.

Phil,

This doesn't reflect well, I'm afraid.  It appears that, because of your conviction that the documents were genuine, you refused to consider the very many good points raised by many which pointed to the contrary.  Rather than engage in a meaningful dialogue aimed at getting to the truth, you took your ball home on occasions and simply refused to engage properly with the naysayers.  

[Adam Lawrence]

Let us be honest about all this. The research that David Moriarty led and various other people, including Martin Bonnar, Niall Carlton, Tommy Naccarato and I helped with, proved these drawings were fake some time ago. We KNOW - because of Martin's find of the later surveyor's drawing of the Redan and the fact that the supposed 'Tillinghast' drawing of the hole, claimed to be a rough freehand sketch matched its proportions exactly - how Ian faked that drawing - he traced the sketch. We KNOW that the diary entries we have been shown cannot be genuine, because of the number of words and expressions used therein that DID NOT EXIST at the time they were claimed to have been written. We know the 'Scores Hotel' dinner CANNOT have happened, as the Scores Hotel DID NOT EXIST at the time.

It is very possible that some of the David Scott-Taylor documents are genuine. I strongly suspect that he did keep a diary, and it does exist, either in a solicitor's office in Wales or somewhere else. But it was NEVER shown that the pages of the diary that were claimed to authenticate the drawings actually came from those books.

Then the 'authentication report', claimed in Phil's third essay to have been drawn up by eminent researchers, but revealed some days ago to be in large measure plagiarised from STEP. Even apart from the flaws in it that were highlighted, NOTHING it contained was hard evidence for the legitimacy of the drawings. The paper was old? Old paper can be bought. So can old ink.

There are many distressing lessons to be learned. One man, intent on a criminal fraud - the sale of drawings that he himself had created, passing them off as by AW Tillinghast and Alistair MacKenzie - managed to draw in a number of fairly eminent people within our small world of golf course history. This does none of them any favours. Phil: we pointed out to you the many impossibilities in the story, yet you continued to defend it by simply making further assertions. History - indeed any academic discipline - works through peer review. That process has been proved a success here, but your assertions, obfuscations and periodic withdrawals have made it much harder. It has done your reputation untold damage; no professional historian would have behaved as you have. I am sorry to say that, but it is true. Others have also had their reputation tarnished.

[Terry Lavin]

I can't exactly say why, but the mention of David Moriarty and his potential reaction makes me think of the scene from The Godfather where Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) tells Solozzo that he won't be able to call off Luca Brasi. 

[John Kavanaugh]

If the opinion pieces are deleted and these threads stand then it will be impossible for Phil or Ran to defend themselves from these most recent accusations of being knowing participants in the ruse.  At this point I don't see the value in deleting anything unless you delete everything.

[Mark Pearce]

If the opinion pieces are deleted and these threads stand then it will be impossible for Phil or Ran to defend themselves from these most recent accusations of being knowing participants in the ruse.  At this point I don't see the value in deleting anything unless you delete everything.

You can't help yourself, can you?  Where has anyone suggested anything about Ran being a knowing participant? 

[Adam Lawrence]

If the opinion pieces are deleted and these threads stand then it will be impossible for Phil or Ran to defend themselves from these most recent accusations of being knowing participants in the ruse.  At this point I don't see the value in deleting anything unless you delete everything.

I personally make no such accusation. All I would say in respect of Phil is this: he was either complicit or he was a fool. He can tell us which.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()